Tuesday, March 26, 2013
GENERAL STAVRIDIS WANTS MORE NATO DIALOGUE WITH RUSSIA
Stavridis Presses for More NATO-Russia Dialogue
By Donna Miles
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, March 25, 2013 - Noting increased cooperation between NATO and Russia in several key areas, the top NATO and U.S. European Command commander emphasized today the importance of working through stumbling blocks in what he called a "complicated partnership."
In a blog post, Navy Adm. James G. Stavridis cited concerted efforts by both parties since NATO's 2010 summit in Lisbon, Portugal, where the alliance's 28 heads of state and government agreed on the need to pursue "a true strategic partnership" between NATO and Russia and noted in the strategic concept that they expect reciprocity from Russia.
Stavridis recognized several areas where increased cooperation has shown signs of paying off: counterpiracy; support for the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, military exchanges and training exercises, counterterrorism and counternarcotics, among them.
"Overall, we enjoy cooperation and some level of partnership in a variety of important areas," he said. "On the other hand, there are clearly challenges in the relationship."
Stavridis noted Russia's objections to the European phased adaptive approach for missile defense. "Russia sees the NATO missile defense system as posing a threat to their strategic intercontinental ballistic missile force," he said. "We strongly disagree, and feel that the system is clearly designed to protect populations against Iran, Syria and other ballistic-missile-capable nations that threaten the European continent."
NATO and Russia also disagree over Russian forces stationed in Georgia and NATO's role in Libya, Stavridis said.
"We maintain that we operated under the U.N. Security Council mandate to establish a no-fly zone, provide an arms embargo and protect the people of Libya from attacks," he said, calling NATO's actions "well within the bounds of the [U.N.] mandate and the norms of international law.
"Russia sees this differently," Stavridis continued, "and whenever I discuss this with Russian interlocutors, we find little room for agreement. This tends to create a differing set of views about the dangerous situation in Syria as well."
Stavridis noted Russian Ambassador to NATO Alexander Grushko's stated concerns that these differences -- and the installation of NATO military infrastructure closer to Russia's borders -- threaten to unravel progress made in their relations.
"Notwithstanding differences on particular issues, we remain convinced that the security of NATO and Russia is intertwined," Stavridis said, quoting the NATO strategic concept agreed to in Lisbon. "A strong and constructive partnership based on mutual confidence, transparency and predictability can best serve our security," it states.
Stavridis recognized areas in which the growing NATO-Russian relationship is bearing fruit:
-- Counterpiracy: Loosely coordinated efforts by NATO and Russian ships have reduced piracy by 70 percent over the past year and caused the number of ships and mariners held hostage to plummet in what the admiral called "a very effective operation."
-- Afghanistan support: Russia contributed small arms and ammunition to the Afghan security forces and sold MI-17 helicopters and maintenance training to the Afghan air force. In addition, Russia provides logistical support, including a transit arrangement that helps to sustain NATO-led ISAF forces and redeployment efforts.
-- Military exchanges and exercises: Russian service members are participating in more of these engagements with the United States and NATO. These exchanges, including port calls in Russia, have been well-received by both militaries, Stavridis noted.
-- Arctic cooperation: Russia is collaborating with other members of the Arctic Council, including the United States, Norway, Denmark, Canada and Iceland, to ensure the Arctic remains a zone of cooperation.
-- Counterterrorism: In the lead-up to the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia, NATO is offering assistance and information-sharing via a variety of channels, Stavridis reported.
-- Counternarcotics: NATO and Russia are working together to stem the flow of heroin from Afghanistan, a high priority for Russia.
Expressing hopes that NATO and Russia can continue to build on this cooperation, Stavridis said areas of tensions and disagreements need to be addressed.
"No one wants to stumble backwards toward the Cold War, so the best course for the future is open discussion, frank airing of disagreements, and hopefully seeking to build the 'true strategic partnership' set out in the NATO strategic concept," he said. "Clearly, we have some work to do."
By Donna Miles
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, March 25, 2013 - Noting increased cooperation between NATO and Russia in several key areas, the top NATO and U.S. European Command commander emphasized today the importance of working through stumbling blocks in what he called a "complicated partnership."
In a blog post, Navy Adm. James G. Stavridis cited concerted efforts by both parties since NATO's 2010 summit in Lisbon, Portugal, where the alliance's 28 heads of state and government agreed on the need to pursue "a true strategic partnership" between NATO and Russia and noted in the strategic concept that they expect reciprocity from Russia.
Stavridis recognized several areas where increased cooperation has shown signs of paying off: counterpiracy; support for the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, military exchanges and training exercises, counterterrorism and counternarcotics, among them.
"Overall, we enjoy cooperation and some level of partnership in a variety of important areas," he said. "On the other hand, there are clearly challenges in the relationship."
Stavridis noted Russia's objections to the European phased adaptive approach for missile defense. "Russia sees the NATO missile defense system as posing a threat to their strategic intercontinental ballistic missile force," he said. "We strongly disagree, and feel that the system is clearly designed to protect populations against Iran, Syria and other ballistic-missile-capable nations that threaten the European continent."
NATO and Russia also disagree over Russian forces stationed in Georgia and NATO's role in Libya, Stavridis said.
"We maintain that we operated under the U.N. Security Council mandate to establish a no-fly zone, provide an arms embargo and protect the people of Libya from attacks," he said, calling NATO's actions "well within the bounds of the [U.N.] mandate and the norms of international law.
"Russia sees this differently," Stavridis continued, "and whenever I discuss this with Russian interlocutors, we find little room for agreement. This tends to create a differing set of views about the dangerous situation in Syria as well."
Stavridis noted Russian Ambassador to NATO Alexander Grushko's stated concerns that these differences -- and the installation of NATO military infrastructure closer to Russia's borders -- threaten to unravel progress made in their relations.
"Notwithstanding differences on particular issues, we remain convinced that the security of NATO and Russia is intertwined," Stavridis said, quoting the NATO strategic concept agreed to in Lisbon. "A strong and constructive partnership based on mutual confidence, transparency and predictability can best serve our security," it states.
Stavridis recognized areas in which the growing NATO-Russian relationship is bearing fruit:
-- Counterpiracy: Loosely coordinated efforts by NATO and Russian ships have reduced piracy by 70 percent over the past year and caused the number of ships and mariners held hostage to plummet in what the admiral called "a very effective operation."
-- Afghanistan support: Russia contributed small arms and ammunition to the Afghan security forces and sold MI-17 helicopters and maintenance training to the Afghan air force. In addition, Russia provides logistical support, including a transit arrangement that helps to sustain NATO-led ISAF forces and redeployment efforts.
-- Military exchanges and exercises: Russian service members are participating in more of these engagements with the United States and NATO. These exchanges, including port calls in Russia, have been well-received by both militaries, Stavridis noted.
-- Arctic cooperation: Russia is collaborating with other members of the Arctic Council, including the United States, Norway, Denmark, Canada and Iceland, to ensure the Arctic remains a zone of cooperation.
-- Counterterrorism: In the lead-up to the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia, NATO is offering assistance and information-sharing via a variety of channels, Stavridis reported.
-- Counternarcotics: NATO and Russia are working together to stem the flow of heroin from Afghanistan, a high priority for Russia.
Expressing hopes that NATO and Russia can continue to build on this cooperation, Stavridis said areas of tensions and disagreements need to be addressed.
"No one wants to stumble backwards toward the Cold War, so the best course for the future is open discussion, frank airing of disagreements, and hopefully seeking to build the 'true strategic partnership' set out in the NATO strategic concept," he said. "Clearly, we have some work to do."
U.S.-KOREA HOLD LABOR AFFAIRS COUNCIL MEETING
WASHINGTON — Senior officials from the U.S. Department of Labor and the U.S. Trade Representative today issued a joint statement with their counterparts from the Republic of Korea following the first meeting of the Labor Affairs Council under the 2012 U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement.
The council is responsible for overseeing the implementation of the labor chapter of the free trade agreement and activities related to labor obligations. At the meeting, officials reaffirmed their commitments under the Labor Chapter of the free trade agreement and focused on areas for future cooperation, including the collection and analysis of employment and labor statistics, and collaboration on advancing corporate compliance with international labor standards in global supply chains.
"We are very pleased with the progress that's been made over the past two days," said acting Deputy Undersecretary of Labor for International Affairs Carol Pier. "We look forward to continuing the productive discussions we started here and to pursuing our shared goals of closer cooperation on important labor issues of common interest."
 |
| Credit: U.S. DOL |
FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Department of Labor hosts 1st Labor Affairs Council meeting under US-Korea Free Trade Agreement
WASHINGTON — Senior officials from the U.S. Department of Labor and the U.S. Trade Representative today issued a joint statement with their counterparts from the Republic of Korea following the first meeting of the Labor Affairs Council under the 2012 U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement.
The council is responsible for overseeing the implementation of the labor chapter of the free trade agreement and activities related to labor obligations. At the meeting, officials reaffirmed their commitments under the Labor Chapter of the free trade agreement and focused on areas for future cooperation, including the collection and analysis of employment and labor statistics, and collaboration on advancing corporate compliance with international labor standards in global supply chains.
"We are very pleased with the progress that's been made over the past two days," said acting Deputy Undersecretary of Labor for International Affairs Carol Pier. "We look forward to continuing the productive discussions we started here and to pursuing our shared goals of closer cooperation on important labor issues of common interest."
U.S..-SOUTH KOREA SIGN PLAN TO COUNTER THREATS FROM NORTH KOREA
FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Officials Sign Plan to Counter North Korean Threats
From a Combined Forces Command News Release
YONGSAN GARRISON, South Korea, March 24, 2013 - The chairman of the South Korean military's Joint Chiefs of Staff and the U.S. Army general who leads the Republic of Korea-United States Combined Forces Command have signed a combined plan to counter future threats from North Korea.
Gen. Jung Seung-jo and Gen. James D. Thurman, who also commands U.S. Forces Korea, signed the Combined Counter-Provocation Plan on March 22.
The South Korean-led, U.S.-supported contingency plan was developed by mutual agreement between the Joint Chiefs chairmen of both countries after a November 2010 North Korean artillery attack on Yeonpyeong Island.
Officials said the plan includes procedures for consultation and action. It also improves the readiness posture to allow for a strong and decisive combined South Korean and U.S. response to North Korean provocations and threats, they added.
Officials Sign Plan to Counter North Korean Threats
From a Combined Forces Command News Release
YONGSAN GARRISON, South Korea, March 24, 2013 - The chairman of the South Korean military's Joint Chiefs of Staff and the U.S. Army general who leads the Republic of Korea-United States Combined Forces Command have signed a combined plan to counter future threats from North Korea.
Gen. Jung Seung-jo and Gen. James D. Thurman, who also commands U.S. Forces Korea, signed the Combined Counter-Provocation Plan on March 22.
The South Korean-led, U.S.-supported contingency plan was developed by mutual agreement between the Joint Chiefs chairmen of both countries after a November 2010 North Korean artillery attack on Yeonpyeong Island.
Officials said the plan includes procedures for consultation and action. It also improves the readiness posture to allow for a strong and decisive combined South Korean and U.S. response to North Korean provocations and threats, they added.
NSF REPORTS TRIASSIC VOLCANIC ERUPTIONS CAUSED MASS EXTINCTION
 |
| Photo: Volcanic Killer. Credit: NSF |
Before Dinosaurs' Era, Volcanic Eruptions Triggered Mass Extinction
More than 200 million years ago, a massive extinction decimated 76 percent of marine and terrestrial species, marking the end of the Triassic period and the onset of the Jurassic.
The event cleared the way for dinosaurs to dominate Earth for the next 135 million years, taking over ecological niches formerly occupied by other marine and terrestrial species.
It's not clear what caused the end-Triassic extinction, although most scientists agree on a likely scenario.
Over a relatively short time period, massive volcanic eruptions from a large region known as the Central Atlantic Magmatic Province (CAMP) spewed forth huge amounts of lava and gas, including carbon dioxide, sulfur and methane.
This sudden release of gases into the atmosphere may have created intense global warming, and acidification of the oceans, which ultimately killed off thousands of plant and animal species.
Now, researchers at MIT, Columbia University and other institutions have determined that these eruptions occurred precisely when the extinction began, providing strong evidence that volcanic activity did indeed trigger the end-Triassic extinction.
Results of the research, funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF), are published this week in the journal Science.
"These scientists have come close to confirming something we had only guessed at: that the mass extinction of this ancient time was indeed related to a series of volcanic eruptions," says Lisa Boush, program director in NSF's Division of Earth Sciences.
"The effort is also the result of the EARTHTIME initiative, an NSF-sponsored project that's developing an improved geologic time scale for scientists to interpret Earth's history."
The scientists determined the age of basaltic lavas and other features found along the East Coast of the United States, as well as in Morocco--now-disparate regions that, 200 million years ago, were part of the supercontinent Pangaea.
The rift that ultimately separated these landmasses was also the site of CAMP's volcanic activity.
Today, the geology of both regions includes igneous rocks from the CAMP eruptions as well as sedimentary rocks that accumulated in an enormous lake. The researchers used a combination of techniques to date the rocks and to pinpoint CAMP's beginning and duration.
From its measurements, they reconstructed the region's volcanic activity 201 million years ago, discovering that the eruption of magma--along with carbon dioxide, sulfur and methane--occurred in repeated bursts over a period of 40,000 years, a short span in geologic time.
"This extinction happened at a geological instant in time," says Sam Bowring, a geologist at MIT. "There's no question the extinction occurred at the same time as the first eruption."
In addition to Bowring, the paper's co-authors are Terrence Blackburn and Noah McLean of MIT; Paul Olsen and Dennis Kent of Columbia; John Puffer of Rutgers University; Greg McHone, an independent researcher from New Brunswick, N.J.; E. Troy Rasbury of Stony Brook University; and Mohammed Et-Touhami of the Université Mohammed Premier (Mohammed Premier University) Oujda, Morocco.
Blackburn is the paper's lead author.
More than a coincidence
The end-Triassic extinction is one of five major mass extinctions in the last 540 million years of Earth's history.
For several of these events, scientists have noted that large igneous provinces, which provide evidence of widespread volcanic activity, arose at about the same time.
But, as Bowring points out, "just because they happen to approximately coincide doesn't mean there's cause and effect."
For example, while massive lava flows overlapped with the extinction that wiped out the dinosaurs, scientists have linked that extinction to an asteroid collision.
"If you want to make the case that an eruption caused an extinction, you have to be able to show at the highest possible precision that the eruption and the extinction occurred at exactly the same time," Bowring says.
For the time of the end-Triassic, Bowring says that researchers have dated volcanic activity to right around the time fossils disappear from the geologic record, providing evidence that CAMP may have triggered the extinction.
But these estimates have a margin of error of one to two million years. "A million years is forever when you're trying to make that link," Bowring says.
For example, it's thought that CAMP emitted a total of more than two million cubic kilometers of lava.
If that amount of lava were spewed over a period of one to two million years, it wouldn't have the same effect as if it were emitted over tens of thousands of years.
"The timescale over which the eruption occurred has a big effect," Bowring says.
Tilting toward extinction
To determine how long the volcanic eruptions lasted, the group combined two dating techniques: astrochronology and geochronology.
The former is a technique that links sedimentary layers in rocks to changes in the tilt of the Earth.
For decades, scientists have observed that the Earth's orientation changes in regular cycles as a result of gravitational forces exerted by neighboring planets.
The Earth's axis tilts at regular cycles, returning to its original tilt every 26,000 years. Such orbital variations change the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth's surface, which in turn has an effect on the planet's climate, known as Milankovich cycles.
This cyclical change in climate can be seen in the types of sediments deposited in the Earth's crust.
Scientists can determine a rock's age by first identifying cyclical variations in deposition of sediments in quiet bodies of water, such as deep oceans or large lakes.
A cycle of sediment corresponds with a cycle of the Earth's tilt, established as a known period of years.
By seeing where a rock lies in those sedimentary layers, scientists can get a good idea of how old it is. To obtain precise estimates, researchers have developed mathematical models to determine the Earth's tilt over millions of years.
Bowring says the technique is good for directly dating rocks up to 35 million years old, but beyond that, it's unclear how reliable the technique is.
He and colleagues used astrochronology to estimate the age of the sedimentary rocks, then tested those estimates against high-precision dates from 200-million-year-old rocks in North America and Morocco.
The geologists broke apart rock samples to isolate tiny crystals known as zircons, which they analyzed to determine the ratio of uranium to lead.
The technique enabled the team to date the rocks to within approximately 30,000 years--a precise measurement in geologic terms.
Taken together, the geochronology and astrochronology techniques gave the geologists precise estimates for the onset of volcanism 200 million years ago.
The techniques revealed three bursts of magmatic activity over 40,000 years--a short period of time during which massive amounts of carbon dioxide and other gas emissions may have drastically altered Earth's climate.
While the evidence is the strongest thus far for linking volcanic activity with the end-Triassic extinction, Bowring says that more work can be done.
"The CAMP province extends from Nova Scotia all the way to Brazil and West Africa," he says. "I'm dying to know whether those are exactly the same age."
-NSF-
Monday, March 25, 2013
NEWS FROM AFGHANISTAN FOR MARCH 25, 2013
FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Officials Confirm Deaths of Taliban Leaders in Helmand
From an International Security Assistance Force Joint Command News Release
KABUL, Afghanistan, March 25, 2013 - Afghan and coalition military officials today confirmed that two key Taliban leaders in Afghanistan's Helmand province were killed in recent operations.
Taliban leader Tamim was killed in a March 18 operation in the province's Nahr-e Saraj district, and Gul Ahmad Akhund was killed a day earlier in the Nad-e Ali district.
Tamim was responsible for planning and directing attacks against Afghan and coalition forces, facilitating weapons to fighters throughout Helmand, and serving as a vital link in the local Taliban's intelligence apparatus, officials said. He also served as a member in illegitimate Taliban judicial proceedings and actively recruited civilians to join insurgent cells.
Akhund had operational control over a cell of insurgent fighters directly responsible for numerous attacks targeting Afghan and coalition forces, officials said. He was instrumental in acquiring and distributing weapons and ammunition to his fighters.
STATE DEPARTMENT ON GEORGIAN CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
Approval of Georgian Constitutional Amendment
Press Statement
Patrick Ventrell
Acting Deputy Spokesperson, Office of the Spokesperson
Washington, DC
March 25, 2013
Today the Georgian parliament voted unanimously to approve an amendment that, consistent with international constitutional norms, removes the president’s unilateral power to appoint a new government without parliamentary approval. The United States congratulates the leadership of Georgia and the parliamentary majority and minority on this important, bipartisan measure. It paves the way for the consolidation of Georgian democracy and renewed focus on the many issues facing the government today. We are encouraged by the political consensus underlying this agreement and urge all political actors to maintain a constructive, forward-looking tone in public discourse, in the interest of ensuring further progress for the good of Georgia and its citizens.
Approval of Georgian Constitutional Amendment
Press Statement
Patrick Ventrell
Acting Deputy Spokesperson, Office of the Spokesperson
Washington, DC
March 25, 2013
Today the Georgian parliament voted unanimously to approve an amendment that, consistent with international constitutional norms, removes the president’s unilateral power to appoint a new government without parliamentary approval. The United States congratulates the leadership of Georgia and the parliamentary majority and minority on this important, bipartisan measure. It paves the way for the consolidation of Georgian democracy and renewed focus on the many issues facing the government today. We are encouraged by the political consensus underlying this agreement and urge all political actors to maintain a constructive, forward-looking tone in public discourse, in the interest of ensuring further progress for the good of Georgia and its citizens.
SPECIAL BRIEFING: U.S. OFFICIALS EN ROUTE TO KABUL
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Background Briefing: Senior Adminitration Officials
Special Briefing
Senior Administration Officials
En Route To Kabul
March 25, 2013
MODERATOR: So just a reminder, this is a background briefing embargoed until we land, which is easy to implement, with [Senior Administration Official One] who will have some opening remarks, and [Senior Administration Official Two]. So I’ll turn it over to [Senior Administration Official One]. Just as a reminder, we’ll just go around. Everyone gets a question after [Senior Administration Official One]’s done.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Thanks, [Moderator]. Let me just try to, in a few minutes, kind of give a broad overview of the trip, and then we’ll get into more detailed Q&As. But obviously, as you all know, Secretary Kerry came to this position with deep experience on Afghanistan and with very established relationships with many of the key leaders, including President Karzai. He was here five times during the course of the first term of this Administration alone, and obviously has worked very closely with the Afghan people and has deep respect for the hopes and aspirations of the Afghan people and understanding of how these hopes and aspirations are connected to our core goals, which at the end of the day is a strong and stable Afghanistan that’s in the national security interests of both the Afghan and the U.S. people.
So --
QUESTION: If you could (inaudible). (Laughter.)
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Sorry. I’ll try to – all right.
QUESTION: Did he see Karzai five times?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Yes, I’m sure that he is. We’ll confirm, but I’m almost confident that every time he’s come Karzai has been there. I, in fact – in the first term – I traveled with him in two of those times in my current position, and certainly both those times Karzai was there. I’m almost certain that’s the case.
But this is a trip – this is an opportunity for him to meet in person with President Karzai and other officials now in his new position as Secretary, and really to hear directly from Afghans who, while looking forward to a future of a sovereign Afghanistan, are obviously also very concerned about what the transition at the end of 2014 actually entails and what it means in terms of their – the real world implications in their lives. So he particularly wants to discuss progress both with President Karzai and in his other meetings with the whole range of Afghan stakeholders on the ongoing security, political, and economic transitions, and really with a special emphasis on the elections scheduled for next year.
He will make clear that the U.S. will have an enduring commitment in Afghanistan that will last beyond transition, and that there will always be bumps in the road, that it’s a relationship that can withstand those. Look, I want to be as clear-eyed and pragmatic as possible. The process of winding down our current position and role in Afghanistan and stepping into more of a support role as Afghans increasingly take over their own security and development is not going to be a smooth process at all times. Issues of security and sovereignty are always going to be difficult, but the most important thing is that we are honest with each other when there are differences between us, and you’ve seen some of these differences play out recently. So we’ll see more of these, undoubtedly, as a very kind of necessary but complicated processes continue to unfold.
We want to look at, in the broader picture, the more strategic picture. And we believe that we continue to be committed to the same strategy and the same goals of a fully sovereign Afghanistan without al-Qaida and responsible for its own security. We value our partnership with the Afghan people, per our implementation of the Security Partnership Agreement that we signed last year, our continued discussions on a bilateral security agreement, and working to strengthen governance and increase economic opportunity.
Let me run through just highlights of the kind of the key issues on transition. On security transition, he’s obviously interested in hearing how this final phase is going as Afghans take the lead for security across their entire country. As you know, by the end of next year, the security transition is complete, Afghans take full responsibility, and it’s something that should make Afghans very proud.
On the political transition, Secretary Kerry’s very focused on how the U.S. can best support Afghan elections next year. As many of you know, he was very personally engaged in the elections in 2009, and he wants to ensure that the U.S. can help to support and strengthen Afghanistan, keeping faith with the Afghan people.
And on – also with regard to elections, what was signed last year in Tokyo lays out kind of very specific aspects on how we can we best help ensure the conduct of credible, inclusive, transparent elections, and working with really all Afghan stakeholder – not only the government, but independent Afghan electoral institutions, Afghan political parties, civil society – all stakeholders to do what’s necessary for preparation. He will focus on this quite a bit, but we want to make sure that these preparations are in line with the constitution and ultimately result in a process that’s inclusive and consultative and transparent and secure and ultimately something that is hopefully unifying for the country.
On the economic transition, we recognize that the long-term interests of the country depend on the ability to continue to attract investment and have a more viable economic stability. Also in Tokyo, you saw that the international community pledged $16 billion to fill what the World Bank hole was of about – close to $4 billion a year through 2015. Some countries committed to pledging far more after that. The U.S. committed to seeking assistance, civilian assistance, from Congress for at least a few years after that. But the important thing is that we will have to be on a glide path away from assistance over the longer term.
So while our commitments to continued assistance are real and will extend beyond 2014, what we really have to do is try to find ways to make the economic situation in Afghanistan more sustainable. So we’re looking at ways to address fraud and corruption and for the Afghans to really take on the reform commitments that they themselves laid out in the Tokyo Mutual Accountability Framework.
Let must just say a quick work on reconciliation. We continue to be committed to a peace process between the Afghan Government and the Taliban, and as our presidents confirmed when President Karzai visited in January, Afghan-led peace and reconciliation is the surest way to end violence and ensure lasting stability in Afghanistan and in the region. So we’re looking for any ways we can to support and accelerate the efforts that lead to a strong and a unified Afghanistan. So as we said in January, we support an office in Doha for the purpose of negotiations between the Afghans and the Taliban, and we continue to join with President Karzai in calling on the Taliban to join a political process, including by taking those steps necessary to open that office in Doha.
The very last point I want to make before Q&A is that originally Secretary Kerry was hopeful that he would be able to go to Pakistan on this trip as well, but as the government there really enters a very historic period in this electoral process, we wanted to fully respect those institutions and the ongoing process, and so not travel there this time but go there at an appropriate time in the future.
I think what’s currently occurring in Pakistan is quite remarkable. We welcome the announcement of the caretaker Prime Minister yesterday, and as we will hopefully see with elections scheduled in May, the first-ever civilian-to-civilian government, peaceful transition of power in the country. But during this election period, we also wanted to make sure that we continued our ongoing dialogue with Pakistan on the whole series of shared interests that we have, including combating terrorism and ensuring a peaceful resolution in Afghanistan.
So last night, Secretary Kerry had a unique opportunity to meet General Kayani. They happened to overlap in Amman for an evening. General Kayani was there on an official visit to Jordan to meet with his counterpart today. That was announced by the Pakistanis several days ago. And so given the overlap, they met last night to discuss these range of bilateral security issues, including on counterterrorism, on combating safe havens, and on issues that are important to the future of Afghanistan, to Pakistan, and to us.
This was ahead of, obviously, Secretary Kerry’s meetings with President Karzai today, and so he plans to fully readout his conversation with General Kayani last night, and help to continue to inform the ongoing process of transparency and communication between all three of us. And in that same interest, our acting Special Representative David Pearce is in Kabul, he’ll meet us when we land, and he will go to Pakistan quite soon to continue to engage with the civilian government that’s currently there, at this point the technocratic government, if in fact we don’t yet have caretaker appointments in some of these processes, and continue this process of regional confidence building.
MODERATOR: Great. Why don’t we start here?
Andrea.
QUESTION: How – thank you very much – you think I would know how to use a microphone.
MODERATOR: It’s like a press (inaudible). Go ahead.
QUESTION: How does Secretary Kerry plan to address the most recent comments by President Karzai when Secretary Hagel was there, and in what context can he handle that? Does he have to ignore it, smooth it over, challenge it? I mean, what is the approach to Karzai, given what has happened most recently with the new Secretary of Defense?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Certainly the focus on the bilateral relationship will be one of the critical pieces that they talk about. I think in its – he’s very well served by having the lengthy personal relationship with him. I think that they start from a position of some trust of each other, and at the end of the day, that our interests are still very much aligned and that we are all working towards a sovereign and unified Afghanistan, and that we will continue to work together, which is exactly what I was trying to say kind of at the outset of this. This doesn’t mean that there won’t be problems; there undoubtedly will be. But I think that we will continue to be able to achieve some constructive resolution of them in much the same way that we’ve managed to do just over the course of the last week or two.
I don’t have any final confirmation of it, but I think while we’ve been in the air, hopefully there’s been a transfer ceremony to take care of the detentions issue at Parwan, which was obviously one of the issues that was a sticking point. Our teams continue to meet about it. We hammered out a resolution to everyone’s satisfaction and in everyone’s mutual interest. And it supports the long-term sovereignty of Afghanistan.
So I think going into it with – on the basis of their history, given the joint interests, and seeing what we can achieve constructively in the time ahead will be very much the kind of touchstone of their conversations.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: Andrea, the only thing I’d add is that since many of those comments were first made, both Secretary Kerry has spoken to President Karzai, but more recently and more frequently, Secretary Hagel talked to President Karzai twice. And as [Senior Administration Official One] mentioned, I mean, we’ve moved forward and past several of the issues that were part of that conflation of friction points. The most prominent one that antagonized that period, which was – I don’t want to downplay it – it was – I mean, it was, of course, of concern to us – was the detentions issues. And Ambassador Cunningham and General Dunford have been negotiating almost daily with President Karzai and his advisors to bring this to resolution, and we believe we have a favorable resolution now. So I think we can start to look past this, or at least we’re hopeful that we can.
QUESTION: Just following up on Andrea’s question, I understand that there have now been some private conversations between Karzai and Hagel and Kerry. But publicly are you going to ask Karzai to disavow the claim that the U.S. is somehow collaborating with the Taliban, which seems so far out given the U.S. military and economic commitment to Afghanistan? And further – so does he need to state, "No. I didn’t actually mean that"? And secondly, given what he’s recently said about his plans to go to Qatar in the coming days, tell us a little bit more about reconciliation and what you’re going to advocate for, since he was claiming that the U.S. was secretly negotiating with the Taliban behind his back. So what kind of a private and public conversation can you have about that?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Look, I think the response of Americans across the board, whether those in our Congress, whether officials, whether our publics, has made very clear what they thought was some of President Karzai’s comments. And we will see what he has to say in his public comments today at his – at the press availability and others. I think that we are beyond this incident, and we need to continue to focus on what – how we can most effectively work together and be constructive in how we resolve these.
We’re not there to lecture him or chide him. We’re partners in this, and we were quite clear in terms of what the U.S. has and has not done, and obviously we deny that there has been any daily contact with Taliban, which there has not been. But we do support an ongoing reconciliation process, and as we agreed in January, we think that the – that an office in Doha is the best and most effective way to get there. And so President Karzai going to Qatar, which is primarily for a – for bilateral purposes between the Afghans and the Qataris, but it helps to promote that working relationship, and given that a Doha office will undoubtedly be part of the conversations when he’s there with the Qataris, it’s very much in keeping with the goals that we all committed to back in January when he was in Washington. So we see that as quite positive.
QUESTION: (Off mike.)
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: There has been no – as we said, the Taliban broke off contact over a year ago. At this point, there has not been any contact.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: I mean, we’ve addressed this with President Karzai. I mean, to the comment he made that we were meeting with the Taliban daily, we’ve gone privately to him to clarify that – what we’ve told him previously, we’ve been transparent with him throughout and that we haven’t met with them in over a year. And we’ve, of course, corrected the record on that publicly.
I mean, there’s a separate concern about the claim that there’s collusion aside from meeting daily with the Taliban, and I won’t go into all of the particulars of that. I mean, it’s – it was actually fairly – I mean, one has to get into what he actually said in Pashto, how it was translated in English, how it was reported, and so on. But I mean, we’ve gone through some level of detail in clarifying with him already. And like I said, I hope at this point we can begin to move forward and look past this.
QUESTION: This is a follow-up to Andrea’s question. How would you describe your relationship with President Karzai?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Again, on a variation of a theme, it’s not always going to be easy. There’s difficult issues at stake here. We’re going to have differences. But we are committed to working through them as partners and ensuring that we resolve these issues constructively, because that’s what’s in the best interests of both the American and the Afghan people, and we’ll continue to do so.
QUESTION: Just going back to President Karzai’s visit to Qatar, you said most of the issues are bilateral, but the question of opening up a Taliban office is sure to come up. Is there anything particularly significant to the fact that he is going there? Does this imply greater progress towards setting up the office or not? Do you think it is completely irrelevant in some ways? I mean, does this show significant movement or not?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: I wouldn’t want to overplay it, but I think that it’s a very positive sign. It’s another step on a continued path towards what we think is the most effective and efficient way of getting to some sort of reconciliation process. So to the degree that Doha itself and the Qataris will play a key role in there, the closer the relationship is between the Afghan Government and the Qataris Government the better. And the fact that he’s going there, I think, is quite positive in trying to continue to build some momentum from what we agreed to with – between our presidents in January. But nobody is expecting that he will open an office there in a week. Nobody’s expecting that he will be sitting down with Taliban in week. This is a long process, and this is one more small but positive step in that ongoing process.
QUESTION: What’s the status of the BSA at this point in time? And in what specific ways will Secretary Kerry try to move that process forward on this trip?
MODERATOR: (Inaudible) BSA.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Status of the bilateral security agreement. Negotiations are ongoing at quite intensive pace between our chief negotiators, Ambassador Warlick for us and Ambassador Hakimi. There’s going to be a lot of difficult issues there as well. We gave ourselves a year to try to negotiate it from the time it started, per the Strategic Partnership Agreement, and we will continue our efforts there.
QUESTION: What specifically is Kerry – Secretary Kerry going to do on this trip to (inaudible)?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: I think it’s – it will just be part of the broader strategic conversations with President Karzai on how we continue to align our interests between the two countries and what we can do to continue to support our processes.
QUESTION: Is there a particular (inaudible)?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: We’ll have to see.
QUESTION: What’s going to be the impact of the Wardak withdrawal, of the impact of the withdrawal of forces from Wardak?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: I actually think – [Senior Administration Official Two] may have something more on what it may mean militarily. From our vantage point, I think it’s another very positive sign in terms of how we’ve resolved ongoing issues. And so to the degree that this was another sticking concern and a potential thorn that we managed to resolve in the interest, again, of kind of Afghan sovereignty, but in a way that both sides felt very comfortable with the result, as General Dunford announced right afterwards, I think it’s a sign that we can continue to resolve and work through our differences constructively.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: I think [Senior Administration Official One]’s exactly right, that I think both sides feel like there was a favorable resolution. Unlike the detentions issue, the debate was kept private, the deliberations were kept private. General Dunford and the Afghan Government reached a resolution. I don’t want to speak for ISAF, but I believe that we’re relatively comfortable with it. And I think it’s important to look at it in the context of transition, which is essentially how it was resolved. I mean, it wasn’t a complete departure of U.S. security forces from Wardak province; it was a transition from U.S. security forces to Afghan security forces in a small section of Wardak in the end. And I think in the end, the potential consequences or implications of that were mitigated to a very manageable level.
QUESTION: Thanks. How many troops would Secretary Kerry like to see in Afghanistan post 2014, and will those be a serious part of the negotiations? And do you have assurances from Karzai that he won’t be releasing prisoners, now that he’s got control of Parwan?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Obviously, anything on troop numbers we can’t speak to. What’s still – decision making that’s still occurring within the interagency, or I wouldn’t speak for Secretary Kerry on that.
In terms of the detention, we have to ourselves actually get – see what happened in kind of the final resolution. But assuming the MOU was executed this morning between the Afghans and the U.S. and the transfer ceremony took place, we felt quite comfortable that the enduring threat, the kind of the detainees that were of most concern would be held according to Afghan law in a humane manner, respecting Afghan sovereignty but also addressing our national security interests.
QUESTION: Thanks. I feel like a tour guide on this. Can you hear me? Okay. Can you hear me? I’m used to working with mikes. Unfortunately, I can’t use this one.
Going back to the question – [Senior Administration Official One], I think you said with the Taliban there have not been any contact; you said there not had been direct contact. Can you just clarify whether direct contact with the Taliban, U.S. and Taliban, or through a third party, is necessary in this reconciliation process? And can you explain how this Doha center is supposed to work, or how it’s envisioned in terms of reconciliation? What is the process?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: I’ll defer on some of this to [Senior Administration Official Two], who follows this more closely than I do. But the idea of a Doha office is that there will be a specific place for Afghans to speak with other Afghans, Afghan Taliban, about the future of Afghanistan, ideally through President Karzai’s vision, with the High Peace Council sitting down to meet with the Afghan Taliban. And so the more that we can do to facilitate this forum and venue, the sooner that those key stakeholders can start conversations amongst themselves about what the future may look like and how they can get there.
In terms of contacts, I don’t know how else you want to –
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: Yeah, no, just that – I mean, we – we’re pretty clear about the direct contacts, obviously, and we can be. The Taliban have continued, since direct talks stopped, continued to talk to other governments. They talk to multilateral kind of NGO fora. Some of that has been covered in the media pretty widely. To say we have indirect access via people they have spoken to more or less goes without saying. But it’s not of interest or deliberate to avoid a direct contact. I mean, it’s just – I mean, indirect – we get indirect readouts of what they tell other people through all manner of sources, so – but the channel of significance, where there was direct, deliberate talks, we’ve been clear, and that has not continued at all.
QUESTION: (Off mike.)
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFFICIAL TWO: I mean, it’s hard to say what’s going to be necessary. And that’s – goes to your second question. I mean, that’s really what about – the Doha office is about. I think at some point effective talks, even though it’s going to take time and considerable effort over time, will involve direct talks between the interested parties. And of course, the United States will remain an interested party. But we continue to maintain that the most interested party is the Afghan Government, and they need to be in the lead, and at some point they need to be in direct talks.
QUESTION: Thanks. Sorry, following on from that: Firstly, to what end these talks would you – what are your redlines? Would you accept the Taliban being brought into the government in some kind of broader reconciliation? And secondly, in your negotiations over the BSA, after Panjwai, immunity seems highly unlikely for U.S. troops. Has that been offered as part of these talks?
MODERATOR: Both of you answer it too.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: What was the first question again?
QUESTION: The first question was: Would you accept Taliban --
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Oh, oh, oh. The redlines for the necessary outcomes from a reconciliation process have been consistently the same for many years now, and articulated by Secretary Clinton several years ago and which we maintain, which is that they break from al-Qaida, they lay down arms, and they respect and embrace the Afghan constitution, including its rights of women and minorities. So those have not changed as necessary outcomes for a process.
QUESTION: And to what extent (inaudible)?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: If there – this is – it’s for Afghans --
QUESTION: (Off mike.)
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: The redlines? Yeah. The redlines have to be said – [Moderator] asked me to repeat our – a break from al-Qaida, laying down arms, and embracing the Afghan constitution, including its rights of women and minorities. If there are ways for them to be engaged in the political process, which is clearly one area that the Afghans themselves have floated as a potential, that’s for them to sort out once conversations actually start taking place.
In terms of the immunity issue, it’s – whether bilateral security agreements, SOFAs, whatever they are, these are going to be extremely contentious documents to negotiate. Immunity is probably undoubtedly, across the world, going to be one of the hardest ones to negotiate within that, and it’s going to be one of many issues that we deal with. But there’s – but beyond taking a very general approach to that, there’s nothing more specific I have on that.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: It’s – I honestly couldn’t even tell you what the current state of the negotiations are or what issues they’re focusing on right now. I mean, it’s one of many issues that are on the table.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: We’ll have to see. This is still very early days of negotiation.
QUESTION: Can you provide us a bit more detail on how the decision was made for the Secretary not to go to Pakistan on this trip? Did the Pakistani leadership advise that in the current political climate, with attitudes about Americans being what they are, it might make sense for him to stay away? I mean, was there a specific recommendation that he stay in Afghanistan?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: It was purely our judgment call, in consultation with our experts at the State Department, both in Pakistan and the U.S. and elsewhere. He wanted to go. Obviously, he’s got an equally long relationship with Pakistan that he – as he does with Afghanistan, having visited many times, having been responsible for the Kerry-Lugar-Berman bill, having ties with – many personal ties with many of the civilian and military leadership.
But given the kind of historic nature of where Pakistan is right now, we wanted to be holier than the Pope on this one on staying away until – while the electoral process unfolded. Given the state of conspiracy theorists, given the state of anything else, we did not want to lead anyone to conclude anything about where our interests may lie. So we’re delighted that this – that the National Assembly served its full five-year term. We’re delighted that the caretaker Prime Minister was appointed per the constitution in a way that is enshrined and that I think strengthens the civilian institutions and the constitutional institutions. We look forward to the elections in May. And as soon as there’s a government in place, I think you can expect to see Secretary Kerry there.
Anne.
QUESTION: I just wanted to go back briefly to reconciliation. The discussion of the Doha office as a future concern sort of seems to skip over the fact that some business being transacted there somehow now – how – do you guys have a view on that? Is what the Taliban is doing in Doha now useful and productive toward opening an office full time? And are you in any way involved in it?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: What was – Anne, what was the last part? I want to --
QUESTION: Is the U.S. – is the United States involved at all in sort of these preliminary set-up negotiations?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: I mean, on the last part, I mean, of course we’ve been in normal bilateral discussions with a close ally, and it, of course, includes their readiness to host what could be this office and what we’re hopeful will be the office. I mean, we couldn’t have gotten to the point where we’re publicly – the President’s publicly expressing his support for a Taliban office in Doha without having worked with them on a bilateral basis.
As far as what’s going on with the Taliban in Doha before the opening of an office, to be frank, I think that there’s probably a mixture there in – to the extent it’s toward a political process. As long as it’s leading toward a political process, contributing toward an eventual political process, we’re supportive. Otherwise, we’re not, and we take the steps that we would take anywhere, diplomatically and otherwise, to address it depending on how much concern there is.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: But the – so fundraising would be an example. I mean, anything that the Taliban’s doing in furtherance of their cause, outside of steps towards a political process, in our view, is – remains off-limits. And that’s not a change. That’s not isolated to Doha. That would be the case anywhere. The only peculiar status that Doha enjoys is that I think there’s an expectation that some of that presence could contribute eventually to this political process. And as long as that’s the case, there will be continued support. If that’s not the case, then I think it’s pretty clear that we wouldn’t support it.
QUESTION: Just – I wasn’t clear exactly how the issue of the detainees was resolved, and if you could explain that again, and whether they did give you – I know you were asked, but I didn’t hear the answer, whether you were given commitments that these guys would not be released again.
And then given that they – that you’ve resolved this, what do you want to hear from Karzai on this trip? I mean, are you asking for anything specific? What makes this – what would make this a successful trip?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: On the detentions issue, I would point you back to the readout of Secretary Hagel’s call with President Karzai on Saturday, which referenced that they had reached an agreement to transfer, that there will be this transfer ceremony scheduled for this morning, following an intensified round of discussions. And the Secretary welcomed President Karzai’s commitment that the transfer will be carried out in a way that ensures the safety of the Afghan people and coalition forces by keeping dangerous individuals detained in a secure and humane manner in accordance with Afghan law.
QUESTION: So now that you – now that this has been resolved (inaudible) Karzai (inaudible), are you expecting anything different from them (inaudible)?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Again, I don’t want to set the bar too high or too low here. I mean, we – there are some key issues of – that prove to be thorns in the relationship over the course of the last few weeks. Some of them have obviously gone on, like the detainee issue, far longer than that. The fact that we resolved those, I think, is significant.
Does that completely change the calculus? No, not at all, but I think we’re both committed to elevating our conversation at this point, being more strategic about it, and really focusing on what we have to do together in terms of our joint partnership and really trying to ensure that that partnership is enduring.
I mean, I think the thing about transition – I sketched out the three different transitions, but it’s also really an opportunity for all of us, after the SPA, beyond 2014, to enter a new phase in our relationship and one between sovereign nations. And we will continue to focus on responsibility and accountability, and there’s a range of things that we have to continue to talk about as we flesh out the terms of what that partnership will look like. And this is an opportunity to do that.
So if we’re able to do that and continue to be constructive, then I think it would be a success.
MODERATOR: Thank you, everyone.
Background Briefing: Senior Adminitration Officials
Special Briefing
Senior Administration Officials
En Route To Kabul
March 25, 2013
MODERATOR: So just a reminder, this is a background briefing embargoed until we land, which is easy to implement, with [Senior Administration Official One] who will have some opening remarks, and [Senior Administration Official Two]. So I’ll turn it over to [Senior Administration Official One]. Just as a reminder, we’ll just go around. Everyone gets a question after [Senior Administration Official One]’s done.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Thanks, [Moderator]. Let me just try to, in a few minutes, kind of give a broad overview of the trip, and then we’ll get into more detailed Q&As. But obviously, as you all know, Secretary Kerry came to this position with deep experience on Afghanistan and with very established relationships with many of the key leaders, including President Karzai. He was here five times during the course of the first term of this Administration alone, and obviously has worked very closely with the Afghan people and has deep respect for the hopes and aspirations of the Afghan people and understanding of how these hopes and aspirations are connected to our core goals, which at the end of the day is a strong and stable Afghanistan that’s in the national security interests of both the Afghan and the U.S. people.
So --
QUESTION: If you could (inaudible). (Laughter.)
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Sorry. I’ll try to – all right.
QUESTION: Did he see Karzai five times?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Yes, I’m sure that he is. We’ll confirm, but I’m almost confident that every time he’s come Karzai has been there. I, in fact – in the first term – I traveled with him in two of those times in my current position, and certainly both those times Karzai was there. I’m almost certain that’s the case.
But this is a trip – this is an opportunity for him to meet in person with President Karzai and other officials now in his new position as Secretary, and really to hear directly from Afghans who, while looking forward to a future of a sovereign Afghanistan, are obviously also very concerned about what the transition at the end of 2014 actually entails and what it means in terms of their – the real world implications in their lives. So he particularly wants to discuss progress both with President Karzai and in his other meetings with the whole range of Afghan stakeholders on the ongoing security, political, and economic transitions, and really with a special emphasis on the elections scheduled for next year.
He will make clear that the U.S. will have an enduring commitment in Afghanistan that will last beyond transition, and that there will always be bumps in the road, that it’s a relationship that can withstand those. Look, I want to be as clear-eyed and pragmatic as possible. The process of winding down our current position and role in Afghanistan and stepping into more of a support role as Afghans increasingly take over their own security and development is not going to be a smooth process at all times. Issues of security and sovereignty are always going to be difficult, but the most important thing is that we are honest with each other when there are differences between us, and you’ve seen some of these differences play out recently. So we’ll see more of these, undoubtedly, as a very kind of necessary but complicated processes continue to unfold.
We want to look at, in the broader picture, the more strategic picture. And we believe that we continue to be committed to the same strategy and the same goals of a fully sovereign Afghanistan without al-Qaida and responsible for its own security. We value our partnership with the Afghan people, per our implementation of the Security Partnership Agreement that we signed last year, our continued discussions on a bilateral security agreement, and working to strengthen governance and increase economic opportunity.
Let me run through just highlights of the kind of the key issues on transition. On security transition, he’s obviously interested in hearing how this final phase is going as Afghans take the lead for security across their entire country. As you know, by the end of next year, the security transition is complete, Afghans take full responsibility, and it’s something that should make Afghans very proud.
On the political transition, Secretary Kerry’s very focused on how the U.S. can best support Afghan elections next year. As many of you know, he was very personally engaged in the elections in 2009, and he wants to ensure that the U.S. can help to support and strengthen Afghanistan, keeping faith with the Afghan people.
And on – also with regard to elections, what was signed last year in Tokyo lays out kind of very specific aspects on how we can we best help ensure the conduct of credible, inclusive, transparent elections, and working with really all Afghan stakeholder – not only the government, but independent Afghan electoral institutions, Afghan political parties, civil society – all stakeholders to do what’s necessary for preparation. He will focus on this quite a bit, but we want to make sure that these preparations are in line with the constitution and ultimately result in a process that’s inclusive and consultative and transparent and secure and ultimately something that is hopefully unifying for the country.
On the economic transition, we recognize that the long-term interests of the country depend on the ability to continue to attract investment and have a more viable economic stability. Also in Tokyo, you saw that the international community pledged $16 billion to fill what the World Bank hole was of about – close to $4 billion a year through 2015. Some countries committed to pledging far more after that. The U.S. committed to seeking assistance, civilian assistance, from Congress for at least a few years after that. But the important thing is that we will have to be on a glide path away from assistance over the longer term.
So while our commitments to continued assistance are real and will extend beyond 2014, what we really have to do is try to find ways to make the economic situation in Afghanistan more sustainable. So we’re looking at ways to address fraud and corruption and for the Afghans to really take on the reform commitments that they themselves laid out in the Tokyo Mutual Accountability Framework.
Let must just say a quick work on reconciliation. We continue to be committed to a peace process between the Afghan Government and the Taliban, and as our presidents confirmed when President Karzai visited in January, Afghan-led peace and reconciliation is the surest way to end violence and ensure lasting stability in Afghanistan and in the region. So we’re looking for any ways we can to support and accelerate the efforts that lead to a strong and a unified Afghanistan. So as we said in January, we support an office in Doha for the purpose of negotiations between the Afghans and the Taliban, and we continue to join with President Karzai in calling on the Taliban to join a political process, including by taking those steps necessary to open that office in Doha.
The very last point I want to make before Q&A is that originally Secretary Kerry was hopeful that he would be able to go to Pakistan on this trip as well, but as the government there really enters a very historic period in this electoral process, we wanted to fully respect those institutions and the ongoing process, and so not travel there this time but go there at an appropriate time in the future.
I think what’s currently occurring in Pakistan is quite remarkable. We welcome the announcement of the caretaker Prime Minister yesterday, and as we will hopefully see with elections scheduled in May, the first-ever civilian-to-civilian government, peaceful transition of power in the country. But during this election period, we also wanted to make sure that we continued our ongoing dialogue with Pakistan on the whole series of shared interests that we have, including combating terrorism and ensuring a peaceful resolution in Afghanistan.
So last night, Secretary Kerry had a unique opportunity to meet General Kayani. They happened to overlap in Amman for an evening. General Kayani was there on an official visit to Jordan to meet with his counterpart today. That was announced by the Pakistanis several days ago. And so given the overlap, they met last night to discuss these range of bilateral security issues, including on counterterrorism, on combating safe havens, and on issues that are important to the future of Afghanistan, to Pakistan, and to us.
This was ahead of, obviously, Secretary Kerry’s meetings with President Karzai today, and so he plans to fully readout his conversation with General Kayani last night, and help to continue to inform the ongoing process of transparency and communication between all three of us. And in that same interest, our acting Special Representative David Pearce is in Kabul, he’ll meet us when we land, and he will go to Pakistan quite soon to continue to engage with the civilian government that’s currently there, at this point the technocratic government, if in fact we don’t yet have caretaker appointments in some of these processes, and continue this process of regional confidence building.
MODERATOR: Great. Why don’t we start here?
Andrea.
QUESTION: How – thank you very much – you think I would know how to use a microphone.
MODERATOR: It’s like a press (inaudible). Go ahead.
QUESTION: How does Secretary Kerry plan to address the most recent comments by President Karzai when Secretary Hagel was there, and in what context can he handle that? Does he have to ignore it, smooth it over, challenge it? I mean, what is the approach to Karzai, given what has happened most recently with the new Secretary of Defense?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Certainly the focus on the bilateral relationship will be one of the critical pieces that they talk about. I think in its – he’s very well served by having the lengthy personal relationship with him. I think that they start from a position of some trust of each other, and at the end of the day, that our interests are still very much aligned and that we are all working towards a sovereign and unified Afghanistan, and that we will continue to work together, which is exactly what I was trying to say kind of at the outset of this. This doesn’t mean that there won’t be problems; there undoubtedly will be. But I think that we will continue to be able to achieve some constructive resolution of them in much the same way that we’ve managed to do just over the course of the last week or two.
I don’t have any final confirmation of it, but I think while we’ve been in the air, hopefully there’s been a transfer ceremony to take care of the detentions issue at Parwan, which was obviously one of the issues that was a sticking point. Our teams continue to meet about it. We hammered out a resolution to everyone’s satisfaction and in everyone’s mutual interest. And it supports the long-term sovereignty of Afghanistan.
So I think going into it with – on the basis of their history, given the joint interests, and seeing what we can achieve constructively in the time ahead will be very much the kind of touchstone of their conversations.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: Andrea, the only thing I’d add is that since many of those comments were first made, both Secretary Kerry has spoken to President Karzai, but more recently and more frequently, Secretary Hagel talked to President Karzai twice. And as [Senior Administration Official One] mentioned, I mean, we’ve moved forward and past several of the issues that were part of that conflation of friction points. The most prominent one that antagonized that period, which was – I don’t want to downplay it – it was – I mean, it was, of course, of concern to us – was the detentions issues. And Ambassador Cunningham and General Dunford have been negotiating almost daily with President Karzai and his advisors to bring this to resolution, and we believe we have a favorable resolution now. So I think we can start to look past this, or at least we’re hopeful that we can.
QUESTION: Just following up on Andrea’s question, I understand that there have now been some private conversations between Karzai and Hagel and Kerry. But publicly are you going to ask Karzai to disavow the claim that the U.S. is somehow collaborating with the Taliban, which seems so far out given the U.S. military and economic commitment to Afghanistan? And further – so does he need to state, "No. I didn’t actually mean that"? And secondly, given what he’s recently said about his plans to go to Qatar in the coming days, tell us a little bit more about reconciliation and what you’re going to advocate for, since he was claiming that the U.S. was secretly negotiating with the Taliban behind his back. So what kind of a private and public conversation can you have about that?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Look, I think the response of Americans across the board, whether those in our Congress, whether officials, whether our publics, has made very clear what they thought was some of President Karzai’s comments. And we will see what he has to say in his public comments today at his – at the press availability and others. I think that we are beyond this incident, and we need to continue to focus on what – how we can most effectively work together and be constructive in how we resolve these.
We’re not there to lecture him or chide him. We’re partners in this, and we were quite clear in terms of what the U.S. has and has not done, and obviously we deny that there has been any daily contact with Taliban, which there has not been. But we do support an ongoing reconciliation process, and as we agreed in January, we think that the – that an office in Doha is the best and most effective way to get there. And so President Karzai going to Qatar, which is primarily for a – for bilateral purposes between the Afghans and the Qataris, but it helps to promote that working relationship, and given that a Doha office will undoubtedly be part of the conversations when he’s there with the Qataris, it’s very much in keeping with the goals that we all committed to back in January when he was in Washington. So we see that as quite positive.
QUESTION: (Off mike.)
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: There has been no – as we said, the Taliban broke off contact over a year ago. At this point, there has not been any contact.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: I mean, we’ve addressed this with President Karzai. I mean, to the comment he made that we were meeting with the Taliban daily, we’ve gone privately to him to clarify that – what we’ve told him previously, we’ve been transparent with him throughout and that we haven’t met with them in over a year. And we’ve, of course, corrected the record on that publicly.
I mean, there’s a separate concern about the claim that there’s collusion aside from meeting daily with the Taliban, and I won’t go into all of the particulars of that. I mean, it’s – it was actually fairly – I mean, one has to get into what he actually said in Pashto, how it was translated in English, how it was reported, and so on. But I mean, we’ve gone through some level of detail in clarifying with him already. And like I said, I hope at this point we can begin to move forward and look past this.
QUESTION: This is a follow-up to Andrea’s question. How would you describe your relationship with President Karzai?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Again, on a variation of a theme, it’s not always going to be easy. There’s difficult issues at stake here. We’re going to have differences. But we are committed to working through them as partners and ensuring that we resolve these issues constructively, because that’s what’s in the best interests of both the American and the Afghan people, and we’ll continue to do so.
QUESTION: Just going back to President Karzai’s visit to Qatar, you said most of the issues are bilateral, but the question of opening up a Taliban office is sure to come up. Is there anything particularly significant to the fact that he is going there? Does this imply greater progress towards setting up the office or not? Do you think it is completely irrelevant in some ways? I mean, does this show significant movement or not?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: I wouldn’t want to overplay it, but I think that it’s a very positive sign. It’s another step on a continued path towards what we think is the most effective and efficient way of getting to some sort of reconciliation process. So to the degree that Doha itself and the Qataris will play a key role in there, the closer the relationship is between the Afghan Government and the Qataris Government the better. And the fact that he’s going there, I think, is quite positive in trying to continue to build some momentum from what we agreed to with – between our presidents in January. But nobody is expecting that he will open an office there in a week. Nobody’s expecting that he will be sitting down with Taliban in week. This is a long process, and this is one more small but positive step in that ongoing process.
QUESTION: What’s the status of the BSA at this point in time? And in what specific ways will Secretary Kerry try to move that process forward on this trip?
MODERATOR: (Inaudible) BSA.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Status of the bilateral security agreement. Negotiations are ongoing at quite intensive pace between our chief negotiators, Ambassador Warlick for us and Ambassador Hakimi. There’s going to be a lot of difficult issues there as well. We gave ourselves a year to try to negotiate it from the time it started, per the Strategic Partnership Agreement, and we will continue our efforts there.
QUESTION: What specifically is Kerry – Secretary Kerry going to do on this trip to (inaudible)?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: I think it’s – it will just be part of the broader strategic conversations with President Karzai on how we continue to align our interests between the two countries and what we can do to continue to support our processes.
QUESTION: Is there a particular (inaudible)?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: We’ll have to see.
QUESTION: What’s going to be the impact of the Wardak withdrawal, of the impact of the withdrawal of forces from Wardak?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: I actually think – [Senior Administration Official Two] may have something more on what it may mean militarily. From our vantage point, I think it’s another very positive sign in terms of how we’ve resolved ongoing issues. And so to the degree that this was another sticking concern and a potential thorn that we managed to resolve in the interest, again, of kind of Afghan sovereignty, but in a way that both sides felt very comfortable with the result, as General Dunford announced right afterwards, I think it’s a sign that we can continue to resolve and work through our differences constructively.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: I think [Senior Administration Official One]’s exactly right, that I think both sides feel like there was a favorable resolution. Unlike the detentions issue, the debate was kept private, the deliberations were kept private. General Dunford and the Afghan Government reached a resolution. I don’t want to speak for ISAF, but I believe that we’re relatively comfortable with it. And I think it’s important to look at it in the context of transition, which is essentially how it was resolved. I mean, it wasn’t a complete departure of U.S. security forces from Wardak province; it was a transition from U.S. security forces to Afghan security forces in a small section of Wardak in the end. And I think in the end, the potential consequences or implications of that were mitigated to a very manageable level.
QUESTION: Thanks. How many troops would Secretary Kerry like to see in Afghanistan post 2014, and will those be a serious part of the negotiations? And do you have assurances from Karzai that he won’t be releasing prisoners, now that he’s got control of Parwan?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Obviously, anything on troop numbers we can’t speak to. What’s still – decision making that’s still occurring within the interagency, or I wouldn’t speak for Secretary Kerry on that.
In terms of the detention, we have to ourselves actually get – see what happened in kind of the final resolution. But assuming the MOU was executed this morning between the Afghans and the U.S. and the transfer ceremony took place, we felt quite comfortable that the enduring threat, the kind of the detainees that were of most concern would be held according to Afghan law in a humane manner, respecting Afghan sovereignty but also addressing our national security interests.
QUESTION: Thanks. I feel like a tour guide on this. Can you hear me? Okay. Can you hear me? I’m used to working with mikes. Unfortunately, I can’t use this one.
Going back to the question – [Senior Administration Official One], I think you said with the Taliban there have not been any contact; you said there not had been direct contact. Can you just clarify whether direct contact with the Taliban, U.S. and Taliban, or through a third party, is necessary in this reconciliation process? And can you explain how this Doha center is supposed to work, or how it’s envisioned in terms of reconciliation? What is the process?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: I’ll defer on some of this to [Senior Administration Official Two], who follows this more closely than I do. But the idea of a Doha office is that there will be a specific place for Afghans to speak with other Afghans, Afghan Taliban, about the future of Afghanistan, ideally through President Karzai’s vision, with the High Peace Council sitting down to meet with the Afghan Taliban. And so the more that we can do to facilitate this forum and venue, the sooner that those key stakeholders can start conversations amongst themselves about what the future may look like and how they can get there.
In terms of contacts, I don’t know how else you want to –
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: Yeah, no, just that – I mean, we – we’re pretty clear about the direct contacts, obviously, and we can be. The Taliban have continued, since direct talks stopped, continued to talk to other governments. They talk to multilateral kind of NGO fora. Some of that has been covered in the media pretty widely. To say we have indirect access via people they have spoken to more or less goes without saying. But it’s not of interest or deliberate to avoid a direct contact. I mean, it’s just – I mean, indirect – we get indirect readouts of what they tell other people through all manner of sources, so – but the channel of significance, where there was direct, deliberate talks, we’ve been clear, and that has not continued at all.
QUESTION: (Off mike.)
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFFICIAL TWO: I mean, it’s hard to say what’s going to be necessary. And that’s – goes to your second question. I mean, that’s really what about – the Doha office is about. I think at some point effective talks, even though it’s going to take time and considerable effort over time, will involve direct talks between the interested parties. And of course, the United States will remain an interested party. But we continue to maintain that the most interested party is the Afghan Government, and they need to be in the lead, and at some point they need to be in direct talks.
QUESTION: Thanks. Sorry, following on from that: Firstly, to what end these talks would you – what are your redlines? Would you accept the Taliban being brought into the government in some kind of broader reconciliation? And secondly, in your negotiations over the BSA, after Panjwai, immunity seems highly unlikely for U.S. troops. Has that been offered as part of these talks?
MODERATOR: Both of you answer it too.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: What was the first question again?
QUESTION: The first question was: Would you accept Taliban --
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Oh, oh, oh. The redlines for the necessary outcomes from a reconciliation process have been consistently the same for many years now, and articulated by Secretary Clinton several years ago and which we maintain, which is that they break from al-Qaida, they lay down arms, and they respect and embrace the Afghan constitution, including its rights of women and minorities. So those have not changed as necessary outcomes for a process.
QUESTION: And to what extent (inaudible)?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: If there – this is – it’s for Afghans --
QUESTION: (Off mike.)
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: The redlines? Yeah. The redlines have to be said – [Moderator] asked me to repeat our – a break from al-Qaida, laying down arms, and embracing the Afghan constitution, including its rights of women and minorities. If there are ways for them to be engaged in the political process, which is clearly one area that the Afghans themselves have floated as a potential, that’s for them to sort out once conversations actually start taking place.
In terms of the immunity issue, it’s – whether bilateral security agreements, SOFAs, whatever they are, these are going to be extremely contentious documents to negotiate. Immunity is probably undoubtedly, across the world, going to be one of the hardest ones to negotiate within that, and it’s going to be one of many issues that we deal with. But there’s – but beyond taking a very general approach to that, there’s nothing more specific I have on that.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: It’s – I honestly couldn’t even tell you what the current state of the negotiations are or what issues they’re focusing on right now. I mean, it’s one of many issues that are on the table.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: We’ll have to see. This is still very early days of negotiation.
QUESTION: Can you provide us a bit more detail on how the decision was made for the Secretary not to go to Pakistan on this trip? Did the Pakistani leadership advise that in the current political climate, with attitudes about Americans being what they are, it might make sense for him to stay away? I mean, was there a specific recommendation that he stay in Afghanistan?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: It was purely our judgment call, in consultation with our experts at the State Department, both in Pakistan and the U.S. and elsewhere. He wanted to go. Obviously, he’s got an equally long relationship with Pakistan that he – as he does with Afghanistan, having visited many times, having been responsible for the Kerry-Lugar-Berman bill, having ties with – many personal ties with many of the civilian and military leadership.
But given the kind of historic nature of where Pakistan is right now, we wanted to be holier than the Pope on this one on staying away until – while the electoral process unfolded. Given the state of conspiracy theorists, given the state of anything else, we did not want to lead anyone to conclude anything about where our interests may lie. So we’re delighted that this – that the National Assembly served its full five-year term. We’re delighted that the caretaker Prime Minister was appointed per the constitution in a way that is enshrined and that I think strengthens the civilian institutions and the constitutional institutions. We look forward to the elections in May. And as soon as there’s a government in place, I think you can expect to see Secretary Kerry there.
Anne.
QUESTION: I just wanted to go back briefly to reconciliation. The discussion of the Doha office as a future concern sort of seems to skip over the fact that some business being transacted there somehow now – how – do you guys have a view on that? Is what the Taliban is doing in Doha now useful and productive toward opening an office full time? And are you in any way involved in it?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: What was – Anne, what was the last part? I want to --
QUESTION: Is the U.S. – is the United States involved at all in sort of these preliminary set-up negotiations?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: I mean, on the last part, I mean, of course we’ve been in normal bilateral discussions with a close ally, and it, of course, includes their readiness to host what could be this office and what we’re hopeful will be the office. I mean, we couldn’t have gotten to the point where we’re publicly – the President’s publicly expressing his support for a Taliban office in Doha without having worked with them on a bilateral basis.
As far as what’s going on with the Taliban in Doha before the opening of an office, to be frank, I think that there’s probably a mixture there in – to the extent it’s toward a political process. As long as it’s leading toward a political process, contributing toward an eventual political process, we’re supportive. Otherwise, we’re not, and we take the steps that we would take anywhere, diplomatically and otherwise, to address it depending on how much concern there is.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: But the – so fundraising would be an example. I mean, anything that the Taliban’s doing in furtherance of their cause, outside of steps towards a political process, in our view, is – remains off-limits. And that’s not a change. That’s not isolated to Doha. That would be the case anywhere. The only peculiar status that Doha enjoys is that I think there’s an expectation that some of that presence could contribute eventually to this political process. And as long as that’s the case, there will be continued support. If that’s not the case, then I think it’s pretty clear that we wouldn’t support it.
QUESTION: Just – I wasn’t clear exactly how the issue of the detainees was resolved, and if you could explain that again, and whether they did give you – I know you were asked, but I didn’t hear the answer, whether you were given commitments that these guys would not be released again.
And then given that they – that you’ve resolved this, what do you want to hear from Karzai on this trip? I mean, are you asking for anything specific? What makes this – what would make this a successful trip?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: On the detentions issue, I would point you back to the readout of Secretary Hagel’s call with President Karzai on Saturday, which referenced that they had reached an agreement to transfer, that there will be this transfer ceremony scheduled for this morning, following an intensified round of discussions. And the Secretary welcomed President Karzai’s commitment that the transfer will be carried out in a way that ensures the safety of the Afghan people and coalition forces by keeping dangerous individuals detained in a secure and humane manner in accordance with Afghan law.
QUESTION: So now that you – now that this has been resolved (inaudible) Karzai (inaudible), are you expecting anything different from them (inaudible)?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Again, I don’t want to set the bar too high or too low here. I mean, we – there are some key issues of – that prove to be thorns in the relationship over the course of the last few weeks. Some of them have obviously gone on, like the detainee issue, far longer than that. The fact that we resolved those, I think, is significant.
Does that completely change the calculus? No, not at all, but I think we’re both committed to elevating our conversation at this point, being more strategic about it, and really focusing on what we have to do together in terms of our joint partnership and really trying to ensure that that partnership is enduring.
I mean, I think the thing about transition – I sketched out the three different transitions, but it’s also really an opportunity for all of us, after the SPA, beyond 2014, to enter a new phase in our relationship and one between sovereign nations. And we will continue to focus on responsibility and accountability, and there’s a range of things that we have to continue to talk about as we flesh out the terms of what that partnership will look like. And this is an opportunity to do that.
So if we’re able to do that and continue to be constructive, then I think it would be a success.
MODERATOR: Thank you, everyone.
HHS SAYS 1 IN 6 PEOPLE WILL GET SICK FROM A FOODBORNE ILLNESS THIS YEAR
FROM: U.S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN RESOURCES
From the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, I’m Nicholas Garlow with HHS HealthBeat.
One in 6 people will get a foodborne illness this year. A new study at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention looked at which foods are more likely to make us sick. Produce accounted for nearly half of all illnesses. Poultry and meat accounted for the most deaths.
Dr. John Painter is an epidemiologist at the CDC.
"Keep eating your vegetables. As it turns out, many foodborne illnesses are attributed to vegetables, but one reason for that is we eat so many of them."
Contamination of food can occur anywhere from the farm to the table. But you can protect yourself by taking these steps: Wash your hands and food prep surfaces. Separate raw meat, poultry, seafood, and eggs from foods that will not be cooked. Cook and chill foods to proper temperatures.
From the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, I’m Nicholas Garlow with HHS HealthBeat.
One in 6 people will get a foodborne illness this year. A new study at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention looked at which foods are more likely to make us sick. Produce accounted for nearly half of all illnesses. Poultry and meat accounted for the most deaths.
Dr. John Painter is an epidemiologist at the CDC.
"Keep eating your vegetables. As it turns out, many foodborne illnesses are attributed to vegetables, but one reason for that is we eat so many of them."
Contamination of food can occur anywhere from the farm to the table. But you can protect yourself by taking these steps: Wash your hands and food prep surfaces. Separate raw meat, poultry, seafood, and eggs from foods that will not be cooked. Cook and chill foods to proper temperatures.
OPERATIONAL TESTING OF F-35 TO BEGIN AT NELLIS AIR FORCE BASE
 |
| Maj. Gen. Jeffery Lofgren, U.S. Air Force Warfare Center commander, provides remarks during the F-35A Lightning II arrival ceremony March 19, 2013, in the Thunderbird Hangar on Nellis Air Force Base, Nev. The 422nd Test and Evaluation Squadron will design the tactics for the F-35A. The squadron will also determine how to integrate the F-35A with other aircraft in the Air Force inventory. (U.S. Air Force photo by Lawrence Crespo) |
FROM: U.S. AIR FORCE
Nellis accepts delivery of F-35 with ceremony
by Master Sgt. Kelley J. Stewart
99th Air Base Wing Public Affairs
3/20/2013 - NELLIS AIR FORCE BASE, Nev. (AFNS) -- In the Thunderbird Hangar filled to capacity, Maj. Gen. Jeffrey Lofgren, U.S. Air Force Warfare Center commander, formally accepted delivery of three F-35A Lightning IIs March 19.
The aircraft will be assigned to the 422nd Test and Evaluation Squadron where they will undergo operational testing.
During the ceremony, the general focused on the importance of the F-35 program to the Air Force and the USAF Warfare Center by tying the aircrafts' arrival to the center's three priorities.
The first priority of the warfare center is developing capabilities and leaders who can fight in a contested environment. One of the focus areas for the 422nd TES will be operational testing to develop tactics for the aircraft and pilots.
"What lies ahead for the 422nd TES and the 53rd Test and Evaluation Group is no small task," said Orlando Carvalho, executive vice president Lockheed Martin Aeronautics. "You will forge the F-35 into the fighter of the future and test it to the limits."
Carvalho went on to say the group's and squadron's pilots and maintainers "would take the F-35's performance to new heights and define the very tactics the F-35 will one day use to defend freedom around the world."
Lofgren expects to see the same dramatic new tactics development with the F-35A as was seen with the F-22.
"The aircraft has so much more capability than our current aircraft," he said. "It will be exciting to see our experts develop innovative new ways to use the F-35 that have not been thought of yet."
The second priority of the warfare center is integrating the capabilities of air, space and cyberspace to achieve greater warfighting effect in the battlespace.
"Integration of the F-35's incredible sensors, and its ability to operate anywhere in the battlespace, will make the whole of all our forces more survivable and lethal," Lofgren said.
Using the F-35A in tandem with the F-22 Raptor increases this lethality.
According to Gen. Mike Hostage III, Air Combat Command commander, the Air Force needs the fifth generation of capability it's leveraging with the F-35A and F-22.
"No amount of fourth-generation capability is going to be able to survive in the environment that will be presented by our adversaries in the next decade without a fifth-generation capability to open up the way, to basically beat down the threat," he said. "Having the F-35s at Nellis brings the test and evaluation of the aircraft closer to operational conditions. I can't think of a better place to take the F-35 through the steps needed to reach initial operating capability for our Air Force."
The final warfare center's priority is to use the triad of live flying, virtual or simulator flying, and the constructive or synthetic threats and battlespace to test and develop tactics and conduct advanced training of future leaders using the F-35A.
This final priority is driven by the fact the aircraft's capabilities are so advanced that "we cannot develop our warfighting edge with live flying alone," Lofgren said.
A simulator complex to test and develop tactics and to conduct advanced training is being built at Nellis AFB and will provide F-35A pilots with realistic threat scenarios they could face in real-world combat.
The F-35A will be doing its live-flying training over the Nevada Test and Training Range.
"The F-35, with its advanced electronic warfare and integrated avionics, is able to locate and identify real and fake targets and jam with unmatched precision which will present a challenge for the NTTR to replicate the threat," Lofgren said.
Combining virtual and live training will allow the Air Force to "link and integrate current and future combat systems," the general said.
The F-35A Lightning II blends the capabilities of seven legacy aircraft into one. As a stealth aircraft, it can enter areas without being seen by radar and this capability will also allow the pilot to see other aircraft first. The F-35 can also penetrate deeper into enemy territory allowing it to find and destroy ground targets while evading hostile surface-to-air weapons.
"Not only is it deadly in the air, it is easy to work on and sustain," he said. "Great improvements have been made in sustaining this aircraft so our world-class maintainers can fix and ready the F-35 faster."
Nellis is scheduled to receive 36 F-35A Lightning IIs by 2020.
FAKE HEDGE FUND MANAGER SENTENCED TO 40 MONTHS IN PRISON
FROM: U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced that Andrey C. Hicks of Boston, Mass., has been sentenced to 40 months in prison in connection with criminal charges brought by the U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts. In a criminal complaint unsealed on October 28, 2011, Hicks was charged with committing wire fraud, attempting to commit wire fraud, and aiding and abetting wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sections 1343, 1349, and 2. In addition to his prison term, Hicks was ordered to pay $2.3 million in restitution and faces three years of supervised release upon completion of his prison term. Hicks pled guilty to the charges on December 12, 2012.
On October 26, 2011, the SEC filed an emergency enforcement action charging Hicks and Locust Offshore Management, LLC, his investment advisory firm, with fraud in connection with misleading prospective investors about their supposed quantitative hedge fund and diverting investor money to the money manager's personal bank account. The SEC alleges in its complaint that Hicks and his advisory firm made misrepresentations about his education, work experience, and the hedge fund's auditor, prime broker/custodian, and corporate status when soliciting individuals to invest in the purported hedge fund, called Locust Offshore Fund, Ltd. By making these representations and creating other indicia of legitimacy, the SEC alleged that Hicks may have obtained at least $1.7 million from 10 investors and may have misappropriated at least a portion of these funds for personal expenses. In the Commission's action, the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts issued a temporary restraining order on October 26 that, among other things, freezes the assets of the money manager, his advisory firm, and the hedge fund. On October 28, 2011, the Court converted the temporary restraining order into a preliminary injunction that will continue the asset freeze and other relief until further order of the Court. On March 20, 2012, Judge Richard Stearns of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts entered final judgments by default against Locust Offshore Management, LLC, and its CEO, Andrey C. Hicks. The Judgments jointly and severally ordered Hicks and Locust Offshore Management to pay disgorgement of $2,481,004 and prejudgment interest of $31,054.39. In addition, Hicks was ordered to pay a civil penalty in the amount of $2,512,058.39, and Locust Offshore Management was ordered to pay a civil penalty in the amount of $2,512,058.39.
On June 15, 2012, SEC Administrative Law Judge Cameron Elliott entered an order making findings and imposing sanctions by default against Hicks barring him from association with an investment adviser, broker, dealer, municipal securities dealer, municipal advisor, transfer agent, or national recognized statistical rating organization. And on June 19, 2012, ALJ Elliott entered a similar order against Locust Offshore Management barring it from acting as an investment adviser.
The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced that Andrey C. Hicks of Boston, Mass., has been sentenced to 40 months in prison in connection with criminal charges brought by the U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts. In a criminal complaint unsealed on October 28, 2011, Hicks was charged with committing wire fraud, attempting to commit wire fraud, and aiding and abetting wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sections 1343, 1349, and 2. In addition to his prison term, Hicks was ordered to pay $2.3 million in restitution and faces three years of supervised release upon completion of his prison term. Hicks pled guilty to the charges on December 12, 2012.
On October 26, 2011, the SEC filed an emergency enforcement action charging Hicks and Locust Offshore Management, LLC, his investment advisory firm, with fraud in connection with misleading prospective investors about their supposed quantitative hedge fund and diverting investor money to the money manager's personal bank account. The SEC alleges in its complaint that Hicks and his advisory firm made misrepresentations about his education, work experience, and the hedge fund's auditor, prime broker/custodian, and corporate status when soliciting individuals to invest in the purported hedge fund, called Locust Offshore Fund, Ltd. By making these representations and creating other indicia of legitimacy, the SEC alleged that Hicks may have obtained at least $1.7 million from 10 investors and may have misappropriated at least a portion of these funds for personal expenses. In the Commission's action, the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts issued a temporary restraining order on October 26 that, among other things, freezes the assets of the money manager, his advisory firm, and the hedge fund. On October 28, 2011, the Court converted the temporary restraining order into a preliminary injunction that will continue the asset freeze and other relief until further order of the Court. On March 20, 2012, Judge Richard Stearns of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts entered final judgments by default against Locust Offshore Management, LLC, and its CEO, Andrey C. Hicks. The Judgments jointly and severally ordered Hicks and Locust Offshore Management to pay disgorgement of $2,481,004 and prejudgment interest of $31,054.39. In addition, Hicks was ordered to pay a civil penalty in the amount of $2,512,058.39, and Locust Offshore Management was ordered to pay a civil penalty in the amount of $2,512,058.39.
On June 15, 2012, SEC Administrative Law Judge Cameron Elliott entered an order making findings and imposing sanctions by default against Hicks barring him from association with an investment adviser, broker, dealer, municipal securities dealer, municipal advisor, transfer agent, or national recognized statistical rating organization. And on June 19, 2012, ALJ Elliott entered a similar order against Locust Offshore Management barring it from acting as an investment adviser.
RESEARCHERS STUDY BLUE MUSSELS AND OCEAN ACIDIFICATION
 |
| Photo: Mussel. Credit: Wikimedia Commons |
Blue Mussels 'Hang On' Along Rocky Shores: For How Long?
Imagine trying to pitch a tent in a stiff wind. You just have it secured, when a gale lifts the tent--stakes and all--and carries it away.
That's exactly what's happening to a species that's ubiquitous along the rocky shores of both the U.S. West and East Coasts: the blue mussel.
Mussels make use of what are called byssal threads--strong, silky fibers--to attach to rocks, pilings and other hard substrates. They produce the threads using byssus glands in their feet.
Now, scientists have discovered, the effects of ocean acidification are turning byssal threads into flimsy shadows of their former selves, leaving mussels tossed about by wind and waves.
At high levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide--levels in line with expected concentrations over the next century--byssal threads become weaker, less able to stretch and less able to attach to rocks, found scientists Emily Carrington, Michael O'Donnell and Matthew George of the University of Washington.
The researchers recently published their results in the journal Nature Climate Change; O'Donnell is the lead author.
Oceans turning caustic
The pH of the seas in which these and other marine species dwell is declining. The waters are turning more acidic (pH dropping) as Earth's oceans change in response to increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
As atmospheric carbon rises as a result of human-caused carbon dioxide emissions, carbon in the ocean goes up in tandem, ultimately resulting in ocean acidification, scientists have found.
To study the effects of ocean acidification on marine organisms, Carrington has been awarded an NSF SEES (Science, Engineering, and Education for Sustainability) Ocean Acidification grant.
"We need to understand the chemistry of ocean acidification and its interplay with other marine processes--while Earth's seas are still hospitable to life as we know it," says David Garrison, program director in NSF's Division of Ocean Sciences. "In the rocky intertidal zone, blue mussels are at the heart of those processes."
Land between the tides
Visit the land between the tides, and you'll see waves crashing on boulders tinged dusky blue by snapped-closed mussels.
"Their shells are a soft color, the misty blue of distant mountain ranges," wrote Rachel Carson more than 50 years ago in her best-selling book The Edge of the Sea.
For blue mussels trying to survive, the rocky intertidal zone indeed may be akin to scaling a mountain range.
The rocky intertidal is above the waterline at low tide and underwater at high tide--the area between tide marks.
It's home to such animals as starfish and sea urchins, and seaweed such as kelp. All make a living from what floats by rocky cliffs and boulders.
It can be a hard go. Rocky intertidal species must adapt to an environment of harsh extremes. Water is available when the tide washes in; otherwise residents of this no man's land between sea and shore are wide open to the elements.
Waves can dislodge them, and temperatures can run from scalding hot to freezing cold.
Hanging on for dear life
In the rocky intertidal, blue mussels hang on for dear life.
That may not always be the case.
Combining results from laboratory experiments with those from a mathematical model, Carrington and colleagues show that at high carbon dioxide concentrations, blue mussels can be dislodged by wind and wave forces 40 percent lower than what they are able to withstand today.
Mussels with this weakened ability, once dislodged from their homes, could cause ecological shifts in the rocky intertidal zone--and huge economic losses in a global blue mussel aquaculture industry valued at U.S. $1.5 billion each year.
"Mussels are among the most important species on rocky shores worldwide," says O'Donnell, "dominating ecosystems wherever they live. The properties in their byssal threads are also of interest to biochemists and have been studied as possible medical adhesives."
Blue mussels may make important contributions to the field of materials science, says Carrington.
"Some species of mussels are experts at gluing onto seagrass, some to other shells, some even adhere to rocks in the harsh conditions of deep-sea hydrothermal vents. Each may have different genes that code for different proteins, so the adhesives vary."
Will their potential be realized? Carrington, O'Donnell and George have found a disturbing answer.
The scientists allowed mussels to secrete byssal threads in a range of ocean water chemistries from present-day through predicted near-future conditions, then tested the threads to see how strong they were.
At levels considered reasonable for a near-future coastal ocean (given current rates of acidification), byssal threads were less able to stretch and therefore less able to adhere. Further testing revealed that the problem was caused by weakening of the glue where the threads attach to rocks and other hard surfaces.
Ocean acidification beyond shells and corals
"Much ocean acidification research has focused on the process of calcification," says Carrington, "through which animals and some plants make hard parts such as shells."
In acidifying oceans, marine species that depend on calcium carbonate have a more difficult time forming shells or, in the case of coral reefs, skeletons.
"But there's more to marine communities than calcified parts," says O'Donnell. Other species such as mussels and their byssal threads, he says, are equally important.
"Understanding the broader consequences of ocean acidification requires looking at a variety of biological processes in a range of species."
A need that didn't exist when Rachel Carson wrote The Edge of the Sea.
"When we go down to the low-tide line, we enter a world that is as old as the Earth itself--the primeval meeting place," mused Carson, "of the elements of earth and water."
And of mussels and rock. Fifty years hence, will the mussels still be here?
FDA ANALYSIS OF ARSENIC FOUND IN RICE
 |
| Photo: Rice. Credit: FDA |
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) monitors hundreds of foods and beverages that make up the average American diet. The agency looks for substances that could be harmful to consumers, including industrial chemicals, heavy metals, pesticide residues and radiation contamination.
Those dietary staples include rice and rice products, foods that FDA has specifically tested for the presence of inorganic arsenic, a chemical that under some circumstances has been associated with long-term health effects.
The agency has analyzed nearly 200 samples of rice and rice products and is collecting about 1,000 more. Since rice is processed into many products, these samples include rice products such as cereals, rice beverages and rice cakes.
Arsenic levels can vary greatly from sample to sample, even within the same product. FDA’s testing of the initial samples found these average levels of inorganic arsenic in micrograms (one millionth of a gram):
Rice cakes: 5.4 per 2 cakes
Rice beverages: 3.8 per 240 ml (some samples not tested for inorganic arsenic)
Rice cereals: 3.5 per 1 cup
Basmati rice: 3.5 per 1 cup cooked
Based on data and scientific literature available now, FDA is not recommending that consumers change their consumption of rice and rice products at this time, but that people eat a balanced diet containing a wide variety of grains.
Data collection is the critical first step in assessing long-term health risks and minimizing those risks.
"We understand that consumers are concerned about this matter. FDA is committed to ensuring that we understand the extent to which substances such as arsenic are present in our foods, what risks they may pose, whether these risks can be minimized, and to sharing what we know," says FDA Commissioner Margaret A. Hamburg, M.D.
Once FDA has completed its analysis of about 1,200 rice products, the agency will analyze these results and determine whether or not to issue additional recommendations.
Arsenic is Found in the Environment
Arsenic is a chemical element distributed in the Earth’s crust. It is released from volcanoes and from the erosion of mineral deposits. It is found throughout the environment—in water, air and soil. For that reason, it is inevitably found in some foods and beverages.
Human activities also add arsenic to the environment. They include burning coal, oil, gasoline and wood, mining, and the use of arsenic compounds as pesticides, herbicides and wood preservatives.
FDA has been monitoring arsenic levels in rice for more than 20 years. Its analysis thus far does not show any evidence of a change in total arsenic levels. The change is that researchers are better able to measure whether those levels represent more or less toxic forms of arsenic.
Rice comes from all over the world and is grown very differently from region to region, which may greatly vary the levels of arsenic within the same kind of product. The larger sample that FDA is taking will cover the wide variety of rice types, geographical regions where rice is grown, and the wide range of foods that contain rice as an ingredient.
FDA expects to complete the additional collection and analysis of samples by the end of the year. The agency is paying particular attention to rice and rice products consumed by children, as well as consumers like Asian-Americans and those with celiac disease who may consumer higher levels of rice.
Sunday, March 24, 2013
HEZBOLLAH OPERATIVE CONVICTED IN CYPRUS
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Cypriot Court Convicts Hezbollah Operative
Press Statement
Victoria Nuland
Department Spokesperson, Office of the Spokesperson
Washington, DC
March 21, 2013
The United States applauds the government of Cyprus for its professional investigation and successful conviction in court today of Hezbollah operative Hossam Taleb Yaacoub on a range of charges involving his surveillance activities of Israeli tourist targets. Over the past year, we have seen Hezbollah engage in increasingly aggressive terrorist activity around the world. In July 2012, just two weeks after Yaacoub’s arrest, we witnessed the deadly impact of Hezbollah’s commitment to terrorism in Burgas, Bulgaria. Today’s verdict underscores the need for our European allies – and other governments around the world – to crack down on this deadly group and to send a strong message that Hezbollah can no longer operate with impunity, at home or abroad.
Cypriot Court Convicts Hezbollah Operative
Press Statement
Victoria Nuland
Department Spokesperson, Office of the Spokesperson
Washington, DC
March 21, 2013
The United States applauds the government of Cyprus for its professional investigation and successful conviction in court today of Hezbollah operative Hossam Taleb Yaacoub on a range of charges involving his surveillance activities of Israeli tourist targets. Over the past year, we have seen Hezbollah engage in increasingly aggressive terrorist activity around the world. In July 2012, just two weeks after Yaacoub’s arrest, we witnessed the deadly impact of Hezbollah’s commitment to terrorism in Burgas, Bulgaria. Today’s verdict underscores the need for our European allies – and other governments around the world – to crack down on this deadly group and to send a strong message that Hezbollah can no longer operate with impunity, at home or abroad.
U.S SECRETARY OF STATE KERRY TAKES QUESTIONS IN BAGHDAD
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENTSolo Press Availability in Baghdad, Iraq
Press Availability
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Baghdad, Iraq
March 24, 2013
SECRETARY KERRY: Good afternoon. As-Salāmu `Alaykum. I’m glad to be here with all of you, and it’s a pleasure for me to be able to be back in Iraq. I haven’t been able to be here for a little bit of time now, so the difference for me is very noticeable in the reduced energy, if you will, and presence of personnel.
I was very pleased to be able to have a chance to affirm to the Iraqi leaders that I met with that the United States continues to stand with the people of Iraq as they work to establish a democracy and a better future. And we are particularly grateful for the efforts of those people who remain so committed to political activity, to engaging in the constitutional process, and who are working for the rights that are guaranteed by the constitution.
This past week, both of our countries marked the 10th anniversary of the beginning of the war here in Iraq, and we were, all of us, reminded of the remarkable sacrifices of so many Iraqis and also so many Americans who, together, gave their lives in a common fight to try to build the civil state that the people of Iraq have chosen for themselves.
Iraq today continues – and I saw this in my meetings and felt it in the discussions that I had – continues to face some tough challenges on fulfilling that promise. It is difficult and – it is difficult for some to find the way to strengthen their democratic institutions and develop its full economic potential, and now that our forces are gone, to ensure that it’s going to be able to stand on its own two feet with respect to the security challenges. I want to assure the Iraqi people today that as you recover from four decades of war and dictatorship, and as you courageously face down lingering menace of terrorism, the United States is going to continue to uphold our end of the Strategic Framework Agreement.
It’s also important to recognize where there is, in fact, progress that is measurable. Iraq had one of the fastest-growing economies in the world in 2012, and while inflation stayed at single digits at the same time. For the first time in the lives of many Iraqis, people are now free to express their opinion, they’re free to organize politically as they wish. And anti-trafficking laws have been put in place, a human rights commission is now in place to work to try to protect fundamental freedoms, though we know there is a lot more to do in this arena. New bilateral relationships are strengthening Iraq’s place in the world.
But it would be disingenuous not to come here and say that there is a great deal of work yet to do. The United States is clear-eyed about the challenges that are still presented here in Iraq, including matters of transitional justice, reconciliation, division of authority, allocation of resources, and advancing the rule of law. We know from our own experience how difficult the work of democracy is and can be. Democracy, I would say to our friends in Iraq, is about inclusion and about compromise. When consensus is not possible, those who are dissatisfied should not just walk away from the system, should not just withdraw, just as those who prevail should not ignore or deny the point of view of other people.
If the Iraqi democratic experiment is to succeed, all Iraqis must work together so that they can come together as a nation. We will continue to build the partnerships between our security and our defense sectors. But we’re also working to build partnerships in education and culture, energy and trade, finance, technology, transportation, and the rule of law. And I will be encouraging companies as they deem appropriate to do business here; firms like Ford, Boeing, General Motors, General Electric are doing so right now, and they have done well.
Fundamental to any democracy anywhere is an election. And the United States is working very closely with the Iraqi electoral commission and with the United Nations in order to ensure the will of the Iraqi people can be reflected through the provincial elections this next month, and then, of course, through the national elections next year. In my meetings today, I stressed our concern that local elections in two provinces have been delayed, and I urged the cabinet to revisit this decision. And the Prime Minister said it was appropriate to revisit it with the cabinet.
Iraq’s success will take enormous cooperation. It’ll take dialogue and it’ll take courage. It’ll require the resolve to defend the sovereignty of the country and its airspace. It will take a commitment to being a good neighbor in a difficult neighborhood. And as Iraqi leaders make difficult decisions in these areas, we are going to work to try to help them succeed. We all want to see Iraq succeed. There’s such an enormous investment of our treasure, our people, and our money in this initiative. The world has an interest in seeing Iraq take a leading role in the region as a functioning democracy, and I believe that if Iraq remains inclusive and cohesive, it has the best chance of succeeding. And as it grows stronger in that format, working to enforce its constitutional rights, it will find that the United States will work with it to achieve those goals.
MODERATOR: We’ll take three questions today. The first will be from Paul Richter of the LA Times.
QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, can you tell us what you told Prime Minister Maliki about the flow of Iranian arms through Iraq into Syria, and what specific commitment you got from him to try to start doing something about that?
SECRETARY KERRY: We had a very spirited discussion on the subject of the overflights. And I made it very clear that for those of us who are engaged in an effort to see President Assad step down and to see a democratic process take hold with a transitional government according to the Geneva Communiqué, for those of us engaged in that effort, anything that supports President Assad is problematic. And I made it very clear to the Prime Minister that the overflights from Iran are, in fact, helping to sustain President Assad and his regime.
So we agreed to try to provide more information with respect to this, but I also made it clear to him that there are members of Congress and people in America who increasingly are watching what Iraq is doing and wondering how it is that a partner in the efforts for democracy and a partner for whom Americans feel they have tried so hard to be helpful – how that country can be, in fact, doing something that makes it more difficult to achieve our common goals, the goal expressed by the Prime Minister with respect to Syria and President Assad.
So my hope is that we’ll be able to make some progress on this, and I’m taking some homework back to Washington with me, and I think the Prime Minister will have discussions here.
MODERATOR: The second question will be from Sohar Hamudi from Amar-Iraqiya.
QUESTION: (In Arabic.)
SECRETARY KERRY: Just one minute, please.
QUESTION: Yes. (In Arabic.)
SECRETARY KERRY: Are you talking about the elections? Okay.
Well, there are two provinces I mentioned, both in Ninewa and in Anbar, where the election – the provincial election has been suspended. And from the perspective of the United States, we strongly urge the Prime Minister to take this issue to the cabinet and to see if it can be revisited, because we believe very strongly that everybody needs to vote simultaneously. The fact is that while security has been put forward as a rationale for that postponement, no country knows more about voting under difficult circumstances than Iraq.
The first election here was conducted under the most extraordinarily difficult circumstances, but Iraqis came out and voted. So we believe very strongly that all of the countries should vote at the same time in these provincial elections, and we hope that the Prime Minister, through his cabinet, will be able to revisit this issue. There is still time for that election to take place in those provinces.
MODERATOR: The final --
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MODERATOR: I’m sorry, there’s – we can’t do follow-ups.
QUESTION: No, what is my question (inaudible).
MODERATOR: My apologies. Go ahead.
QUESTION: I’m sorry. (In Arabic.)
SECRETARY KERRY: Oh, that’s why I asked you if you were referring to the elections. I apologize. With respect to demonstrations, we believe very strongly that every citizen has the right to have their voice heard. And under the constitution of Iraq, people have a right to be able to affiliate, to express any political view, and nobody should be penalized for that.
So we urge people to demonstrate peacefully if they choose to demonstrate. We do not want to see, nor do we advocate anything but peaceful demonstration, but we urge the government to respond to those demonstrations in an appropriate way – not with violence, not with repression, but rather with the openness that a democracy merits. The country will be stronger for people having the right to be able to express their views in a peaceful way.
MODERATOR: The final question will be from Anne Gearan from The Washington Post.
QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, Moaz al-Khatib has announced his resignation as head of the Syrian Opposition Coalition today. What is your view of that move and the internal divisions within the group that led up to it? And are you worried that the group is essentially disintegrating?
And secondly, since this is the first we’ve seen you since the President’s trip, can you tell us how optimistic you are that the Israelis and the Palestinians are really ready to sit down and bargain? Thank you.
SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you very much, Anne. With respect to Moaz al-Khatib, I’m personally sorry to see him go because I like him on a personal level, and because I have appreciated his leadership. But the notion that he might resign has, frankly, been expressed by him on many different occasions in many different places, and it is not a surprise. We have worked very closely with the newly chosen Prime Minister Hitto. We’ve worked with him in the delivery of aid. We have confidence about his abilities and the abilities of the Vice President’s and others around him. And it’s almost inevitable, in the transition of a group such as the opposition, for these kinds of changes to take place as it evolves.
We view this as a continuum. It’s not about one person. It’s about President Assad. It’s about a regime that is killing its own people. It’s about an opposition that is bigger than one person. And that opposition will continue, and I am confident personally that ultimately, President Assad is going to either negotiate his way out of office through the Geneva process, or, if he leaves people no choice, the opposition will forcibly change this regime. But I think that is going to continue, and the United States will continue to support the opposition.
Thank you all.
QUESTION: With respect to --
SECRETARY KERRY: Oh, with respect to the Mideast process, I think the President’s trip to the Mideast was historic in every respect, and I know that the folks in Israel felt its impact. They were impressed by him, impressed by the vision that he expressed, and I think that his words even after he has left are reverberating. People are debating and talking, and that is precisely what the President sought to do.
So I think it was an extremely successful visit, a moving one for Israelis. I know for Prime Minister Netanyahu, whom I saw last night, he felt very strongly that it was an outstanding meeting. And I know from the President, before he left, that he was very impressed by the discussions he had. He felt they were the best that he has had to date, and I think the stage has been set for the possibilities that parties can hopefully find a way to negotiations.
Now, I think all of us have learned in the course of the last years, through many presidents and many secretaries of States, there has been no more intractable problem. And so expressing optimism when you don’t even have negotiations would be foolhardy. What I have is hope. I have hope that the President’s words kindled a sense of the possible in the people of Israel and the region and the Palestinians. I think that he has charged me and others with the responsibility of trying to find out what the way forward is. And I engaged in some of that discussion yesterday, both with President Abbas as well as with Prime Minister Netanyahu and some of his team.
We have to keep working at this. We’ve just begun those discussions. I wouldn’t characterize them in any way except open, candid, and a good beginning, and that’s where I’ll leave it. Thanks, appreciate it.
BUDGET CONCERNS RAISED AT GEN. DEMPSEY'S TOWN HALL
FROM: U.S DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Budget Concerns Take Center Stage at Beaufort Town Hall
By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service
MARINE CORPS AIR STATION, BEAUFORT, S.C., March 22, 2013 - The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff gave Marines and their families the long view of defense budgets during a town-hall meeting here yesterday.
Throughout history, the military is either growing or shrinking, but it doesn't remain static, Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey said.
"I actually think it's one of the things that makes us more versatile and adaptable," he added. "We get these swings of resources, and we deal with it."
After a decade of growth, the budget is shrinking, and there is a reason for this, the chairman said, noting that service members are not walled off from America. They are in touch with their fellow Americans, he said, and know that many are out of work, many have lost homes, and many are underemployed. "There really is an economic crisis in America," Dempsey said. "We really do have challenges."
At the same time, the military – those who wear the uniform and the families who support them – has earned the esteem of the American people. Dempsey cited recent surveys that show almost 80 percent of Americans approve of their military. "That's incredible," he said. "You can't get 80 percent of the people in this country to agree about anything."
The approval rating is so high because Americans trust their service members, the chairman said. "The country believes we don't act in our own self-interest, we act in the country's interest," he added.
If the military tries to ignore the economic problems, Dempsey told the Marines and their families, "I guarantee you we would lose that stature, that esteem, that trust, of the American people."
The military has to find ways to do what needs to be done at less cost, the chairman said. "And we will," he added. "It'll be uncertain for a period of time, but we will lead our way through this. We're not going to act like victims, and [we will] do the best we can for the country, while articulating the risk."
And there is risk, Dempsey said. A school of thought based at Harvard posits that the level of violence in the world is at an evolutionary low, he noted, because no big wars have killed millions since the middle of the 20th century.
But that does not mean the risk is gone, the general said. The ability of nonstate actors and "middling powers" such as North Korea to inflict harm has increased, he added.
"In my view, the world is actually more dangerous, not less dangerous," Dempsey said. "Maybe violence is at an evolutionary low, but the world is more dangerous, because more people can do us harm."
Cutting the military now has different dangers compared to drawdowns in the past, he said, because it's occurring in an era of instability and uncertainty.
But an existential threat to the country doesn't exist right now, Dempsey said. "A terrorist attack? Yes, and at some point, a ballistic missile," he added. "But [we're] not there yet."
This is a transitional period where Americans feel safer, the chairman said, and so the military must adapt itself and "find the sweet spot in the budget that will allow us enough capability and capacity, ... and then make sure we build into the force the ability to expand when we get it wrong."
Budget Concerns Take Center Stage at Beaufort Town Hall
By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service
MARINE CORPS AIR STATION, BEAUFORT, S.C., March 22, 2013 - The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff gave Marines and their families the long view of defense budgets during a town-hall meeting here yesterday.
Throughout history, the military is either growing or shrinking, but it doesn't remain static, Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey said.
"I actually think it's one of the things that makes us more versatile and adaptable," he added. "We get these swings of resources, and we deal with it."
After a decade of growth, the budget is shrinking, and there is a reason for this, the chairman said, noting that service members are not walled off from America. They are in touch with their fellow Americans, he said, and know that many are out of work, many have lost homes, and many are underemployed. "There really is an economic crisis in America," Dempsey said. "We really do have challenges."
At the same time, the military – those who wear the uniform and the families who support them – has earned the esteem of the American people. Dempsey cited recent surveys that show almost 80 percent of Americans approve of their military. "That's incredible," he said. "You can't get 80 percent of the people in this country to agree about anything."
The approval rating is so high because Americans trust their service members, the chairman said. "The country believes we don't act in our own self-interest, we act in the country's interest," he added.
If the military tries to ignore the economic problems, Dempsey told the Marines and their families, "I guarantee you we would lose that stature, that esteem, that trust, of the American people."
The military has to find ways to do what needs to be done at less cost, the chairman said. "And we will," he added. "It'll be uncertain for a period of time, but we will lead our way through this. We're not going to act like victims, and [we will] do the best we can for the country, while articulating the risk."
And there is risk, Dempsey said. A school of thought based at Harvard posits that the level of violence in the world is at an evolutionary low, he noted, because no big wars have killed millions since the middle of the 20th century.
But that does not mean the risk is gone, the general said. The ability of nonstate actors and "middling powers" such as North Korea to inflict harm has increased, he added.
"In my view, the world is actually more dangerous, not less dangerous," Dempsey said. "Maybe violence is at an evolutionary low, but the world is more dangerous, because more people can do us harm."
Cutting the military now has different dangers compared to drawdowns in the past, he said, because it's occurring in an era of instability and uncertainty.
But an existential threat to the country doesn't exist right now, Dempsey said. "A terrorist attack? Yes, and at some point, a ballistic missile," he added. "But [we're] not there yet."
This is a transitional period where Americans feel safer, the chairman said, and so the military must adapt itself and "find the sweet spot in the budget that will allow us enough capability and capacity, ... and then make sure we build into the force the ability to expand when we get it wrong."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)