PRESIDENT OBAMA, GERMAN CHANCELLOR MERKEL MAKE REMARKS AT JOINT PRESS CONFERENCE

May 02, 2014

FROM:  THE WHITE HOUSE 

Remarks by President Obama and German Chancellor Merkel in Joint Press Conference

Rose Garden

12:07 P.M. EDT

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Well, good morning, everybody.  It is always a great pleasure to welcome my friend Chancellor Merkel to the White House.  Germany is one of our strongest allies, and Angela is one of my closest partners.  And with her indulgence, I want to start by making two brief comments.

First, as President, my top priority is doing everything that we can to create more jobs and opportunity for hardworking families -- for our economic strength is a source of strength in the world.  And this morning, we learned that our businesses created 273,000 new jobs last month.  All told, our businesses have now created 9.2 million new jobs over 50 consecutive months of job growth.

The grit and determination of the American people are moving us forward, but we have to keep a relentless focus on job creation and creating more opportunities for working families.  There’s plenty more that Congress should be doing, from raising the minimum wage to creating good construction jobs rebuilding America.  And I want to work with them wherever I can, but I keep acting on my own whenever I must to make sure every American who works hard has the chance to get ahead.

Second point -- I also want to say on behalf of the American people that our thoughts are with the people of Afghanistan, who have experienced an awful tragedy.  We are seeing reports of a devastating landslide, on top of recent floods.  Many people are reported missing; rescue efforts are underway.  Just as the United States has stood with the people of Afghanistan through a difficult decade, we stand ready to help our Afghan partners as they respond to this disaster.  For even as our war there comes to an end this year, our commitment to Afghanistan and its people will endure. 

Now, Angela, I’m still grateful for the hospitality that you and the German people extended to me, Michelle and our daughters last year in Berlin.  It was an honor to speak at the Brandenburg Gate.  You promised me a warm welcome and delivered an unbelievable 90-degree day in Berlin. 

This morning, our work touched on the range of issues where the United States and Germany are vital partners.  We agreed to continue the close security cooperation -- including law enforcement, cyber, and intelligence -- that keeps our citizens safe.  We reaffirmed our strong commitment to completing the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership -- T-TIP -- which is critical to supporting jobs and boosting exports in both the United States and in Europe.

We discussed energy security, including the importance of Europe diversifying its energy sources.  The United States has already approved licenses for natural gas exports, which will increase global supply and benefit partners like Europe.  And T-TIP would make it even easier to get licenses to export gas to Europe.

At our working lunch, we’ll review our negotiations with Iran and our shared determination to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.  We’ll discuss Syria, where we continue to support the moderate opposition and provide humanitarian relief to the Syrian people.  I look forward to briefing Angela on my trip to Asia, a region where both our nations can help ensure that all countries in the Asia Pacific adhere to international law and international norms.

Of course, most of our time was spent on the situation in Ukraine.  Angela, I want to thank you for being such a strong partner on this issue.  You’ve spoken out forcefully against Russia’s illegal actions in Ukraine.  And you’ve been a leader in the European Union, as well as an indispensable partner in the G7.  And your presence here today is a reminder that our nations stand united.

We are united in our determination to impose costs on Russia for its actions, including through coordinated sanctions.  We’re united in our unwavering Article 5 commitment to the security of our NATO allies, including German aircraft joining NATO patrols over the Baltics.  We’re united in our support for Ukraine, including the very important IMF program approved this week to help Ukraine stabilize and reform its economy.  And as Ukrainian forces move to restore order in eastern Ukraine, it is obvious to the world that these Russian-backed groups are not peaceful protestors.  They are heavily armed militants who are receiving significant support from Russia.  The Ukrainian government has the right and responsibility to uphold law and order within its territory, and Russia needs to use its influence over these paramilitary groups so they disarm and stop provoking violence. 

Let me say that we’re also united in our outrage over the appalling treatment of the OSCE observers who have been detained in eastern Ukraine.  Pro-Russian militants are still holding seven observers, including four Germans, as well as their Ukrainian escorts.  They’ve been paraded in front of the media and forced to make statements at the barrel of a gun.  It is disgraceful and it’s inexcusable.  Russia needs to work to secure their immediate release, and the international community is not going to be satisfied until Colonel Schneider and his fellow captives come home.

Finally, as both Angela and I have repeatedly said, we want to see a diplomatic resolution to the situation in Ukraine.  But we’ve also been clear that if the Russian leadership does not change course, it will face increasing costs as well as growing isolation -- diplomatic and economic.  Already, the ruble has fallen to near all-time lows, Russian stocks this year have dropped sharply, and Russia has slipped into recession.  Investors are fleeing, and it’s estimated that $100 billion in investment will exit Russia this year.  Russian companies are finding it harder to access the capital they need, and Russia’s credit rating has been downgraded to just above “junk” status.  In short, Russia’s actions in Ukraine are making an already weak Russian economy even weaker.

Moreover, if Russia continues on its current course, we have a range of tools at our disposal, including sanctions that would target certain sectors of the Russian economy.  And we’ve been consulting closely with our European and G7 partners, and we’re stepping up our planning.  Angela and I continued these consultations today.  The Russian leadership must know that if it continues to destabilize eastern Ukraine and disrupt this month’s presidential election, we will move quickly on additional steps, including further sanctions that will impose greater costs.  But that is a choice facing the Russian leadership. 

Our preference is a diplomatic resolution to this issue.  And the Ukrainian government has already shown itself more than willing to work through some of the issues that would ensure that the rights of all Ukrainians are respected, that you have a representative government.  They’ve shown themselves willing to discuss amendments to their constitution that devolve power to a local level.  They have gone through with their commitment to potentially provide amnesty for those who lay down arms and who are willing to abandon the buildings that they’ve occupied.  The Ukrainian government in Kyiv has followed through on the commitments that it made in Geneva.  We need Russians to do the same.   

So, Angela, I want to thank you again for being here and, as always, for your friendship and partnership.  These are challenging times.  Russia’s actions in Ukraine pose a direct challenge to the goal that brought Europe and the United States together for decades -- and that is a Europe that is whole, free and at peace.  Just as our predecessors stood united in pursuit of that vision, so will we. 

Chancellor Merkel.  

CHANCELLOR MERKEL:  (As interpreted.)  Well, thank you very much, Barack, for this gracious hospitality and this very warm welcome that you accorded to me.  And I’m very glad to be able to be back in Washington to have an opportunity to address all of these different issues with you. 

I think priority really is on the current issue of Ukraine and that looms very large on our agenda.  It showed how important the transatlantic partnership is also in today’s times.  And I think it’s a very good thing that all of those steps that we’ve taken so far, we’ve taken together.  And today, in our talk, we yet again underlined that we fully intend to go ahead as we did in the past.  What happened on Ukraine, what happened on the Crimean Peninsula?  Well, the post-war order has been put into question that rests on the acceptance of territorial integrity by all, and this is why it was so important for us to react in concord.

And what is at stake here is that people in Ukraine can act on the basis of self-determination and can determine themselves which road they wish to embark on into the future.  The 25th of May is a very crucial date in order to ensure that, and we will see to it that elections can take place.  The OSCE will play a central role in all of this.  We talked about this.  And together with the OSCE, we shall do everything we can in order to bring Russia -- that is, after all, a member of the OSCE -- to do the necessary steps so as the 25th of May bringing about some progress in stabilizing Ukraine. 
   
The 25th of May is not all that far away.  Should that not be possible to stabilize the situation, further sanctions will be unavoidable.  This is something that we don’t want.  We have made a diplomatic offer, an offer for a diplomatic solution.  So it’s very much up to the Russians which road we will embark on, but we are firmly resolved to continue to travel down that road.

Now, secondly, we addressed issues that have a bearing on the work of the intelligence services here.  Let me underline yet again for the German side -- we have always enjoyed a very close cooperation with our American partner on this front.  And anyone in political responsibility is more than aware, looking at the challenges of the modern world today, that obviously in fighting terrorism, the work of the intelligence services is not only important, it is indeed indispensable. 

I am firmly convinced that our cooperation in this area is a very helpful one, yet there are differences of opinion on what sort of balance to strike between the intensity of surveillance, of trying to protect the citizens against threats, and on the other hand, protecting individual privacy and individual freedom, and rights of personality.  And that will require further discussion between our two countries in order to overcome these differences of opinion. 

We have these discussions incidentally also on the European front.  We are talking about Safe Harbor agreement, for example, about a privacy protection agreement.  And I take back the message home that the U.S. is ready to do that, is ready to discuss this, although we may have differences of opinion on certain issues.

Thirdly, T-TIP, I think particularly in the overall context of further intensifying our trade relations, of global growth, but also in the context of diversification of our energy supply -- this is a very important issue.  It will be very important for us to bring the negotiations very quickly to a close on T-TIP.  We are firmly convinced that for the European Union, for Germany and for the United States, this offers a lot of opportunities for the future.  And it’s so important for us to bring this agreement to a successful conclusion.  There are a number of discussions, I know; a number of skeptical remarks.  People have doubts.  But these doubts, this skepticism can be overcome and it needs to be overcome.  Just look at the many partners all over the world that have bilateral trade agreements.  I mean, it’s simply necessary.  Looking at the intensity of a transatlantic partnership and the closeness of our partnership, for us to have this agreement, this transatlantic trade agreement, and we are fully at one on this one.

So we had very intensive talks and we are going to build on this over lunch.  Thank you very much, Barack, for giving me this opportunity and also thank you for your gracious hospitality.

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  I think we’re going to take two questions from the U.S. press and two questions from the German press.  We’ll start with Lesley Clark.

Q    Thank you, Mr. President.  With violence today in Ukraine, you’ve said today that Germany and the United States are united in efforts to deescalate.  But have you been able to reach any common ground with the Chancellor on sectoral sanctions, particularly the energy -- the Russian energy section -- sector?  What’s next if you’re unable to? 

And to Chancellor Merkel, reports in the U.S. press have suggested that you’ve said that you believed President Putin may not be in touch with reality.  Is that what you’ve said, is that what you believe?  And could you give us -- you talked to him earlier this week -- could you give us a little more insight into what he might be thinking?  And do you believe that he is a threat to Europe?  Thank you.

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Obviously, every day we’re watching the events in eastern Ukraine and southern Ukraine with deep concern.  And I think that what you’ve seen over the course of the last several months in the midst of this crisis is remarkable unity between the United States and the European Union in the response. 

We have at the same time offered a diplomatic approach that could resolve this issue.  We have been unified in supporting the Ukrainian government in Kyiv -- both economically, diplomatically, and politically.  And we have said that we would apply costs and consequences to the Russians if they continued with their actions.  And that’s exactly what we’ve done.  And you saw just over the course of the last week additional sanctions applied both by the Europeans and the U.S.

The next step is going to be a broader-based sectoral sanctions regime.  And what we have said is, is that we want to continue to keep open the possibility of resolving the issue diplomatically.  But as Angela Merkel said, if, in fact, we see the disruptions and the destabilization continuing so severely that it impedes elections on May 25th, we will not have a choice but to move forward with additional, more severe sanctions.  And the consultations have been taking place over the course of the last several weeks about what exactly those would look like, and would apply to a range of sectors.  The goal is not to punish Russia; the goal is to give them an incentive to choose the better course, and that is to resolve these issues diplomatically.  And I think we are united on that front. 

Within Europe, within the EU, I'm sure there has to be extensive consultations.  You’ve got 28 countries and some are more vulnerable than others to potential Russian retaliation, and we have to take those into account.  Not every country is going to be in exactly the same place.  But what has been remarkable is the degree to which all countries agree that Russia has violated international law, violated territorial integrity and sovereignty of a country in Europe.  And I think there’s unanimity that there has to be consequences for that. 

How we structure these sectoral sanctions the experts have been working on, and we anticipate that if we have to use them, we can.  Our preference would be not to have to use them.  And I thank Chancellor Merkel’s leadership on this front.  She has been extraordinarily helpful not only in facilitating European unity, but she’s also been very important in helping to shape a possible diplomatic resolution and reaching out to the Russians to encourage them to take that door while it's still open.

Q    Do you feel confident you have German support on sectoral sanctions, particularly the energy sector?

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  You’ve got to keep in mind that when it comes to sectoral sanctions we're looking at a whole range of issues.  Energy flows from Russia to Europe -- those continued even in the midst of the Cold War, at the height of the Cold War.  So the idea that you're going to turn off the tap on all Russian oil or natural gas exports I think is unrealistic.  But there are a range of approaches that can be taken not only in the energy sector, but in the arms sector, the finance sector, in terms of lines of credit for trade -- all that have a significant impact on Russia.

I don't think it's appropriate for us to delve into the details at this stage because our hope is that we don't have to deploy them.  But what I can say is, is that our experts at the highest level, and not just bilaterally, but multilaterally through the European Commission and our diplomatic teams, have been working through all the possibilities, and we're confident that we will have a package that will further impact Russia’s growth and economy.  But again, our hope is that we shouldn’t have to use them.  We're not interested in punishing the Russian people.  We do think that Mr. Putin and his leadership circle are taking bad decisions and unnecessary decisions and he needs to be dissuaded from his current course.

CHANCELLOR MERKEL:  (As interpreted.)  It is, I think, obvious to all that there are very different assessments on what happens in Ukraine.  On the one hand, you have the United States and Europe -- we've always taken our decisions together -- and on the other hand, the Russian appreciation and appraisal of the situation.  I hope that Russia will live up better in the future to its responsibilities.  But we need to see deeds matching up their words. 

We don't have any release of the hostages of the OSCE, among them also four German hostages.  This is a very crucial step that needs to happen first.  We have not yet seen any implementation of the Geneva agreement by the Russian side.  The Ukrainian side has taken some steps in the right direction.  And the OSCE, too, is an organization to which we wish to accord a greater role so that they can prepare and pave the way for elections. 

And one word on sanctions.  I agree with the American President; they are not an end in itself, but combined with the offer that we want diplomatic solutions, it is a very necessary second component to show that we're serious -- we're serious about our principles.  And there is a broad base, a broad range of possibilities that are being prepared for in the European Union.  In Europe, we have taken a decision that should further destabilization happen, we will move to a third stage of sanctions. 

I would like to underline this is not necessarily what we want, but we are ready and prepared to go to such a step.  My main aim would be, first and foremost, to improve stabilization and to see to it that the elections can happen there.  We will work on this in the next few days, but we are also prepared to take further steps. 

What we are talking about here will be sectoral measures in the context of certain branches of industry.  The American President and I can only agree to this and said what is necessary as regards the dependency on gas, which is very strong in Europe, but we can also look ahead in the medium term what we can do in order to promote an energy union in the European Union, which we’re doing.  Looking at our dependencies in the next 10 to 15 years on Russian gas supplies, there are six countries right now in the EU that depend 100 percent on gas supplies.  We need to improve the reverse flow, as we call it.  We need to improve our grade of pipelines.  All of the countries need to share supplies.  And those are measures that we’re currently discussing in Europe.

We’re talking about short-term but also medium-term and long-term measures.  And then the free trade agreement, T-TIP, is also gaining more prominence in this respect.

Q    (As interpreted.)  Madam Chancellor, you said that time is of the essence and that it’s getting shorter, leading up to the 25th.  When would be the time when you would say a third phase -- moving to a third phase of sanctions is what you would promote?  And is a more energy-intensive initiative by the EU necessary, for example, on heads of state and government level?

And, President, can you understand the fact that also Mr. Putin needs to play a role in the solution, which is the position of the European Union, that also his arguments have to be weighed?  And after the Chancellor having made those several phone calls with Mr. Putin, do you think that the Chancellor also stands a chance to sort of work on this?

CHANCELLOR MERKEL:  Well, to answer the question, what about the next few days to come -- I think the meeting of foreign ministers of the EU on the 12th of May is going to play a very important role.  In this respect, one can sound out the possibilities there are in various directions.  We, from the German side, as we have agreed with our American friends, will do everything we can in order bring the OSCE into a situation, supported politically that is, to do what is necessary in order to bring matters forward in Ukraine. 

On the one hand, you have OSCE monitors for the elections, but also questions as regards a change of the constitution; reform towards further devolution or decentralization.  All of the different parts of the country obviously have to be at the same level as regards information on this, and the OSCE wants to do that.  We want to give them the necessary political backing.

When a certain point in time is there, it’s very difficult to predict.  I can only say that, for me, the elections on the 25th of May are crucial.  And should there be further attempts at destabilization, this will be getting more and more difficult.  But for now, I am working for elections to take place on that very date, and the heads of state and government are ready at any time should they be proved necessary to meet.

We’ve approved that over the past in other areas -- for example, the euro crisis.  And we will demonstrate this resolve yet again.  I am firmly convinced that the United States of America and the European Union need to act in concert here, and they have done so in the past and they are going to continue to do so.

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  I’ve said from the start that Russia has legitimate interests in terms of what happens next door in Ukraine.  Obviously there is a deep and complicated history between Russia and Ukraine, and so, of course, Mr. Putin’s views should be taken into account.  What can’t be taken into account is Mr. Putin’s suggestion, both through words and actions, that he has the right to violate the sovereignty of another country, to violate its territorial integrity, to dictate the economic policies or foreign policy of a sovereign country.  That’s not acceptable. 

Our view from the start has been that the Ukrainians should be able to make their own decisions.  And I’m very confident that if the Ukrainians are allowed to make their own decisions, then they will choose to have a good relationship with Russia as well as a good relationship with Europe; that they’ll want to trade with Russia and they’ll want to trade with Europe.  But what they cannot accept, understandably, is the notion that they are simply an appendage, an extension of Russia, and that the Kremlin has veto power over decisions made by a duly elected government in Kyiv. 

So if, in fact, Mr. Putin’s goal is to allow Ukrainians to make their own decisions, then he is free to offer up his opinions about what he would like the relationship to be between Ukraine and Russia.  And I suspect that there will be a whole lot of Ukrainian leaders who will take those views into consideration.  But it can’t be done at the barrel of a gun.  It can’t be done by sending masked gunmen to occupy buildings or to intimidate journalists. 

And one of the biggest concerns that we’ve seen is the Russian propaganda that has been blasted out nonstop suggesting somehow that the Ukrainian government is responsible for the problems in eastern Ukraine.  The Ukrainian government has shown remarkable restraint throughout this process.  The notion that this is some spontaneous uprising in eastern Ukraine is belied by all the evidence of well-organized, trained, armed militias with the capacity to shoot down helicopters.  Generally, local protestors don’t possess that capacity of surface-to-air missiles or whatever weapons were used to shoot down helicopters, tragically.

We’ve seen the attempts of OSCE monitors -- who were approved not just by Europe or the United States, but also by Russia -- being detained.  And somehow Russia is suggesting that Kyiv is responsible for that?  We’ve heard Mr. Putin say, well, Kyiv has to do a better job of reaching out to Eastern Europe -- or eastern Ukraine.  You’ve seen attempts by Kyiv in a very serious way to propose decentralization of power and to provide for local elections, and for them to offer amnesty to those who have already taken over these buildings.  None of that has been acknowledged by Mr. Putin or the various Russian mouthpieces that are out there. 

You’ve also seen suggestions or implications that somehow Americans are responsible for meddling inside Ukraine.  I have to say that our only interest is for Ukraine to be able to make its own decisions.  And the last thing we want is disorder and chaos in the center of Europe. 

So for the German audience who perhaps is tuning into Russian TV, I would just advise to stay focused on the facts and what’s happened on the ground.  A few weeks ago, Mr. Putin was still denying that the Russian military was even involved in Crimea.  Then, a few weeks later, he acknowledged, yeah, I guess that was our guys.  And so there just has not been the kind of honesty and credibility about the situation there, and a willingness to engage seriously in resolving these diplomatic issues. 

And our hope is, is that, in fact, Mr. Putin recognizes there’s a way for him to have good relations with Ukraine, good relations with Europe, good relations with the United States.  But it cannot be done through the kinds of intimidation and coercion that we’re seeing take place right now in eastern Europe [Ukraine].

Tangi.

Q    Thank you, Mr. President.  Earlier this week, an inmate died in Oklahoma in what critics have called an inhumane manner because of a seemingly botched execution.  Human rights groups put the United States in the devious company of China, Iran and Saudi Arabia when it comes to the prevalence of executions.  Some European countries have expressed their concerns as well.  What are your thoughts on this?  And does this raise moral questions about U.S. justice and global reputation?

And to Chancellor Merkel, after Edward Snowden’s revelations on U.S. surveillance of your own cell phone, you said that friends shouldn’t spy on friends.  Are you satisfied that the steps taken by the U.S. on NSA surveillance are now consistent with a healthy alliance?  Has the personal trust been rebuilt?  And I was wondering if you could elaborate a little bit on this no-spy agreement that apparently couldn’t be reached.  Thank you.

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  What happened in Oklahoma is deeply troubling.  The individual who was subject to the death penalty had committed heinous crimes, terrible crimes.  And I’ve said in the past that there are certain circumstances in which a crime is so terrible that the application of the death penalty may be appropriate -- mass killings, the killings of children.  But I’ve also said that in the application of the death penalty in this country, we have seen significant problems -- racial bias, uneven application of the death penalty, situations in which there were individuals on death row who later on were discovered to have been innocent because of exculpatory evidence.  And all these I think do raise significant questions about how the death penalty is being applied.  And this situation in Oklahoma I think just highlights some of the significant problems there. 

So I’ll be discussing with Eric Holder and others to get me an analysis of what steps have been taken not just in this particular instance but more broadly in this area.  I think we do have to, as a society, ask ourselves some difficult and profound questions around these issues.

If you don’t mind, I’m going to also go ahead and maybe say something about NSA just because I know it’s of great interest in the German press as well.  Germany is one of our closest allies and our closest friends, and that’s true across the spectrum of issues -- security, intelligence, economic, diplomatic.  And Angela Merkel is one of my closest friends on the world stage, and somebody whose partnership I deeply value.  And so it has pained me to see the degree to which the Snowden disclosures have created strains in the relationship.

But more broadly, I’ve also been convinced for a very long time that it is important for our legal structures and our policy structures to catch up with rapidly advancing technologies.  And as a consequence, through a series of steps, what we’ve tried to do is reform what we do and have taken these issues very seriously.  Domestically, we’ve tried to provide additional assurances to the American people that their privacy is protected.  But what I’ve also done is taken the unprecedented step of ordering our intelligence communities to take the privacy interests of non-U.S. persons into account in everything that they do -- something that has not been done before and most other countries in the world do not do.  What I’ve said is, is that the privacy interests of non-U.S. citizens are deeply relevant and have to be taken into account, and we have to have policies and procedures to protect them, not just U.S. persons.  And we are in the process of implementing a whole series of those steps. 

We have shared with the Germans the things that we are doing.  I will repeat what I’ve said before -- that ordinary Germans are not subject to continual surveillance, are not subject to a whole range of bulk data gathering.  I know that the perceptions I think among the public sometimes are that the United States has capacities similar to what you see on movies and in television.  The truth of the matter is, is that our focus is principally and primarily on how do we make sure that terrorists, those who want to proliferate weapons, transnational criminals are not able to engage in the activities that they’re engaging in.  And in that, we can only be successful if we’re partnering with friends like Germany.  We won’t succeed if we’re doing that on our own. 

So what I’ve pledged to Chancellor Merkel has been in addition to the reforms that we’ve already taken, in addition to saying that we are going to apply privacy standards to how we deal with non-U.S. persons as well as U.S. persons, in addition to the work that we’re doing to constrain the potential use of bulk data, we are committed to a U.S.-German cyber dialogue to close further the gaps that may exist in terms of how we operate, how German intelligence operates, to make sure that there is transparency and clarity about what we’re doing and what our goals and our intentions are. 

These are complicated issues and we’re not perfectly aligned yet, but we share the same values and we share the same concerns.  And this is something that is deeply important to me and I’m absolutely committed that by the time I leave this office, we’re going to have a stronger legal footing and international framework for how we are doing business in the intelligence sphere. 

I will say, though, that I don’t think that there is an inevitable contradiction between our security and safety and our privacy.  And the one thing that I’ve tried to share with Chancellor Merkel is that the United States historically has been concerned about privacy.  It’s embedded in our Constitution, and as the world’s oldest continuous constitutional democracy, I think we know a little bit about trying to protect people’s privacy. 

And we have a technology that is moving rapidly and we have a very challenging world that we have to deal with, and we’ve got to adjust our legal frameworks.  But she should not doubt, and the German people should not doubt, how seriously we take these issues.  And I believe that we’re going to be able to get them resolved to the satisfaction not just of our two countries but of people around the world. 

CHANCELLOR MERKEL:  (As interpreted.)  Under the present conditions, we have, after all, possibilities as regards differences of opinion to overcome those differences in the medium term and in the long term.  One possibility is to enter into such a cyber dialogue, which is very important because that gives us a forum to have somewhat longer discussions as to where we stand individually, what the technical possibilities but also ramifications of technological advances are.

Secondly, there are two strands of negotiations with the European Union -- on the one hand, the Safe Harbor agreement and then the data protection -- privacy protection accord.  And in the course of the negotiations, it will come out very clearly what differences of opinion there are, what different perspectives there are.  And I think it’s of prime importance for us to bring these negotiations forward, the process, but also bring it to a successful conclusion. 

And something else comes into play.  I heard this, this morning when I had a breakfast meeting with people who are very closely in contact with the parliaments.  They suggested to me that our parliaments, too, ought to have closer contacts on this.  And that’s very important not only for the governments to talk about these things, but also for the broader public.  And these could be three possibilities as to how to address this further and also understand each other’s motivations and arguments better.
 
Q    Mr. President, could you explain to us from your point of view why it’s not possible to agree on a no-spy agreement, which was, as we understood, proposed by the U.S. government last summit?  What kind of assurances could you give Chancellor Merkel with regard not only to ordinary German citizens, but to government members -- some of them sitting here -- that they are not under U.S. surveillance anymore?

(As interpreted.)  And, Chancellor, the question addressed to you -- when the French President was here a couple of weeks ago, after his talk with President Obama, he said that trust as regards to the NSA discussion has been rebuilt.  Can you say the same thing?

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  It’s not quite accurate to say that the U.S. government offered a no-spy agreement and then withdrew it.  I think that what is accurate to say is, is that we do not have a blanket no-spy agreement with any country, with any of our closest partners.  What we do have are a series of partnerships and procedures and processes that are built up between the various intelligence agencies. 

And what we are doing with the Germans -- as we’re doing with the French, as we do with the British, or the Canadians, or anybody -- is to work through what exactly the rules are governing the relationship between each country and make sure that there are no misunderstandings.  And I think that we have gone a long way in closing some of the gaps, but as Chancellor Merkel said, there are still some gaps that need to be worked through.

But I think what we can be confident about is that the basic approach that we take with Germany is similar to the approach that we take with all our allies and all our friends, and that during the course of the last several years as technology advanced, I think there was a danger in which traditional expectations tipped over because of new technologies.  And what we’ve tried to do is make sure that our policies now reflect increased capabilities and, as a consequence, increased dangers of intrusions in privacy. 

But let me put it this way:  Our interest in working effectively with the Germans and to making sure that German governments as well as the German people feel confident about what we do is as important to us as any other country.  Germany is at the top of our list in terms of friends and allies and colleagues, and so we’re not holding back from doing something with Germany that we somehow do with somebody else.

CHANCELLOR MERKEL:  (As interpreted.)  I think the whole debate has shown that the situation is such that we have a few difficulties yet to overcome.  So this is why there’s going to be this cyber dialogue between our two countries, and this is also why there needs to be and will have to be more than just business as usual.  I mean, looking at the discussion not only in the German parliament but also among members of the German government and also in the German public, we need to do that. 

But it’s very good that we have taken these first steps, and what’s still dividing us -- issues, for example, of proportionality and the like -- will be addressed.  We will work on this, and it’s going to be on the agenda for the next few weeks to come.

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Thank you very much, everybody.

END   
12:50 P.M. EDT

U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT CONTRACTS FOR MAY 2, 2014

FROM:  U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT 

CONTRACTS

NAVY

United Technologies Corp., Pratt & Whitney Military Engines, East Hartford, Connecticut, is being awarded a $105,170,571 fixed-price-incentive-fee advance acquisition contract to procure long-lead components, parts and materials in support of 34 low rate initial production Lot IX F-135 propulsions systems for the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter aircraft, including 26 F-135-PW-100 for the U.S. Air Force; six F-135-PW-600 for the U.S. Marine Corps; and two F-135-PW-100 for the U.S. Navy. In addition, this contract provides for the procurement of 13 F-135-PW-100 and 6 F135-PW-600 systems for international partners and foreign military sales customers. Work will be performed in East Hartford, Connecticut (67 percent); Indianapolis, Indiana (16.5 percent); and Bristol, United Kingdom (16.5 percent); and is expected to be completed in September 2017. Fiscal 2014 aircraft procurement, Air Force and Navy funds, as well as international partner and foreign military sales funds in the amount of $105,170,571 are being obligated on this award, none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was not competitively procured pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 2304(c)(1). This contract combines purchases for the U.S. Air Force ($32,259,578; 31 percent); the U.S. Navy ($27,321,004; 26 percent); international partners ($36,484,998; 35 percent) and international participants ($9,104,991; 8 percent). The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting activity (N00019-14-C-0004).

CACI Inc., Chantilly, Virginia (N00189-14-D-Z023), ECS Federal Inc., Fairfax, Virginia (N00189-14-D-Z024), and Centurum Information Technology Inc., Marlton, New Jersey (N00189-14-D-Z025), are being awarded cost-plus-fixed-fee, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contracts to provide comprehensive program management support for strategic planning, change management, business process re-engineering for personnel and pay processes, business architecture development and support services, functional data management and governance support, and functional data quality management for the Bureau of Naval Personnel-Navy Personnel and Pay Modernization effort. The total estimated value for the three contracts combined is $32,578,210. These three contractors shall compete for task orders under the terms and conditions of the awarded contracts. Work will be performed in Millington, Tennessee (77.7 percent); the Washington, District of Columbia area (17.8 percent); and New Orleans, Louisiana (4.5 percent) as task orders are determined. Work is expected to be completed by June 30, 2017. Fiscal 2014 operations and maintenance, Navy funds in the amount $500,001 will be obligated at the time of award and will not expire before the end of the current fiscal year. The requirement was competitively procured through full and open competition and solicited through the Federal Business Opportunities website, with five offers received in response to this solicitation. NAVSUP Fleet Logistics Center Norfolk, Contracting Department, Philadelphia Office, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, is the contracting activity.

Lockheed Martin Corp., Marietta, Georgia, is being awarded a $12,169,823 cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for the procurement of aircraft mission system modifications to install Royal Norwegian Air Force (RNoAF) spiral upgrades on two RNoAF P-3C aircraft under the Foreign Military Sales Program. Work will be performed in Greenville, South Carolina (61 percent) and Marietta, Georgia (39 percent), and is expected to be completed in October 2015. Foreign military sales funds in the amount of $12,169,823 are being obligated at time of award, none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was not competitively procured pursuant to FAR 6.302-4. The Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division, Lakehurst, New Jersey, is the contracting activity (N68335-14-C-0001).

BAE Systems Norfolk Ship Repair, Norfolk, Virginia, is being awarded an $11,344,264 modification to previously awarded contract (N00024-10-C-4308) for the USS Bulkeley (DDG 84) fiscal 2014 selected restricted availability. A selected restricted availability includes the planning and execution of depot-level maintenance, alterations, and modifications that will update and improve the ship's military and technical capabilities. Work will be performed in Norfolk, Virginia, and is expected to be completed by September 2014. Fiscal 2014 operations and maintenance, Navy contract funds in the amount of $11,344,264 will be obligated at time of award and will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. Norfolk Ship Support Activity, Norfolk, Virginia, is the administrative contracting activity.
Rockwell Collins Inc., Cedar Rapids, Iowa, is being awarded a $6,587,938 modification to a previously awarded firm-fixed-priced contract (N00019-09-C-0069) to exercise an option for the procurement of AN/ARC-210(V) electronic radios and ancillary equipment for a variety of aircraft. Equipment being procured includes (14) C-12561A/ARCs; (46) MT-6567/ARCs; (15) MT-7006/ARCs; (14) AM-7526/ARCs; (14) MX-11745/ARCs; (2) communication security reprogramming kits; (2) C-12561A reprogramming kits, and (66) RT-1990(C)/ARCs. Work will be performed in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, and is expected to be completed in December 2014. Fiscal 2014 aircraft procurement, Navy funds in the amount of $6,587,938 will be obligated at time of award, none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting activity.

AIR FORCE

Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., Marietta, Georgia, has been awarded a $91,857,024 firm-fixed-price contract modification (P00199) to FA8625-07-C-6471 for C-5 Reliability Enhancement and Re-engining Program (RERP). The contract modification is for incorporation of the C-5 RERP Lot 7 initial spares acquisition. Work will be performed at Marietta, Georgia, and is expected to be completed by July 29, 2016. Fiscal 2013 aircraft procurement funds in the amount of $91,857,024 are being obligated at time of award. Air Force Life Cycle Management Center/WLSK, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, is the contracting activity.

DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY

The Boeing Co., Saint Louis, Missouri, has been awarded a maximum $13,500,000 firm-fixed-price, undefinitized order (0001) against contract SPRPA1-14-D-002U. This order provides gap or transition coverage for national stock numbers items that are currently handled transactionally and will be transitioning to performance based items under the contract. This action will allow for the supply chain to remain intact during the transition, ensuring uninterrupted support to the customer. Location of performance is Missouri with a June 2014 performance completion date. Using services are Army, Navy, and Air Force. Type of appropriation is fiscal year 2014 defense working capital funds. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Aviation, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Rohrer Brothers,* Sacramento, California, has been awarded a maximum $7,759,504 modification (P00201) exercising the second option period on an eighteen-month base contract (SPM300-11-D-P089) with two eighteen-month option periods for fresh fruit and vegetable support. This is a fixed-price with economic-price-adjustment, indefinite-quantity contract. Location of performance is California with a Nov. 1, 2015 performance completion date. Using military services are Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Department of Agriculture school and reservation customers. Type of appropriation is fiscal year 2014 through fiscal year 2015 defense working capital funds. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

UPDATE: Vantage Vehicle International Inc.,* Corona, California, has been added as an awardee to the multiple award contract #SPM8EC-11-R-0005 announced June 2012.

ARMY

Raytheon Co., Andover, Massechusetts, was awarded a $10,051,025 cost-plus-fixed-fee, multi-year, foreign military sales contract with options for services, hardware, facilities, equipment, planning, management, technical, and logistical support to all test, failure analysis, quality, reliability, and maintenance support activities for the pre-Patriot Advanced Capability (PAC)-3 missile rounds conducted at the maintenance facility. Countries participating are Israel, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Korea, Taiwan, and the United Arab Emirates. Fiscal 2014 other procurement funds in the amount of $7,958,587, and Fiscal 2014 operations and maintenance Army funds in the amount of $2,092,438 were obligated at the time of the award. Estimated completion date is Jan 31, 2017. One bid was solicited and one received. Work will be performed in Andover, Burlington, and Chambersburg, Massachusetts; Nashua New Hampshire; and Germany. Army Contracting Command, Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, is the contracting activity (W31P4Q-14-C-0091).

Overhaul Support Services LLC., East Granby, Connecticut, was awarded a $7,469,306 firm-fixed-price contract for the Drag Brace Landing for the Blackhawk weapons system with a minimum quantity of 300 each and a maximum quantity of 1,224 each. Funding and work location will be determined with each order. Estimated completion date is April 23, 2019. Two bids were solicited with one received. Army Contracting Command, Redstone Arsenal, Alabama is the contracting activity (W58RGZ-14-D-0077).
*Small Business

SECRETARY KERRY'S PRESS AVAILABILITY REMARKS IN JUBA, SOUTH SUDAN

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 

Press Availability in South Sudan

Remarks

John Kerry

Secretary of State

Embassy Juba

Juba, South Sudan

May 2, 2014

---

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, good afternoon. I just completed an in-depth, very frank, and thorough discussion with President Kiir. And throughout the meeting, I think it’s fair to say that both of us spoke very candidly, very directly, and we got to the issues that I came here to discuss. Throughout the meeting, I made it clear to him that he needs to do everything in his power to end the violence, and also to begin a process of national dialogue, a process by which there is the beginning of discussions – real discussions – about a transition government that can bring peace to the country.

It’s fair to say that President Kiir was very open and very thoughtful and had thought even before this meeting about these issues, because we have talked about them on the phone in recent days, and because our special envoy and others have had conversations with him about it. So he committed very clearly his intention to do exactly that: take forceful steps in order to begin to move to end the violence and implement the cessation of hostilities agreement, and to begin to engage on a discussion with respect to a transition government.

I just spoke a few minutes ago to Prime Minister Hailemariam of Ethiopia to convey to him President Kiir’s willingness to travel to Addis Ababa in the near term, sometime early next week hopefully, in order to engage in a discussion with Prime Minister Hailemariam, and hopefully with Riek Machar, who had previously indicated to the prime minister a willingness to do so. And I hope to talk to him sometime later in the course of today to encourage him to do so.

This meeting of Riek Machar and President Kiir is critical to the ability to be able to really engage in a serious way as to how the cessation of hostilities agreement will now once and for all really be implemented, and how that can be augmented by the discussions regarding a transition government and meeting the needs of the people of Sudan. President Kiir and I have spoken about this many times over the course of the last months. We particularly spoke almost every day during the period from December 15^th through the Christmas period. In fact, I even talked to him on Christmas Day, and was particularly pleased today to be able to return to Juba in order to sit down and discuss these issues face to face.

I’ve told President Kiir that the choices that both he and the opposition face are stark and clear, and that the unspeakable human costs that we have seen over the course of the last months, and which could even grow if they fail to sit down, are unacceptable to the global community. Before the promise of South Sudan’s future is soaked in more blood, President Kiir and the opposition must work immediately for a cessation of hostilities, and to move towards an understanding about future governance of the country.

I might also say that we do not put any kind of equivalency into the relationship between the sitting president, constitutionally elected and duly elected by the people of the country, and a rebel force that is engaged in use of arms in order to seek political power or to provide a transition. Already, thousands of innocent people have been killed and more than a million people have been displaced. And it is possible – as we’ve seen the warnings, because people have not been able to plant their crops – that there could be major famine in the course of the months ahead if things don’t change.

Both sides are now reportedly recruiting child soldiers and there are appalling accounts of sexual violence in the conflict. The reports of Radio Bentiu broadcasting hate speech and encouraging ethnic killings are a deep concern to all of us. The United States could not be any clearer in its condemnation of the murder of the civilians in Bentiu or in Bor and all acts of violence, including those that use ethnicity or nationality as justification are simply abhorrent and unacceptable.

If both sides do not take steps in order to reduce or end the violence, they literally put their entire country in danger. And they will completely destroy what they are fighting to inherit.
The people of South Sudan – and I’m talking about all the people of South Sudan – all of them have suffered and sacrificed far too much to travel down this dangerous road that the country is on today. That is why both sides must take steps immediately to put an end to the violence and the cycle of brutal attacks against innocent people.

Both sides have to do more to facilitate the work of those people who are providing humanitarian assistance, whether from the UN or from the UN mission or any organization that is responding to increasingly dire needs of citizens. Both sides need to facilitate access for humanitarian workers, for goods, for cash in order to pay salaries, and they need to provide this access to South Sudan’s roads, to its waterways, including to opposition-held areas. And we talked about this very directly this morning with President Kiir and his cabinet members.
It is important that both sides also act to ensure the safety and the security of the humanitarian workers themselves, and both sides must stop dangerous verbal attacks on people who are bravely providing relief to the South Sudanese people. It’s unconscionable that people who have come here not with weapons but with assistance are being attacked by both sides, and nothing will do more to deter the international community and ultimately to wind up in an even worse confrontation in the country itself.

Both President Kiir and Riek Machar must honor the agreement that they made with one another to cease hostilities, and they need to remember as leaders their responsibilities to the people of the country. The fate of this nation, the future of its children must not be held the hostage of personal rivalry.

Yesterday in Addis I spoke with representatives from the African Union and South Sudan’s neighbors about how we can coordinate and restore peace and accountability. We support the AU’s Commission of Inquiry in South Sudan, and I met this morning with the leader of that commission and listened to their early reports of their work. And we support the IGAD’s monitoring and verification mechanisms. The United States is also prepared in short order to put sanctions in place against those who target innocent people, who wage a campaign of ethnic violence, or who disrupt the delivery of humanitarian assistance.

Even as we come here in this moment of conflict in an effort to try to find the road that has been obscured, I can’t help but remember – as I drove to meet with the president and as I came back here to our Embassy, having traveled here and been here a number of times – but particularly at the moment of self-determination for this country, it is important to remember what the people of South Sudan achieved for themselves recently. Through their efforts, through their commitment, through their patience, they helped to move this country to independence, to the creation of a nation, through peaceful, democratic, and prosperous future, and the opportunity to be able to try to achieve that. And they came together to create a new nation in that effort.
I remember walking in one community and watching people vote and talking to somebody who was standing out in the hot sun and who’d been there for hours. And I walked up to them and said, “Look, I hope you’re not going to get impatient. Don’t leave. You need to wait to vote.” And that person to me said, “Don’t worry” – I was then a senator – “Don’t worry, Senator, I’ve waited 50 years for this moment. I’m not going anywhere until I’ve voted.” The dedication that I saw, the commitment of people to try to create this nation deserves to be fully supported and the aspirations of those people deserve to be met by our efforts, all of us, to try to bring peace, and mostly by the leaders to fulfill the promise that made them leaders in the first place.

It is absolutely critical that to prevent that moment of historic promise from becoming a modern-day catastrophe, we all need to work harder to support the hopes of the people and to restore those hopes. We have to be steady in our commitment to the people of South Sudan. And I was encouraged yesterday in Addis Ababa by the unanimous commitment of the neighbors, of IGAD, of the foreign ministers I met with from Kenya, from Uganda, from Ethiopia, all of whom are committed and dedicated to helping to pull South Sudan back from this precipice and help to implement the cessation of hostilities agreement, and most importantly, help South Sudan to negotiate its way through this transition government that can restore the voice of the people in a way that can give confidence to the South Sudanese people, that their future is indeed being spoken for and that the best efforts are being made to meet it.

So with that, I’d be delighted to take any questions.

MS. PSAKI: The first question will be from Michael Gordon of The New York Times.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) you’ve described some of the political and military steps that you would like to see unfold – expect to see unfold in the next weeks. If neither side honors their commitments, how specifically do you plan to hold them accountable? And how long do you plan to wait before holding them accountable? There’s been some concern in the Congress and by groups like Oxfam that the United States has moved too slowly on this. And are you prepared to sanction the president and Riek Machar themselves?

And lastly, yesterday, you spoke publicly about your interest in deploying African troops to create a more robust peacekeeping force here. How many troops do you think should – will be deployed? When do you think this will happen? Will there be – will it be necessary to secure a new UN Security Council mandate to make this happen? Basically, how real is this? Thank you.

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, it’s real. Each of the countries I just listed are all committed. And I met yesterday with the foreign ministers who say they are absolutely prepared to move with troops from those countries almost immediately. But yes, we do need to secure an additional United Nations Security Council mandate. I believe that can be done quickly. I hope it can be done quickly. And it’s very, very important to begin to deploy those troops as rapidly as possible.

How rapidly? Hopefully within the next weeks, and we’re talking about an initial deployment of somewhere in the vicinity of 2,500 troops. Well, I think 5,500 have been talked about, and it may be that there are even – it may be that, depending on the situation, more may have to be contemplated. But for the moment, that’s the limit, that’s what’s being talked about.
With respect to the hopes on the – what was the first part? The --

QUESTION: How long do you plan to wait before (inaudible)?

SECRETARY KERRY: Oh, okay. Let me just say – you asked about the – sort of what might follow if people don’t implement these steps. And the answer, very, very directly, is the global community will then make moves in order to have accountability. There is a commission of inquiry already underway. I met this morning with the head of the commission of inquiry and listened to former Nigerian President Obasanjo’s observations about his initial start of that effort. We support that effort; the global community supports that effort. That will obviously be ongoing.

I think the single best way for leaders and people in positions of responsibility to avoid the worst consequences is to take steps now, the kind of steps that we heard promised this morning. We are not going to wait. However, there will be accountability in the days ahead where it is appropriate. And the United States is doing its due diligence with respect to the power the President already has with respect to the implementation of sanctions, and I think that could come very quickly in certain quarters where there is accountability and responsibility that is clear and delineated.

MS. PSAKI: The next question will be from Memoska Lesoba from Eye Radio.

QUESTION: You said that President --

SECRETARY KERRY: Can you hold it up real close?

QUESTION: You said President Salva Kiir has agreed to transitional government. What kind of a transitional government? Can you delve more into that? And I would want to know what kind of sanctions would be imposed if (inaudible) way of (inaudible) resolve the crisis, and what impact will it have.

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, with respect to the transition government, ultimately it is up to the people of South Sudan. And it is up to an inclusive process which brings the civil society to the table and reaches out to political opposition and to all of the different stakeholders in South Sudan to shape that. What is important is that President Kiir is prepared to engage in that process in a formal way, to reach out, to work with IGAD, to work with the community, in order to make certain that that process is real, it’s transparent, it’s accountable.

Now, how that unfolds will be part of the discussions that we hope will take place between Prime Minister Hailemariam as the mediator and two of the principle antagonists in this conflict, President Kiir representing government and Riek Machar. But there are other players, lots of them. As you know, 11 detainees have now been released. And each of those detainees has – have had voices and roles to play in the politics of South Sudan.

With respect to sanctions, we are – there are different kinds of sanctions, obviously – sanctions on assets, sanctions on visas, sanctions on wealth and travel and so forth. All of those options are available, among others. But in addition to that, with the commission of inquiry and other standards that are applied. There have been atrocities committed and people need to be held accountable for those kinds of atrocities. And there are methods by which the international committee undertakes to do that. So I think the real test is what happens in these next days, what kind of bona fide legitimate steps are taken by people to prove they want to move in a different direction. And that will be a significant guide as to what may or may not be pursued by members of the international community in the days ahead.
MS. PSAKI: The next question will be from Lara Jakes of AP.

QUESTION: Thank you. Just to clarify, in this transitional government, do you see a place for either President Kiir or Riek Machar to be holding office in the future for this country? And then also, as you head to Congo tomorrow, what are you looking to hear regarding the prosecution of troops who were given amnesty and then returned to M23? And is the United States satisfied with the deep mobilization plan for all armed troops in eastern Congo, including Hutu troops – I’m sorry, groups? And then one last one. Could you comment on the new charges against Gerry Adams? Thank you.

SECRETARY KERRY: I don’t have any comment on the charges issue. I’ve heard about it, I’m not familiar with all of the details of it. And he’s presented himself. He maintains his innocence. And we need to let the process in Northern Ireland work its way.

With respect to the Central African Republic – excuse me, the D.R.C. – we are hopeful that the terms that have been put in place, the Kampala Accords, are going to be implemented properly. But I’m going to wait to comment more fully on that until I meet up with Special Envoy Feingold, who will meet us there when we arrive there. And I think I would rather get the latest briefing up to date before I summarize it, because I may be outdated and I just would rather do that.

On the first part of your question --

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

SECRETARY KERRY: Whether or not they can be part of in the future – that’s not a decision for the United States of America to make or to comment on. That’s for South Sudanese to decide. It’s for the process to decide. I think that certainly people will judge carefully, I think, what happens in these next days, which could have a great deal to do with respect to future legitimacy of any player engaged in this, not just President Kiir or Riek Machar, but anybody who is engaged. If there is a legitimate, open, transparent, accountable, and real process by which people are listened to and people come together, then the people of South Sudan will have an opportunity to make that kind of decision and it won’t be necessary for us to comment on it.

If it doesn’t go in that direction, it may be that the United States and other interested parties who have helped so significantly to assist South Sudan in this journey to independence and nationhood, it may be that they will be then more inclined to speak out about what’s happened with leadership here or not, but at the moment I don’t think it’s appropriate to do that.

MS. PSAKI: The final question will be from Gabriel Shada from Radio Miraya.

QUESTION: Thank you. The background to the conflict in South Sudan refers to a disagreements, disgruntlements inside the SPLM ruling party on the modalities of election and selection of leaders. So reaching an agreement that does not resolve the SPLM leadership issues is like suspending the real issues, which means they will rise again in the nearest future. So how can the U.S. Administration help the SPLM sort out its problems.
Second question is about the U.S.A. promising a lot to help South Sudan in the past, and even now. But one of the promises was building the – an institutional capacity for South Sudan, and observers can see that institutional capacity in South Sudan is still very, very weak. What are the reasons for this failure, especially when building the capacity of the army and other institutions? Thank you.

SECRETARY KERRY: Very good questions. Very, very good questions. With respect to the first question, you’re absolutely correct: There are internal issues within the SPLM that need to be resolved. But it’s not up to the United States to resolve them. It’s up to the leaders and the members of the SPLM to do so, recognizing that their validity and credibility as a leading party to be the governing party of the country is at stake in how they do that.

And so it is – there’s already a process in place where they’re doing some meetings and evaluations, and will do that. What is important is that they recognize that the negotiations over a transitional government ultimately, in terms of what role they play or how that plays out, will depend to some measure on how they resolve those kinds of internal issues. And the credibility of the civil society, the credibility of the people of South Sudan, with respect to their leadership will depend, obviously, on their ability to do that.

So that’s part of the road ahead. And they know that work is in front of them. They understand that. They discussed it with us here today, and I’m confident that that’s very much in their minds as they think about the future structure of any kind of transition and future.

But it’s also related, I may say, to the second part of your question. Yes, the United States committed to do certain kinds of things, as did the international community. And for a certain period of time, many of those things were attempted to be done, but the truth is that there’s been a difficulty, as I think most people understand, in the governing process that gave people pause and made people stand back a little bit. And that’s been part of the problem. And that’s why this transitional government’s effort is so important, because it is the key to being able to open up the kind of direct help and input that would be then meaningful and not wasted and not lost. And it’s very important that there be a process in place where people have confidence that the way forward is clear and that assistance can be put to the use that it’s meant to be put to.
So I would say to you that that’s part of the reason why this transitioning effort is so critical, because it really is what can restore the legitimacy so that going forward all those people who care, and there are many who do – in Africa, in Europe, in America, elsewhere – would be able to hopefully help in the capacity building for the country. That’s really where all of South Sudan’s energy ought to be going, not into killing each other but into building a government that can serve the needs of the people. And our hope is that that is what can get restored out of this terrible conflict that has interrupted that path.

MS. PSAKI: Thank you, everyone.

SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you all. Appreciate it.

VA SECRETARY SHINSEKI'S REMARKS ON PHOENIX VA HEALTH CARE SYSTEM

FROM:  U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 
Statement by VA Secretary Shinseki on Allegations Regarding the Phoenix VA Health Care System

May 1, 2014

WASHINGTON – Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric K. Shinseki made the following statement on the allegations regarding the Phoenix VA Health Care System:

“We take these allegations very seriously. Based on the request of the independent VA Office of Inspector General, in view of the gravity of the allegations and in the interest of the Inspector General’s ability to conduct a thorough and timely review of the Phoenix VA Health Care System (PVAHCS), I have directed that PVAHCS Director Sharon Helman, PVAHCS Associate Director Lance Robinson, and a third PVAHCS employee be placed on administrative leave until further notice.
“Providing Veterans the quality care and benefits they have earned through their service is our only mission at the Department of Veterans Affairs. We care deeply for every Veteran we are privileged to serve.

“We believe it is important to allow an independent, objective review to proceed. These allegations, if true, are absolutely unacceptable and if the Inspector General’s investigation substantiates these claims, swift and appropriate action will be taken.

“Veterans deserve to have full faith in their VA health care. I appreciate the continued hard work and dedication of our employees and of the community stakeholders we work with every day in our service to Veterans.”

VA STATEMENT REGARDING PHOENIX VA HEALTH CARE SYSTEM

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) cares deeply for every Veteran we are privileged to serve, and we are committed to delivering the highest quality care.  We take any allegations about patient care or employee misconduct very seriously, which is why the Department invited the independent VA Office of the Inspector General (OIG) to complete a comprehensive review at the Phoenix VA Health Care System as quickly as possible. VA also sent a team of clinical experts to Phoenix to review appointment scheduling procedures at that facility and the existence of any delays in care.

VA believes it is important to allow the Inspector General’s independent, objective review to proceed.  We trust that the Inspector General will complete that comprehensive review as quickly as possible.  These allegations, if true, are absolutely unacceptable and if the Inspector General’s investigation substantiates these claims, VA will take swift and appropriate action.

Veterans deserve to have full faith in their VA health care.  VA facilities are committed to transparency and undergo multiple external, independent reviews every year to ensure its safety and quality.  We appreciate the continued hard work and dedication of our employees and of the community stakeholders we work with every day in our service to Veterans.

DEFENSE SECRETARY HAGEL CALLS NATO "AN ANCHOR OF SECURITY FOR THE WORLD"

 

FROM:  U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT 

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel receives the Atlantic Council's 2014 Distinguished International Leadership Award from Brent Scowcroft, chairman of the Atlantic Council International Advisory Board, during an awards ceremony and dinner at the Ritz Carlton Hotel in Washington, April 30, 2014. DOD photo by Glenn Fawcett. 

Hagel Emphasizes NATO’s Importance to World Security
By Claudette Roulo
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, May 1, 2014 – On a night in which the Atlantic Council honored Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, the secretary called NATO an anchor of security for the world.

After receiving the council’s Distinguished International Leadership Award here last night, Hagel said he's been privileged and fortunate to have lived at such a spectacular time in world history. While this time is not without its problems and new threats emerge daily, he said, the transatlantic alliance embodied by NATO has served as a bulwark for peace and security.

"I know of no anchor of security more important to keeping peace in the world since World War II than NATO," Hagel said.

NATO has been instrumental to averting problems like those that occurred in the first 50 years of the 20th century, the defense secretary said. "Problems? Yes. Still humanitarian disasters? Yes. Conflicts? Yes. But overall, it's been a pretty successful last 60 years because of this alliance."

And though all of the world's problems haven't yet been solved, he said, the nations of the world have built platforms, abilities and alliances to work together in common purpose to address these challenges together.

"And that, fundamentally, was the point of NATO: knitting together a strong transatlantic alliance after World War II," Hagel said.

Today's accelerated rate of change and shift is unprecedented in the history of man, the defense secretary noted. But, he said, the rapid pace of change demonstrates that the groundwork laid more than 60 years ago is paying dividends.

"Wasn't that the point behind all of this effort that our great leaders came to and agreed upon after World War II -- to, in fact, give people of the world opportunities, freedom? That is directly connected to security and continuity and stability," Hagel said.

And while that hard work is paying off, he said, it also brings new complications.
"Therein,” he said, “lies the essence of alliances -- alliances of common purpose. … We probably won't always agree on issues, but on the end result and the purpose of an alliance, the purpose of [governance], the purpose of organized society remains the same."

After World War II, the great leaders of the era came together to form a lasting alliance because the world had had enough war, Hagel noted. But after extended periods of conflict, nations tend to look inward, he cautioned, and now the world runs the risk of again becoming captive to that kind of inward thinking, the defense secretary said.

"I don't think we're there," he said, "but it's going to require continued focused strong, steady, wise [and] engaged leadership with the world, with each other. … This is not a time to retreat. This is not a time to pull back."
NATO and organizations like it allow nations to engage peacefully with each other, even when the world remains dangerous, Hagel said.

"If there was ever a time in history where we have the tools, where we have the capacity, where we have the institutions to engage and fix the problems, it is now," the defense secretary said.

TO ONLY FALL ASLEEP, NSF EXAMINES RESEARCH

FROM:  NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 

Finding a formula for zzzzzzzs

Math and a good night's sleep

We boast when our infant finally sleeps through the night. We bemoan the teenager who requires a cannon shot to arise from his bed before noon. And in our "golden" years, we wonder why sleep is so fleeting, yet napping seems to come as easily as breathing. Such are the mysteries of sleep.

And when we think of a way to understand sleep and wakefulness better, it's natural to think of biologists, behavioral scientists, neuroscientists and even mattress makers who for years have studied all kinds of animals and approaches to help us get a better night's sleep. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reports that 70 million Americans suffer from chronic sleep problems that range from insomnia and sleep apnea to narcolepsy, restless legs syndrome, and circadian rhythm disorders.

CDC's Sleep and Sleep Disorders Team, which evaluates the prevalence and impacts of sleep insufficiency and sleep disorders has said, "sleep deprivation is associated with injuries, chronic diseases, mental illnesses, poor quality of life..., increased health care costs and lost work productivity."

These days, researchers have found that in taking a collaborative approach to addressing sleep-related issues, mathematics needs to be part of the equation.

Janet Best, a National Science Foundation (NSF)-funded mathematician at The Ohio State University who is affiliated with the NSF-funded Mathematical Biosciences Institute there, has spent the past 10 years studying sleep-wake cycles using mathematical models.

"To understand sleep, we try to reformulate biological questions in terms of mathematics, typically systems of differential equations," she explained. "Sleep is both regular and random. It's regular in that we go to sleep generally at the same time of day. The randomness occurs in infants who seem to have no pattern to their sleep cycles and in the variability of when we might wake up during the night. I've been investigating how neural structures in the brain affect the random and regular transitions between sleep and wake."

By describing through equations the properties of neurons involved in sleep-wake brain circuitry, Best develops mathematical models for the way in which the neurons interact and influence each other. She checks model predictions against data that biologists have accumulated in studies involving both humans and rats. Surprisingly, baby rats' sleep patterns go through similar changes as those of human infants, but it is not clear how similar adult rat sleep is to human sleep.

"The idea is to see how people sleep normally, so we can understand when things go wrong," Best said. "Throughout the night we experience bouts of sleep and wakefulness. There's variability that we're aware of, but actually even more variability is occurring--we only recall longer wake episodes. However, both short and long episodes occur, and that's something I'm trying to understand. Experimentalists collect data on these wake-sleep bouts. Since the length of sleep and wake bouts and the transitions between them show some regular and some random behavior, the differential equations must have both of these facets."

Best became interested in sleep research as a doctoral student in mathematics after she had a bike accident. She suffered a serious head injury and began to experience simultaneous sleep and wakeful moments. In other words--not to be confused with daydreaming--she would experience dreams while being awake, and memories and dreams were being stored in a way that differentiating between the two was difficult. The medical literature of the time, however, said her experience was impossible.

"In 10 years, there have been a lot of changes in this field," she said. "Ten years ago, the emphasis was on regular patterns. Now the random aspects of sleep are getting more attention. Models are now based on the real underlying physiology."

That means that Best now spends a lot of time working with non-mathematicians. Beyond reading research papers by biologists and neuroscientists and using data from their experiments in her model, Best also works directly with sleep researchers who do experiments on rodents or who see patients clinically.

"You need a lot of interaction with biologists and medical scientists, and you have to have conversations with the people who generate the data," Best said. "If I relied just on reading the papers, I would not be able to understand all of the underlying hypotheses and the ways in which the data was collected, and that could significantly affect how I formulate the mathematical models."

Best's research benefits from the Mathematical Biosciences Institute at Ohio State, which hosts 12 workshops a year, drawing world-renowned bioscience experts and providing an important crossroads for biology and mathematics. Best, herself, collaborates with researchers both at Ohio State and at other institutions. In fact, she's currently on sabbatical at Duke University so she can work more closely with some of her collaborators there.

"The understanding of sleep-wake cycles can have enormous impact on developing a better knowledge of the dynamics of the brain and, in turn, how systems within an entire physiological organism interact and function," said Mary Ann Horn, an NSF Division of Mathematical Sciences program director. "Research that involves collaboration between mathematical and biological scientists gives rise to results for which not only does the biology inform the modeling and analysis, but also spurs new mathematical developments as novel techniques are developed to address these challenging questions."

"NSF support has been extremely important to my career," Best said. "It has allowed me to maintain a research group, support graduate students and devote myself 100 percent to my research during the times of year when my academic salary stops."

She believes the BRAIN Initiative, announced by the Obama Administration a little over a year ago, will also help advance this field of study, too.

"It's enormously difficult to figure out how the brain works," she said. "We're talking about 100 billion neurons, all this chemistry, hormones--so many variables. We have to infer how brains accomplish their tasks. And there are always multiple ways that a particular task can happen, so the challenge comes in teasing apart information, and in my case, building a good model that helps fill in the missing pieces."

Best and her collaborators are gradually doing just that when it comes to understanding sleep-wake cycles. Their findings indicate that the longer a "wake bout" during the night, the less likely it is that sleep will come along to interrupt it. And while one might think the same would be true for a "sleep bout," it doesn't appear to be. Sleep bouts seem to be equally prone to interruption at any moment. The mathematical models show how the structure of the neuronal network affects the timing of the sleep-wake bouts.

These findings may not sound particularly groundbreaking, but understanding interesting and unusual phenomena can give clues to the underlying sleep-wake mechanisms. Researchers investigate the mechanisms by transforming them into mathematical models and testing the models against data. If the models work well and provide a good understanding, then the researchers could potentially develop insomnia treatments, effective remedies for medical condition-induced sleep disorders, or strategies to reduce jet lag more quickly.

"There are a lot of data from sleep studies," Best said, "but data by itself does not give understanding. One must understand the underlying neural mechanisms. The sleep-wake field is growing very rapidly now, and this is providing new data for us to interpret and understand. The mathematical analysis and the comparison with new data should enable us to formulate a new understanding of how sleep-wake functions."

-- Ivy F. Kupec,
Investigators
Janet Best
Related Institutions/Organizations
Ohio State University
Mathematical Biosciences Institute

SEC CHARGES RETIREMENT PLAN ADMINISTRATOR WITH DEFRAUDING INVESTORS WITH IRA ACCOUNTS

FROM:  SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 

The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced fraud charges and an asset freeze against a Utah-based retirement plan administrator who defrauded investors in self-directed individual retirement accounts (IRAs), causing them to lose millions of dollars of savings.

The SEC alleges that American Pension Services Inc. (APS) and its founder, president and CEO Curtis L. DeYoung squandered more than $22 million of investor funds on high-risk investments.  DeYoung hid the losses by issuing inflated account statements, allowing him to continue collecting fees and further victimizing his customers.

“This misconduct jeopardized retirement security for thousands of APS customers,” said Karen L. Martinez, director of the SEC’s Salt Lake Regional Office.

According to the SEC’s complaint unsealed yesterday in federal court in Salt Lake City,  DeYoung’s scheme dates back to at least 2005 and targeted customers with retirement accounts holding non-traditional assets typically not available through traditional 401(k) retirement plans or other IRA custodians.  Although APS has no authority to direct customer trades, DeYoung allegedly used forged letters and signatures to invest on behalf of customers, including in promissory notes issued by a friend whose businesses never turned a profit.  DeYoung continued to recommend that APS customers invest in the notes, and he sent customer funds to the friend until at least April 2013 without disclosing to investors that the friend had defaulted on the notes in 2010 and DeYoung had forgiven the debt.

The SEC further alleges that investments in other bankrupt ventures, including an office building in Wichita, Kan., caused APS customers to lose more money.  APS concealed those losses and issued account statements that inflated the value of customer holdings, allowing APS to levy fees based on the full value of the holdings even when they were worthless.

According to the SEC’s complaint, when DeYoung was questioned by the SEC about a $22 million gap between actual holdings and those showing on account statements, he invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and refused to answer.

The Honorable Robert J. Shelby granted the SEC’s request for a temporary restraining order to freeze the assets of APS and DeYoung.  The court appointed Diane Thompson of Ballard Spahr LLP as the receiver in this case to recover investor assets.

HABTOM NERHAY EXTRADITED FROM ERITREA TO U.S. TO FACE CHARGES OF HUMAN SMUGGLING

FROM:  U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT 

Monday, April 28, 2014

Alleged Human Smuggler Extradited to Face Charges in Washington, D.C.

Habtom Merhay, a national of Eritrea and a citizen of the United Kingdom, made his initial appearance Monday in Washington, D.C., federal court to face human smuggling charges for his role in smuggling primarily Eritrean and Ethiopian undocumented migrants from Dubai, United Arab Emirates, through South and Central America and Mexico into the United States.

Acting Assistant Attorney General David A. O’Neil of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, U.S. Attorney Ronald C. Machen Jr. of the District of Columbia and Acting Special Agent in Charge Katrina W. Berger of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) made the announcement.

Merhay, 47, arrived in the United States on April 25, 2014, and made his initial appearance today before U.S. Magistrate Judge Deborah A. Robinson in the District of Columbia.   He was indicted under seal in the District of Columbia in 2012, and the charges were unsealed today.   Merhay has been in the custody of Moroccan authorities pending extradition since his arrest in Marrakech, Morocco, in August 2013.

The indictment charges Merhay with one count of conspiracy to bring undocumented migrants to the United States for profit and 15 counts of unlawfully bringing an undocumented migrant to the United States for profit.   Court documents allege that Merhay operated with a network of smugglers in Africa, the United Arab Emirates, South and Central America, Mexico and elsewhere to coordinate and implement arrangements, including providing fraudulent identity and travel documents, for undocumented migrants to travel through Latin America and ultimately into the United States without authorization.   For up to $15,000, Merhay arranged for individual undocumented migrants to travel from points in Africa to a house or apartment in Dubai, where he provided travel documents, tickets and instructions for meeting other smugglers while on the way to the United States.   Merhay coordinated the migrants’ air travel to South America, where they would meet with Merhay’s associates, who would direct or guide them across the various country borders.   The undocumented migrants then met with other smugglers associated with Merhay and were further guided north to Mexico and then into the United States, sometimes by crossing the Rio Grande River by raft.

The investigation was conducted under the Extraterritorial Criminal Travel Strike Force (ECT) program, a joint partnership between the Justice Department’s Criminal Division and ICE-HSI.  The ECT program focuses on human smuggling networks that may present particular national security or public safety risks or present grave humanitarian concerns.  ECT has dedicated investigative, intelligence and prosecutorial resources.  ECT coordinates and receives assistance from other U.S. government agencies and foreign law enforcement authorities.

The investigation was conducted by HSI Washington.  This case is being prosecuted by Trial Attorney Jay Bauer of the Criminal Division’s Human Rights and Special Prosecutions Section and Assistant U.S. Attorney Frederick Yette of the District of Columbia.  The extradition was handled by Dan E. Stigall of the Criminal Division’s Office of International Affairs.

The Department of Justice and HSI expressed their appreciation for the significant assistance provided by the Moroccan Ministry of Justice.

The charges contained in the indictment are merely accusations, and the defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.