U.S. Science Envoy Gebisa Ejeta Travels to Ethiopia and Tanzania

Office of the Spokesperson

Washington, DC

February 13, 2012

On his second Envoy trip, U.S. Science Envoy Dr. Gebisa Ejeta will travel to Ethiopia and Tanzania February 13-24, 2012, where he will meet with senior government officials and representatives from the scientific, education, nonprofit, and business communities. Dr. Ejeta will discuss cooperation on sustainable development, innovation, and university partnerships.

President Obama announced the Science Envoy Program in Cairo on June 4, 2009. Since the program’s inception, six of America’s finest scientists have traveled to 17 countries on behalf of the United States Government to promote international partnerships through scientific collaboration. Dr. Ejeta was named a Science Envoy in September 2010 along with Dr. Rita Colwell and Dr. Alice Gast. In 2011, Dr. Ejeta traveled to South Africa.

Dr. Ejeta was chosen for his technical expertise and renown as an acclaimed plant breeder and geneticist. He is the Distinguished Professor of Plant Breeding and Genetics and International Agriculture at Purdue University. Among his many awards, he was the recipient of the 2009 World Food Prize and a national medal of honor from the President of Ethiopia. Dr. Ejeta was recently designated a Special Advisor to USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah and is a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Assistant Secretary of State Kerri-Ann Jones to Travel to Ethiopia, Tanzania, and Kenya

Washington, DC

February 13, 2012

Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs Dr. Kerri-Ann Jones will travel to Ethiopia, Tanzania, and Kenya February 13 - 22.

In Ethiopia, Dr. Jones will meet with Ethiopian Government officials, members of the Ethiopian Academy of Sciences, and others in the Ethiopian science community, including from the Natural Sciences Faculty of Addis Ababa University. As part of her visit, she will meet with members of the US-Ethiopian Business Forum. In addition, Dr. Jones will visit a clean cook-stove project site associated with the Global Alliance for Clean Cook Stoves (of which the U.S. Government is a founding member) and a new electronic waste recycling facility that receives USG support.

In Tanzania, Dr. Jones will discuss education, health, and the economic development aspects of conservation and sustainable tourism. She will visit community projects, meet with NGOs, and hold a roundtable with university students studying the natural sciences.

In Kenya, Dr. Jones will act as the United States’ Ministerial representative to the 12^th Special Session of the Governing Council and Global Ministerial Environment Forum of the UN Environment Program. The Forum, taking place in Nairobi from Feb 20 – 22, will engage in interactive discussions under the overall theme of “the environmental agenda in the changing world.” It will focus on three topics: implications of the 5^th Global Environment Outlook Report, the Green Economy, and the institutional framework for sustainable development.

Victoria Nuland

Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC

• DEPARTMENT
  • Conference Call on Right-Sizing Mission in Iraq
  • Sen. Graham to Brief Secretary Clinton on Africa Trip
• CHINA
  • Vice Mayor Wang Lijun Meeting at Chengdu Consulate
• SYRIA
  • Violent Situation Continues / Alarming Reports across Country
  • Humanitarian Support / Friends of a Democratic Syria / Sanctions / Arab League Plan
  • Turkish FM Davutoglu to U.S. Next Week
• EGYPT
  • Charges against NGOs / Reviewing Formal Charging Document
  • Americans at U.S. Embassy
  • Impact on U.S. and Egypt Relations Including U.S. Assistance
• INDIA
  • Indian Foreign Secretary Mathai Meetings at Department / Range of Topics
• UGANDA
  • Anti-Homosexuality Bill / Continue to Raise Concerns
• IRAN
  • Sanctions / Help Partners Reduce Dependence on Iranian Oil
  • Amcit Hekmati / No Consular Access
• MALDIVES
  • Urge Government and Parties to Resolve Situation Peacefully
  • Embassy Colombo Personnel and A/S Blake Travel to Maldives / Talking with all Parties
• JAPAN
  • New Defense Posture / Okinawa
• PAKISTAN
  • Unchanged Position on Balochistan
• DRC/UGANDA
  • Working to Improve Credibility of DRC Elections / Great Lakes Contact Group
  • Support to Uganda, DRC and other States Grappling with Lord's Resistance Army
• ANGOLA
  • Status of Privacy Waiver for Americans Unable to Leave

12:56 p.m. EST

MS. NULAND: Happy Wednesday, everyone. I have nothing at the top, so let’s go to what’s on your minds.

QUESTION: I don’t have anything worthy of starting the briefing with, so --

MS. NULAND: Excellent. Oh, I do have one thing, sorry, which is to advise you, given the amount of interest in the process that Deputy Secretary Nides is running with regard to rightsizing our mission in Iraq, we are expecting at about 2:30 today to have an on-the-record phone call for folks who are interested. I don’t know at this moment who that’s going to be with, but it will be somebody senior. Okay?

QUESTION: Well, wait. On that – so what is it – the purpose of this call is to do what? I mean --

MS. NULAND: Well, I mean, obviously he’ll build on what we said here yesterday, but just to put this in perspective, because we’ve had some funky reporting – let’s put it that way – on what this is and isn’t about.

QUESTION: Can you explain what that – what you mean by that?

MS. NULAND: There’s been reporting that this is a decision based on foreign policy concerns. There have been wild guesstimates in the press about what we’re doing here, so --

QUESTION: You’re referring to one specific reporter. You’re not --

MS. NULAND: Oh, there have been a couple of funky pieces. Yeah.

QUESTION: Well, but all based on that first report. Correct?

MS. NULAND: Correct.

QUESTION: So is it still the case as it was yesterday that you are not considering cutting – slashing the Embassy personnel by half?

MS. NULAND: We are not considering slashing diplomatic personnel by half. The degree to which there may be a reduction in the diplomatic personnel, it’ll be modest. What we are looking at here is what we call the tail. If you think about in military terms, tooth to tail, we’re talking about the contractor support for the mission.

But again, that’s why we’re having a conference call this afternoon to set this right for those of you who still want to pursue this story.

QUESTION: Was that the – I know that Deputy Secretary Nides did a video conference with Embassy Baghdad this morning. Was that the subject of that conversation as well? Was he attempting to reassure them that they were not about to be slashed?

MS. NULAND: No. (Laughter.) I think, as I understand it, that was part of this whole exercise. He was introducing this exercise to them and talking through with them how it would proceed over the next couple of weeks.

QUESTION: I mean, given that this all seems to have been precipitated by the report that we’re sort of vaguely referring to here, is there a sense in the Department that this has been rushed – that you’re being rushed to show your hand on these plans that you weren’t planning to do this? But with that report now out, you’re being forced to sort of explain what the plan is. Is there a timeline problem here?

MS. NULAND: No. I think that the issue here is that we’re engaged in an exercise to figure out what the right size now for this mission is. And generally, when you’re involved in a process, you don’t want to have a big disclosing of it until you’ve come to the conclusions. You guys were asking all kinds of questions yesterday about the conclusions, and the point is we’re at the beginning of this next phase of rightsizing the mission.

QUESTION: Did the subject of lettuce shipments and chicken wing rationing come up in the conference call this morning?

MS. NULAND: I do not know the answer to that, Matt.

All right.

QUESTION: I’ve got one on another subject --

MS. NULAND: Please, yes.

QUESTION: -- specifically these reports coming out of China that a deputy mayor of Chongqing had sought refuge at the consulate in Chengdu and that there had been an unexpected increase in security personnel around the consulate for a while. What can you tell us about any of this?

MS. NULAND: Well, I think you’re referring to reports about the vice mayor of Chongqing – right – City. So his name is Wang Lijun. Wang Lijun did request a meeting at the U.S. Consulate General in Chengdu earlier this week in his capacity as vice mayor. The meeting was scheduled, our folks met with him, he did visit the consulate and he later left the consulate of his own volition. So – and obviously, we don’t talk about issues having to do with refugee status, asylum, et cetera.

QUESTION: Okay. But – so can you tell us exactly when that meeting took place?

MS. NULAND: I believe – we’re here on Wednesday – I believe it was Monday, but if that is not right, we will get back to you.

QUESTION: Do you have any information about what – have you had any subsequent contact with him? Because there’s some questions about his whereabouts.

MS. NULAND: Yeah. To my knowledge, we have not.

QUESTION: And aside from any possible thing that you couldn’t talk about on asylum can you tell us what he did talk about there? What was the purpose of this meeting?

MS. NULAND: Frankly, I don’t have anything at the moment on the substance of the meeting.

QUESTION: Can you say why you said he used – why you used the term, “he left the consulate of his – on his own volition”?

MS. NULAND: Well again, there has been some reporting to indicate that that might not have been the case, but it was the case.

QUESTION: Okay. The reporting being that he had been forced to leave or that had been dragged out, or --

MS. NULAND: There’s been unusual reporting about all of this. So just to reaffirm for you, that he walked out, it was his choice.

Okay. Jill.

QUESTION: Can we talk about --

QUESTION: Other subject?

MS. NULAND: Yeah. Please.

QUESTION: Syria?

QUESTION: Sure.

QUESTION: We’re all looking at these pictures once again every day. The U.S. is talking about some ideas to provide some type of humanitarian assistance. Can you – I know it’s early days, but can you give any idea of what the United States, or with other people of the international community, could do to provide some type of humanitarian help and what kind?

MS. NULAND: Well, first, Jill, just to confirm what you are seeing with your own reporting, we continue to have extremely alarming reports from our contacts in Syria about heavy artillery shelling on Zabadani continuing for the fourth day, no power, no water, no phones, no internet in the city, reports of some 20 houses destroyed by regime forces, five killed, 35 injured. We also have reports of regime-led bombing campaigns in Homs for the fifth day. Tanks, rockets, mortars being used to subdue the resistance and to subdue activists claiming more than 50 lives just in the last couple of days.

We also have reports from activists of heavy gunfire in Douma. And we have peaceful protests continuing across Syria, including in Aleppo, in Dara’a, in Deir Ezzor, and Hama and Idlib, and some of the suburbs of Damascus. So a very tense, dangerous, violent situation continuing in Syria in the wake of the double veto at the UN Security Council.

So as we discussed yesterday, in the context of needing to pursue our support for a democratic Syria outside the Security Council, we are looking, along with our allies and partners who care about the Syrian people, at a friends of a democratic Syria group. We are, frankly, consulting with individual countries now about what that group – when it might be able to meet, what it might be able to do, but certainly one of the issues that we would like to see this group take up is the issue of humanitarian support for the people of Syria. We on the U.S. side have already been looking at what we can do to prepare ourselves on both the financial and the legal side so that we’re ready to provide humanitarian aid such as food and medicine.

But we’re going to have to work with our international partners. We’re going to have to work with neighboring states to identify coordinators on the ground who could assist in receiving this aid and in distributing it. And so we’re going to need to get this group up and running in order to do that, but these are the kinds of things that we are thinking about and working on, preparatory to the group having its first meeting, which we hope will be soon.

QUESTION: So in order words, the idea would be that the international community provides some type of help and – but does not go in itself, would provide it to these organizations or somebody on the ground that would then disburse it?

MS. NULAND: Again, these are the issues that we have to work through as we evaluate the situation and as we evaluate what we can all do.

QUESTION: And is there any attempt to talk with the Syrian Government about this on a purely humanitarian basis?

MS. NULAND: Well, all of us have been talking to the Syrian Government about the need to provide for their people in a humanitarian way. And a number of the countries that might be interested in participating in this group have been talking to the Syrian officials about the importance of being able to let international assistance in. To date, the Syrian Government’s not been terribly interested in that, but we have to continue to work this through.

The other thing that this group would do, obviously, as we talked about, is look at what we can each do nationally and regionally to tighten the sanctions. We’re talking about ensuring that sanctions that countries already have on the books are implemented to the fullest. And I think you’ve seen in some of the statements from the European Union today that they are looking at increasing the sanctions. We have Arab League sanctions that have been approved, but they need to make decisions about when and how they will implement those. So this is another thing that we can do with this group is to coordinate the sanctions efforts so that we drain the funding that the Assad regime can use to exact violence and brutality against its own people.

QUESTION: And just one last one. With the Russians and with Lavrov, has the Secretary had a chance to get any personal feedback on how it went?

MS. NULAND: She has not. He has not called her yet.

QUESTION: So are you expecting that he would call her; you would not call him?

MS. NULAND: Our expectation is if he is interested in giving her a report that we’ll hear from them when he’s ready.

Yeah.

QUESTION: The Turks have called for an international conference on Syria. Does that dovetail well with your plans to get the Friends of Syria together? Is that part and parcel of that?

MS. NULAND: This is part and parcel of the same idea. I think you see many countries speaking in sort of harmony now about all of us who want to help a democratic Syria working together. So again, the precise form that this is going to take, the precise timing, the precise mandate, is still being worked out with individual nations. As you know, we’re going to see Foreign Minister Davutoglu pretty soon here, and so we’ll have a chance to talk to him about the Turkish Government’s latest ideas. The Secretary did speak to him a little bit when we were in Munich, but we’ll have a longer airing of views next week.

QUESTION: So you like the idea of an international conference to get it going?

MS. NULAND: Well, I’m not going to speak to exactly whether we’d call it a conference, whether we’d call it a meeting, whether we – how this group actually mounts. I think that’s still to be worked out.

QUESTION: When is she meeting Davutoglu?

MS. NULAND: It’ll be early next week. We haven’t quite put it out on the schedule, but it’ll be early next week.

QUESTION: All right. Can I ask just a couple things? You seem to link the violence that’s going on today, this list that you read out, with the double veto in the Security Council. Is it the Administration’s belief that the double veto is responsible for this uptick in violence, or do you not think that it would have happened anyway?

MS. NULAND: Well, as you know, we have seen violence all the way through for these 11 months.

QUESTION: Right.

MS. NULAND: We’ve seen – we saw a horrible uptick beginning at the end of last week and through the weekend. The point was simply to say that we have a number of countries saying that in their contacts with Assad he’s ready to stop the violence, but we certainly haven’t seen that on the ground. The violence continues unabated and very strenuously.

QUESTION: So you’re not blaming the Russians and the Chinese for this? I mean, obviously it’s the regime that’s doing it, but you’re not meaning to say that the double veto gave the green light for Assad to step up the repression?

MS. NULAND: I think we saw a step-up even before the UN Security Council vote and throughout the weekend.

QUESTION: Okay. And then in terms of the Friends of Syria, do you think it would be appropriate for either Russia or China to be members of this club that you’re starting?

MS. NULAND: Again, I’m not going to speculate on how this thing is going to come together. But we are talking about friends of a democratic Syria in support of the Arab League plan, the exact plan that was on the table in New York, which Russia and China chose to veto.

QUESTION: So you don’t think that they would be – they would meet the membership criteria?

MS. NULAND: I’m not going to speak about membership criteria or eligibility at the moment. But I think you know that we have not been in the same place on what is to be done.

QUESTION: Right. Okay. And then the last one is when you talk about supplying or considering giving humanitarian assistance, food and medicine, I realize that there’s a lot to be decided on how that will be done, but there must be some options for delivery that you’re looking at and considering now, because you can’t just dump the stuff in the ocean and let it float ashore or have it move by osmosis from Turkey or something like that. What are – I mean, this is only done in extreme cases, but there have been airdrops of assistance to people. What are the options that you have to get humanitarian relief into besieged areas of Syria?

MS. NULAND: Well, there are a number of options. As you know, all of you who have watched humanitarian relief in many parts of the world, there are always land, sea, and air options. Frankly, we are not at the stage of ventilating options. We are talking to various partners in preparation for the forming of this friends group. So stay tuned. We’re not at the point where we can get into things.

QUESTION: But most places that get this kind of assistance, you’re – they’re doing it with – the government has requested it and wants it, and one presumes that in this case the Assad regime isn’t interested in having humanitarian supplies delivered to its opponents or people who it thinks are its opponents. So is there a mechanism to forcibly deliver aid to --

MS. NULAND: Well, I appreciate, Matt, that --

QUESTION: -- on hostile – I mean, in a hostile area?

MS. NULAND: Well, I appreciate, Matt, that you are trying to get us to define this mission before we’ve had a chance to talk to all of our partners, but we’re going to need to do that.

QUESTION: Well, I just think it’s a bit unusual to be talking about considering – we’re considering giving them humanitarian aid, if you don’t have any ideas about how you’re going to deliver it.

MS. NULAND: There are plenty of ideas, but not for ventilating until we get a chance to talk to our partners.

QUESTION: Just to clarify – sorry – about this humanitarian --

QUESTION: Toria --

MS. NULAND: Yeah. Please, Nicole. Let’s let Nicole – Nicole.

QUESTION: Yes.

MS. NULAND: Because she’s a very gentle person, and if we don’t help her, all of you run over her. Go ahead, Nicole.

QUESTION: I do want to start a new topic though, so --

MS. NULAND: Okay. So if it’s still Syria, go ahead.

QUESTION: Just to clarify, the humanitarian aid is on the table, as I understood. The humanitarian corridor is on the table about this delivery of humanitarian aid to --

MS. NULAND: Again, we’re not prepared to speak about what the delivery options might be. We have quite a bit of work to do with other governments, so I’m not going to speculate. But there are places all around the world where humanitarian aid is delivered through various means, including in places where it’s difficult to do that. So before we have a chance to do this work with our allies and partners, I’m not going to speculate on how it’s going to work.

QUESTION: Are you able to tell us whether or not the Pentagon is part of this conversation on the U.S. side?

MS. NULAND: We often have asked the Pentagon to use its assets in certain circumstances, both consensual circumstances and more difficult circumstances, but I really don’t want to speculate on exactly how this might be moved. But as we’ve said repeatedly, we are not looking for military options, if that’s what you’re getting at, in Syria.

QUESTION: Sorry, last question: About the new platform that Turkish foreign minister has suggested, are you concerned about the change in the Arab League next month, in the (inaudible) of Arab League, and this kind of platform will substitute an Arab League in taking initiative about Syria?

MS. NULAND: We have been working very strongly, hand in glove, with the Arab League. Not only the United States, but all kinds of partners around the world have been supporting Arab League leadership and consulting very, very closely with them. So we’re not, by any means, looking to replace that. We’re looking to have the Arab League very much be a player in this larger friends of a democratic Syria group.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Just one last thing, it’s more a technical thing: Friends of democratic Syria in support of the Arab League plan which envisions Assad stepping aside, it’s that original plan?

MS. NULAND: Well, again, we are in the process of defining how this group will define itself, who will be part of it, exactly what it will do. I think you know that the bulk of the participants that one would consider having in this group are strong supporters of the Arab League plan, including all of its elements for a transition, which envisions Assad handing over to the deputy so that we can have a dialogue.

Okay. Please, in the back.

QUESTION: Pakistan.

MS. NULAND: Pakistan. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Oh, wait.

MS. NULAND: I’m sorry.

QUESTION: Well, how about Nicole?

MS. NULAND: I’m sorry, let’s go to Nicole, on her next subject.

QUESTION: Please.

QUESTION: Thank you. I wanted to know if the State Department has any formal response to your Egyptian NGO workers being charged, and also how this changes the legal status of those workers who are on the Embassy grounds.

MS. NULAND: Well, as you know, we now have a formal charging document. The document itself is more than a hundred pages. So we are now in the process of reviewing this report and working to fully understand its implications, as are the legal teams for the various affected Americans, the various affected internationals, and the various affected Egyptians. So we need some time, frankly, to understand what the implications of this are, exactly who is expected to do what now in the Egyptian judicial system, and we are not at a point where we fully understand the implications. So I’m going to ask you all for some time.

That said, our view remains that this is not fundamentally a judicial issue. This is an issue between the two governments, between the two executives, about the appropriate role – and frankly, between the Egyptian executive and other countries around the world – about the appropriate role that foreign NGOs, and frankly, that Egyptian NGOs should play in supporting a democracy, and in ensuring that the environment for their operation is clear, is well understood, and that we have an agreement among us.

So we are continuing to work with Egyptians across the spectrum to get this solved, because that’s the most important thing.

QUESTION: Could you speak to the issue of the legal status of the people on the Embassy compound now?

MS. NULAND: Well, again, as we said, and as we’ve been saying for a number of days, we have offered to those Americans who were reported to be – expected to be charged and who were on the no-fly list the opportunity to stay as the guests of Ambassador Patterson on the Embassy compound. That is still the – our understanding of their status today as we work through what the implications for each of those individuals might be in this 100-175 page document, and frankly, that’s not clear at the moment.

QUESTION: And how was that document handed over?

MS. NULAND: I don’t know the answer to that, Jill, whether the Embassy got a copy directly from the Egyptians or whether this came to the lawyers or the organizations that are affected.

QUESTION: Could you say how many --

QUESTION: It comes from their judicial system, it comes from the court?

MS. NULAND: That’s my understanding, yeah.

QUESTION: Already, several Republican senators, including John McCain, Joseph Lieberman, Kelly Ayotte, are really pushing on this issue and suggesting very strongly that the approximately $1.5 billion in mostly military aid to the Egyptian Government may well need to be held back because of what’s happened with these workers today. What does the Administration have to say about that? Is this then, in turn, a message to the Egyptian Government, we told you this could happen?

MS. NULAND: Well, Ros, as we have said for more than a week now, as the Secretary said in Munich very clearly, and as the White House has also said – my colleague Jay Carney just yesterday – we have been saying to the Egyptian authorities that we are concerned that this could have implications for the whole relationship, including our ability to deliver the assistance that we have planned for Egyptian – to support Egypt in its democratic transition and the traditional assistance that we provide for security purposes. We do not want that to happen. That is why we want to get this solved and why we continue to work it very, very hard at all levels.

QUESTION: Let me correct myself, and thanks to Matt. Senator Lieberman is an Independent, not a Republican.

MS. NULAND: I’m glad I’m not the only one corrected by Matt in this room. That’s good.

QUESTION: (Laughter.) But to follow on, they’re also suggesting that not only is this perhaps an opportunity to rethink the granting of the aid, but they’re also very concerned about what this means for U.S. strategic interests in the region. Can you speak to that?

MS. NULAND: Well, look, we obviously share the concern about the impact this could have on our larger relationship. This is the message that we are giving to Egyptian authorities. So we want to work through this, we want to solve it, and we want to move on to the very, very important business of our being able to support the aspirations of the Egyptian people to live in a more democratic, more prosperous, stable state.

QUESTION: Toria, could you just elaborate on why you don’t think it’s a judicial issue, given that the Egyptians are – have laid out laws that these people have allegedly broken? How is it not a judicial issue?

QUESTION: Tax evasion, interfering in political activity, not being properly registered.

MS. NULAND: Well, as we have been saying also for days and days and days, it is our view that these people have not done anything wrong, that they have been endeavoring to demonstrate that by cooperating with judicial authorities on the tax side in terms of being transparent about their records, in terms of asking for clear ability to register for – even in the Mubarak times, we wanted to have these groups registered and they have been denied registration. So from that perspective, there is something more going on here than a purely judicial process. We have to – the extent that this – this is a dispute, obviously, about the appropriate role for U.S. assistance in today’s Egypt, and we believe that a dispute like that can really only be addressed government-to-government. We’ve been asking to resolve it government-to-government, and we are just not getting the traction that we need for a long-term settlement of these issues. This is how we work with governments around the world, that the rules of the road are clear so that our people who want to support democratic transitions can do so in a way that is understandable, and that’s not where we are right now.

QUESTION: Sorry, just a detail. I’m wondering if – do you have detail on how many people are covered by this charging document and whether or not it includes both the Americans – all of the Americans and the Egyptians or how it breaks down?

MS. NULAND: Well, that’s part of the problem. That’s why I’m not opining in detail here. We got this 175-page document about three hours ago in Arabic. We’re working our way through it to understand who is implicated and in what and what the expectations are. And as you know, the original intent to charge information that we had indicated that some Americans in Egypt, but also a big number of Americans who weren’t in Egypt, some who haven’t been in Egypt for years, would be charged along with internationals, along with Egyptian NGOs who we partner with. So we need to work our way through this.

QUESTION: Can I just – I want to make – clarify. When first referred to it, you said more than 100 pages. Then you said 175 pages. 175 is quite a bit more than 100. So I just – is it 175 pages or give or take?

MS. NULAND: I heard initially this morning that it was 175 pages. My official cleared guidance says 100-plus, so I can’t give you the exact number. Let us endeavor to get that for you, Matt.

QUESTION: Well --

MS. NULAND: But it’s a serious document that has to be --

QUESTION: But if it’s 175, you could say close – nearly 200 pages, right?

MS. NULAND: I could. I could.

QUESTION: And it is in Arabic?

MS. NULAND: Yes.

QUESTION: And there’s no – they didn’t offer you an English translation --

MS. NULAND: They did not.

QUESTION: The – so you’re saying that you don’t even know if this charging document actually charges the people. Is that what you’re saying?

MS. NULAND: We have not – as of the time that I came downstairs, we were still working through it, both as a translation issue and as a legal manner, to understand exactly what is expected in this charging document of individual Americans.

QUESTION: Well, apart from the document, did they – have the Egyptians asked that the Americans who are in the – at the Embassy be handed over, or have they been asked to turn themselves in?

MS. NULAND: Well, again –

QUESTION: That you’re aware of, outside of the charging document?

MS. NULAND: -- outside of the document that we’re still working our way through, to my knowledge, no.

QUESTION: Okay. So --

MS. NULAND: Now that doesn’t preclude the fact that there are instructions in this thing that we haven’t been able to determine.

QUESTION: Right. Okay.

MS. NULAND: Okay.

QUESTION: And in terms of their being at the Embassy as guests of Ambassador Patterson, now that this document is out, are they legally compelled just in a general sense to actually make themselves available, or is the U.S. Government advising any American working for IRI or NDI that they should come to the Embassy until their status can be clarified?

MS. NULAND: Again, we don’t know what this charging document actually requires, which is why I’m not speaking to it today. As I said at the beginning, as of a couple of days ago, when we had this list of folks who we thought would be charged and we had the no-fly list, anybody who was on both lists was invited to come be a guest of Ambassador Patterson. Again, we don’t know where we are right now --

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. NULAND: -- and nor do these individuals is my understanding until we get a chance to work through this.

QUESTION: Toria, you were going to look into the number of people that are working with Linda Jacobson on this.

MS. NULAND: I was, and if we didn’t get back to you on that, I am sorry. Let us take that again and get back on that. Thanks.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Change of subject?

MS. NULAND: Yes. Let’s go to Pakistan.

QUESTION: No, India.

MS. NULAND: India. Okay.

QUESTION: Do you have details of the meetings that this building had with the visiting Indian Foreign Secretary Ranjan Mathai, yesterday?

MS. NULAND: I do, if I can find it. Here we are. Okay. Let me look somewhere else. All right. If I don’t have it readily available, I will get it for you right afterwards. Here we are. Okay.

So yesterday we were pleased to host Indian Foreign Secretary Mathai. He was here for a full day of extremely comprehensive talks. As I mentioned, the Secretary dropped by on Deputy Secretary Burns’ meetings with him. He also had more than four hours in an interagency session led by Under Secretary of State Wendy Sherman. He also had meetings with Under Secretary Hormats, Under Sectary Otero, our Special Envoy for Strategic Stability and Missile Defense Ellen Tauscher, Ambassador Grossman talking about Afghan-Pakistan issues. He was also up on Capitol Hill yesterday.

The conversations included virtually every topic on the bilateral and multilateral agenda with India, including our joint cooperation to combat terrorism and violent extremism, defense cooperation, planning for the upcoming Strategic Dialogue, important civil nuclear cooperation, shared energy security interests, regional and economic integration along the New Silk Road, joint interests in Africa, East Asia, and the Middle East, and our engagement at the UN and in multilateral fora.

QUESTION: So I follow up --

MS. NULAND: I knew there would be a follow-up. I knew that wouldn’t be enough. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Are you satisfied with explanation given by India on international sanctions on Iran, that relationship it has with Iran? I know U.S. has been raising some questions on it.

MS. NULAND: Well, certainly the subject of Iran and working together to reduce India’s dependence on Iranian oil came up. We are working well through these issues and we will continue to have those conversations.

QUESTION: Do you know --

QUESTION: And also on civilian nuclear deal – are you – how is it progressing now? Is it –

MS. NULAND: I don’t have any further details with regard to the conversation yesterday, but you know that our hope is that we can work this out and that we can get the central assurances cleared on the Indian side.

QUESTION: And do you have any dates for the Strategic Dialogue later this year?

MS. NULAND: Just later this year. That’s all I’ve got for you at this moment.

QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.

MS. NULAND: Jill.

QUESTION: Another subject?

MS. NULAND: Yes.

QUESTION: I believe that Uganda anti-gay bill is back again, if you have any guidance on that. And there was another one that came up over the summer – I think it’s back – in St. Petersburg, Russia, a bill that would outlaw any type of speaking, reporting, writing, reading on anything related to LGBT issues? Do you have anything on either --

MS. NULAND: Jill, I have to say I’m not aware of the St. Petersburg issue. This was a – this is a citywide --

QUESTION: Right.

MS. NULAND: Yeah. We’ll look into that with our consulate. I don’t know exactly what the Petersburg city authorities might be intending. I think you know how strongly this government and the Secretary personally feels about this issue, that nobody should be discriminated against based on whom they love.

With regard to the Uganda issue, our message is unchanged. We oppose any anti-homosexuality bill, which we view as manifestly inconsistent with Uganda’s international human rights obligations. We continue to talk to all parties in Uganda about this.

On – in October, the Ugandan parliament voted to save and retain the bill, along with about 20 other pieces of legislation. So on the one hand, they didn’t act on it, which was good news. On the other hand, they left themselves the opportunity to do it going forward. So we remain attuned to the fact that this could be taken up, and we’re continuing to raise our concerns with the Ugandans.

Please.

QUESTION: Toria, I had a question about the sanctions on Iran. This issue will be one of the topics, obviously, at the meeting with Foreign Minister Davutoglu when he will be coming to town. Can you – is there any detail that you can share with us about the sanction – sanctions and your expectations from Turkey on this issue about the timeframe, about any waiver option? Any detail?

MS. NULAND: Well, as we’ve been saying with regard to all countries with whom we’re working, including Turkey on this issue, as you know, the legislation gave us 180 days from passage, which was in December, so deeper into the spring, early summer, to make a determination on individual countries as to whether they had been able to reduce their energy dependence on Iran.

So what we’re engaged in now with regard to all of the partners with whom we’re working is to continue to help them to find alternative sources of energy to allow them to reduce their dependence on Iran, and to talk through specific issues and concerns that countries have as we all try to do that to implement – to tighten the sanctions on Iran and increase the pressure on them to come back seriously to the P-5+1 table and come clean about their nuclear program.

QUESTION: Is there any waiver possibility for Turkey on this issue?

MS. NULAND: Well, the legislation does allow for some limited waivers, but our goal is to try to have as many countries around the world as possible be in a position where they clearly have reduced their dependence on Iran. That’s the right thing to do in terms of increasing the pressure on Iran.

QUESTION: Did you start to discuss the waiver option with Turks?

MS. NULAND: We’re not talking about waivers with anybody at the moment. We’re talking about reducing dependence on Iran.

QUESTION: New topic?

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: Maldives. Yesterday, you discussed the situation there and appeared to sort of accept the story that the president stood aside and the vice president is taking over and that they’re going to have a government involving the opposition ahead of elections. But now, the former president Nasheed is saying that he was forced out at gunpoint and that it’s making it sound as though it’s essentially a military coup there. I’m wondering if you have any further information on communications with them, what your assessment is of the situation.

MS. NULAND: Well, we’ve obviously seen the statement from President Nasheed. As I said to you yesterday, Assistant Secretary Blake was in contact with President Waheed. His view of events obviously differs. I think the thing that is concerning today, Andy, is whereas we had calm on the streets yesterday, we have had some less than peaceful incidents in the Maldives. So that is concerning, and we are urging the government and the political parties to work together to resolve the situation peacefully, and we’re continuing to monitor the situation.

As I mentioned yesterday, some of our folks from our Embassy in Colombo are on their way down. And today, Assistant Secretary Blake has decided that he will add a stop in Male, the capital of the Maldives, to his upcoming trip to the region. He’ll be there on Saturday, February 11^th, en route also to Sri Lanka and Bangladesh as planned.

QUESTION: Are you going to withhold – I mean, are you taking any position on the suggestions that it might have been a military coup? Are you going to investigate that? Is Blake going to check that out? Or do you think that that’s not a sort of a reasonable suggestion here?

MS. NULAND: Well, obviously we are talking to all parties. That’s why we’re sending our folks down, but that is not the information that we have at the moment. But Assistant Secretary Blake will have a chance to be there and talk to everybody on Saturday. But in the interim, we are urging calm, we are urging dialogue, we are urging the – President Waheed, as you know, has committed to forming a national unity government, and we think that will also be an important signal to political factions across the Maldives.

QUESTION: So he’ll be speaking to Nasheed and Waheed?

MS. NULAND: I can’t speak to exactly what meetings he’ll have. He literally has just started to put the schedule for that stop together.

QUESTION: Well, does that mean that a determination on whether it was an unconstitutional change in power is going to wait until after Blake’s visit?

MS. NULAND: Well, our view as of yesterday – and I don’t think that that has changed – obviously, we’ll collect more information going forward – was that this was handled constitutionally.

So, please.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) – Japan?

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: Just a little bit on the timeline of the decision, the statement put out early, early, early this morning.

MS. NULAND: Yes.

QUESTION: Can you tell us why – why that decision was made now?

MS. NULAND: You mean why the statement was put out at 4 o’clock in the morning Washington time?

QUESTION: No, although that would be nice, too. (Laughter.)

MS. NULAND: Well, the statement --

QUESTION: Why was it decided to de-link the two issues right now? What was the --

MS. NULAND: Well, the statement was put out at 4 o’clock in the morning Washington time because that was – is when our Japanese allies are awake, so apologies to any of you who were awakened on this side of the Pacific.

As you know, we’ve been working through these issues for some time. We have also concurrently been working through the new defense posture as a result of the budget cuts which Secretary Panetta has talked about extensively. And as we seek to settle all of the Okinawa issues, we nonetheless concluded that we could move forward with some aspects of the relocation even as we continue to work through the Okinawa – the rest of the Okinawa issues.

And in this context, let me just underscore that the end state hasn’t changed. We’re still talking about a permanent presence of some 10,000 Marines on Okinawa at the end of the day.

QUESTION: And what’s the next step here? What’s going to be the next – can we expect meetings? Do you have more for us on a timeline of what’s next?

MS. NULAND: We are going to having some more meetings over the coming weeks. I don’t have a schedule to give you at the moment, but when we do, we’ll let you know. Okay?

QUESTION: Are those meetings going to be at the same level, or will Kurt Campbell maybe get involved?

MS. NULAND: Well, Kurt Campbell, as you know, is the boss of --

QUESTION: Well, yeah, in the direct meetings.

MS. NULAND: I don’t know the answer to that.

Thanks. You’ve been very patient. On Pakistan.

QUESTION: Thank you. There is a briefing on the Hill today on Pakistan’s Balochistan province, and the person who is chairing this hearing, Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, wrote an article with another congressman saying that the United States should support the demand for an independent Balochistan to deal with extremism. And another witness who was speaking today has also published a map which showed an independent Balochistan carved out of Pakistan, Iran, and Afghanistan. Pakistan’s foreign ministry has reacted to this with alarm and concern.

What is the U.S. Administration’s position on this? Do you support the demand for an independent Balochistan carved out of Pakistan?

MS. NULAND: Our view on Balochistan has not changed. We are aware of this hearing. As you know, the Congress holds hearings on many foreign affairs topics. These hearings don’t necessarily imply that the U.S. Government endorses one view or another view. I’d underscore that the State Department is not participating or involved in this hearing today.

For our part, if – just refer you to some comments I made on Twitter a couple of weeks ago with regard to our unchanged position on Balochistan. We emphasize that the United States engages with Pakistan on a whole range of issues, including ways to foster economic development and expand opportunity in Balochistan.

QUESTION: Would you know – were you – was anyone from the Department invited to this hearing?

MS. NULAND: I do not know the answer to that. I don’t think so.

QUESTION: So does it mean that you do not support a demand for an independent Balochistan?

MS. NULAND: Our view on this has not changed, and you know where we’ve been on Balochistan. We encourage all the parties in Balochistan to work out their differences peacefully and through a valid political process.

QUESTION: Within Pakistan?

MS. NULAND: Correct.

Please.

QUESTION: There are meetings here tomorrow and Friday on the International Contact Group on Africa’s Great Lakes. That’s U.S., France, Britain, Belgium, EU, UN. The Enough Project is saying that that group should hold Kinshasa accountable for electoral fraud and boost efforts to combat the Lord’s Resistance Army. Are those both on the U.S. agenda for this meeting?

MS. NULAND: Well, we are – the United States is looking for opportunities to work with our partners, including in fora such as the Great Lakes Contact Group, to improve the credibility of future elections in the Democratic Republic of Congo. As the Secretary said not too long ago, the United States was deeply disappointed by the Democratic Republic of Congo Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the electoral commission’s provisional results without fully evaluating the widespread reports of irregularities.

So we believe that the management and technical execution of these elections were seriously flawed. They lacked transparency, and they did not measure up to the democratic gains that we had seen in many recent elections.

QUESTION: Lord’s Resistance Army?

MS. NULAND: With regard to Lord’s Resistance Army, the – I mean, as you know, we are doing what we can with advisors and trainers to support the efforts of the Government of Afghanistan – of Uganda. Oh, my goodness, that would be really, truly, horrible if we had Lord’s in Afghanistan. We are supporting Uganda, we are supporting the DRC, we are supporting other states who are trying to grapple with Lord’s Resistance Army. We have increased the number of advisors and trainers. We’re not actually in combat ourselves, obviously.

All right?

QUESTION: Wait.

MS. NULAND: Whoa, whoa, whoa. Oh, oh.

QUESTION: I got two very brief things.

QUESTION: I’ve got one little brief one. Just a point of curiosity, really. The schedule had the Secretary meeting a number of senators this morning --

MS. NULAND: Yes.

QUESTION: Burr and Graham and so on. Can you just tell what that meeting was about?

MS. NULAND: Yes. Senator Graham, not too long ago, led a group of senators on a trip through Africa. It was sometime in January. And they asked for an opportunity to come in and brief the Secretary on their conclusions after their important visit, and also to talk to her about some ideas they have to improve effectiveness of U.S. assistance. The Secretary, as you know, very, very interested in trying to ensure that U.S. assistance, particularly in Africa, has the impact that we all desire, and very encouraged to see members of Congress traveling to Africa and putting time into those relationships.

QUESTION: I just had two brief ones on the Americans in distress abroad. One, is there any update on Mr. Hekmati’s case in Iran?

MS. NULAND: Sadly, there is not. We still have not been able to secure access to him for our Swiss protecting power, despite repeated requests.

QUESTION: And everything else remains the same? Have you been – have they – I mean, do you know anything about the case, other than what you’ve – what’s been reported?

MS. NULAND: Not that we can share at this moment, no.

QUESTION: Okay. And then back to Angola --

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: Since these two gentlemen involved have signed the Privacy Act waiver, I am assuming that you can offer me some information about exactly why you determined that they were not in danger and should not – could – don’t – didn’t meet the requirement, the criteria for refuge in the Embassy.

MS. NULAND: Matt, I’m going to come back to you tomorrow, because I have to check your information that they have signed a Privacy Act waiver. I did not have that today. So before I spill their story --

QUESTION: I have the name of the guy that they gave the Privacy Act waiver to --

MS. NULAND: Excellent. Excellent.

QUESTION: -- which I won’t use here, but he’s a senior official at the Embassy in Rwanda.

MS. NULAND: Okay.

QUESTION: And --

MS. NULAND: Was that today or yesterday?

QUESTION: Friday.

MS. NULAND: Okay. I will endeavor to --

QUESTION: And I know that Angola is a long way away, but it shouldn’t take that long --

MS. NULAND: Excellent.

QUESTION: -- for this news to reach here.

MS. NULAND: We will get this for you. It’s quite a story, if we’re allowed to tell it now.

Thanks very much.

QUESTION: Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 1:42 p.m.)

DPB # 26

U.S. Support to Regional Efforts To Counter the Lord's Resistance Army

Updated

Washington, DC

February 7, 2012

In May 2010, President Obama signed into law the Lord’s Resistance (LRA) Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act, which reaffirmed the U.S. commitment to support regional partners’ efforts to end the atrocities of the LRA in central Africa. For more than two decades, the LRA has murdered, raped, and kidnapped tens of thousands of innocent men, women, and children. In 2011, the LRA reportedly committed over 250 attacks. As of August 2011, the United Nations estimates that approximately 440,000 people are displaced across Central African Republic (CAR), the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), and South Sudan as a result of LRA activity.

The United States’ comprehensive, multi-year strategy seeks to help the Governments of Uganda, CAR, the DRC, and South Sudan as well as the African Union and United Nations to mitigate and end the threat posed to civilians and regional stability by the LRA. The strategy outlines four key objectives for U.S. support: (1) the increased protection of civilians, (2) the apprehension or removal of Joseph Kony and senior LRA commanders from the battlefield, (3) the promotion of defections and support of disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration of remaining LRA fighters, and (4) the provision of continued humanitarian relief to affected communities. To advance this strategy, the United States has sent a small number of military advisers to the LRA-affected region to enhance the capacity of the national militaries to pursue senior LRA commanders and to protect civilians. The U.S. Embassies in the region are also working closely with bilateral and multilateral partners to advance the strategy, and the Department of State has deployed a field representative to augment this engagement.

The lines of effort in which the United States is engaged include:

Increasing Civilian Protection: The protection of civilians is a priority for the U.S. strategy. National governments bear responsibility for civilian protection, and the United States is working to enhance their capacity to fulfill this responsibility. The United States also strongly supports the United Nations peacekeeping missions in the DRC and South Sudan and the United Nations Integrated Peacebuilding Office in the CAR. We continue to work with the United Nations to help augment its efforts in the LRA-affected region. At the same time, we are working with other partners on projects to help reduce the vulnerability of LRA-affected communities and increase their capacity to make decisions related to their own safety. To promote the protection of civilians, the Department of State and USAID are funding communication networks, including high-frequency radios and cell phone towers to enhance community-based protection in Bas- and Haut-Uele districts in the DRC.

Enhancing Regional Efforts to Apprehend LRA Top Commanders: On November 14, 2011, the United Nations Security Council commended ongoing efforts by national militaries in the region to address the threat posed by the LRA, and welcomed international efforts to enhance their capacity in this respect. The Council noted the efforts of the United States, which, since 2008, has provided over $40 million in critical logistical support, equipment and training to enhance counter-LRA operations by regional militaries. On October 14, 2011, President Obama reported to Congress that he had authorized a small number of U.S. advisors to deploy to the LRA-affected region, in consultation with national governments, to act as advisors to the militaries that are pursuing the LRA. The U.S. military advisors are working to help strengthen cooperation and information-sharing among regional forces, and to enhance the capacity of the militaries to fuse intelligence with effective operational planning.

Encouraging and Facilitating LRA Defections: Over the course of this conflict, more than 12,000 former LRA fighters and abductees have been reintegrated and reunited with their families through Uganda’s Amnesty Commission. The United States continues to support efforts across the affected countries to demobilize and reintegrate former LRA fighters and all those victimized by this conflict back into normal life. In Fiscal Year 2011, USAID provided nearly $2 million to support the rehabilitation of former abducted youth in CAR and the DRC and their reunification with their families. The United States is working with the United Nations, the African Union, and national governments in the region to enhance processes across the region to facilitate the safe return, repatriation, and reintegration of those who defect or escape from the LRA’s ranks.

Providing Humanitarian Assistance: The United States is the largest bilateral donor of humanitarian assistance to LRA-affected populations in CAR, the DRC, and South Sudan. In Fiscal Year 2011, the United States provided more than $18 million to support the provision of food assistance and implementation of food security, humanitarian protection, health, livelihoods initiatives, and other relief activities for internally displaced persons, host community members, and other populations affected by the LRA. The United States also continues to provide assistance to support the return of displaced people, reconstruction, and recovery in northern Uganda, where the LRA carried out its brutal campaign for nearly two decades until it fled Uganda in 2006. With the LRA’s departure and Ugandan and international recovery and development efforts, northern Uganda has undergone a significant post-conflict reconstruction and recovery in just a few years.

International Day of Zero Tolerance to Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State

Washington, DC

February 6, 2012

Today, we mark the ninth annual International Day of Zero Tolerance to Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting (FGM/C). It is estimated that 100 to 140 million women around the world have undergone this brutal procedure and three million girls are at risk every year. We must continue to act to end this affront to women’s equality and the rights and dignity of women and girls.

No religion mandates this procedure, though it occurs across cultures, religions, and continents. It is performed on girls in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East. Even in the United States we are fighting this practice. FGM/C became a federal crime in the United States in 1997, but the procedure persists in some communities. The U.S. Government is working with practitioners in the health and legal community to educate groups about the negative consequences of FGM/C.

Over the years, community advocates have found that when men come to understand the physical and psychological trauma FGM/C causes, they often become effective activists for eradication, including fathers who refuse to allow their daughters to be subject to the procedure. Communities must act collectively to abandon the practice, so that girls and their families who opt out do not become social outcasts. This approach has led around 8,000 communities across Africa to abandon the practice, usually through a public declaration. Communities working together can ensure stronger, healthier futures for girls and young women.

Every government has an obligation to protect its citizens from such abuse. As we commemorate International Day of Zero Tolerance and remember those who have been harmed, we reaffirm our commitment to overturning deeply entrenched social norms and abolishing this practice. All women and girls, no matter where they are born or what culture they are raised in, deserve the opportunity to realize their potential.

Briefing On Her Role As The Newly-Appointed Chair of the Kimberley Process (KP) for 2012

Gillian A. Milovanovic
Chair of the Kimberley Process (KP) 

Via Teleconference

Washington, DC

February 3, 2012

MR. VENTRELL: Hey, everyone. How are you doing? Thanks for joining us this afternoon. This afternoon’s conference call is on the record. We have with us today Ambassador Gillian Milovanovic, who is going to discuss her role as the newly-appointed chair of the Kimberley Process. She’s going to give some opening remarks and then we’ll turn it over for Q&A.

So without further ado, Ambassador, over to you.

AMBASSADOR MILOVANOVIC: Thank you very much, Patrick, and thank you for giving me this opportunity to talk with people about the Kimberley Process, a process which I have just become the chair of in the last two weeks.

I have been, as folks may know, ambassador to Mali. I’ve also served in Botswana and in South Africa. And in Europe, I have served in Belgium, amongst other countries. So that, along with knowing a good deal of French, I think, is part of the reason why I was chosen for this job. It is something that excites me very much. I’m very pleased to have this opportunity, during the United States first chairmanship of the Kimberley Process, to be the person sitting in the chair.

I would say that consensus and seeking consensus is going to be the biggest part of the job. The Kimberley Process, as many probably know, is a combination of government, industry, and civil society. It was launched in 2003 in order to stem the flow of conflict diamonds that were funding rebel groups. It is a process that operates by consensus, and therefore, seeking consensus, fostering the ability to come together and to make decisions in order to move the Kimberley Process forward, is going to be a critical element for the United States this year.

This is the eve of the 10^th anniversary of the Kimberley Process, and I will have the privilege of chairing during that period. I will also have the privilege of having, as a vice chair, South Africa, which will be chairing in the 10^th anniversary of the Kimberley Process. I hope that this will, again, be a collaborative process between the chair and the vice chair, and I think there will be many opportunities to explore that, notably when I travel to South Africa next week, where there is a Mining Indaba in Cape Town, where I hope to meet, for the first time, many members of the government participants, as well as additional others from industry. This week, I had the privilege of meeting with NGOs and with industry, and I’m beginning to get my feet wet in understanding how this process works.

We have an ambitious agenda. It’s one whose goals are very much in line with what the KP itself has already determined needs to be looked at. The KP decided that it would be looking at reviewing its own goals, its own successes and weaknesses, and that is being done by an ad hoc committee chaired by Botswana. I look forward to working with Botswana again, a country that I know from earlier days, on shepherding the conclusions of that committee through.

One of the goals that I have also is to make sure that more people understand something about the Kimberley Process. I will freely admit that at the moment, I am not the world’s greatest expert on the process – again, two weeks in the chair. Nonetheless, I think it’s important that more and more people ask questions, understand, and that we have an opportunity to communicate with everyone – the public, the media, civil society, industry, and governments.

I think that’s about all I want to say at the moment. Again, thank you for giving me this opportunity, and I look forward to your questions.

OPERATOR: Thank you. At this time, if you would like to ask a question, please press *1 on your touchtone phone, and you will be prompted to record your name. Please unmute your line and do so when prompted. To withdraw your request, you may press *2. Again, to ask your question, please press *1 at this time. One moment, please.

Andrew Quinn of Reuters, you may ask your question.

QUESTION: Hello, Madam Ambassador. Congratulations on your new role. I was wondering if you could tell us a little bit more specifically about how you think the Kimberley Process can be strengthened, given the difficulties that it encountered last year in the pullout of Global Witness. What was once one of the strongest civil society backers of the process is now one of its biggest critics and is calling it essentially a whitewash operation for blood diamonds.

How do you intend to use your chairmanship to bring the Kimberley Process out of this year stronger than it went in? And I’m wondering if you have any view on what the U.S. position will be or how you will use the chairmanship to consider the issue of Anjin, which is the Chinese-backed miner that operates in Zimbabwe’s Marange diamond fields. There’s – apparently, they have not been given the green light to export, unlike many others in that region, and there’s a question now about whether or not they get that approval, will that be seen as a sign that the Kimberley Process is really fulfilling its mandate or not.

AMBASSADOR MILOVANOVIC: Well, thank you, Andrew. That’s quite an assortment of questions and I’ll do my best with them.

QUESTION: Okay.

AMBASSADOR MILOVANOVIC: All right. As to the difficulties and what we propose to do, I choose to look at things as now we’re in a pretty good place, because precisely, there have been enormous difficulties over the last two years, at least. The process went through great difficulty determining how to deal with the question of diamond exports from Zimbabwe, given violence and other matters. And this showed that there was a need to look at systems, to look at definitions, to look at ways to ensure that the lessons were drawn, and that the organization could determine best ways to become more efficient and to remain relevant.

So even though there was that negative, even though there was great difficulty, what you now have, from what I have been able to see so far in talking with people – and at the moment, I have had the opportunity to speak with civil society members and with industry this week – you have a sense that now we can begin to focus in a constructive manner on the Kimberley Process itself. And that is what I propose to do, to look at what lessons can be learned and what the organization itself believes needs to be done.

Again, I will not be alone in doing this. The chair is working in a system in which there are a number of working groups, including, I mentioned, an ad hoc working group on review chaired by Botswana. This will be, even within the organization itself, very much of a collaborative effort to figure out where can we make the most of those lessons learned, where can we make some advances. So I don’t actually see the difficulties of the past as a problem to be overcome so much as an incentive to look to the future and to improve matters. And from what I’ve heard so far, people seem to feel that way – many of the people seem to feel that way about it as well.

Now, you mentioned the departure of Global Witness. Of course, what is important is that the Kimberley Process from the beginning has been a combination of government participants and observers from civil society and industry, Global Witness naturally having been one of the founding members of civil society. We are sorry, naturally, that Global Witness made the decision that it made, and what I can say is that our contacts with both Global Witness and a number of other NGOs that either – that have, in fact, never even been part of the Kimberley Process, continue. We are in constant touch. We will continue to be speaking with one another, gathering ideas, and conversing. So that is not the end of the discussion.

And I would add that out of 12 NGOs that are part of the – were part of the Kimberley Process, there are 11 remaining. The Canada Africa committee as well as – and I’ve got the name wrong, I apologize, but I’m not perfect yet – as well as a – Partnership Africa Canada, sorry, it’s called – and a number of local NGOs, notably throughout Africa but not exclusively. So there will continue to be a very strong participation and very much listening to the role of civil society, both within and without.

And I believe the third thing you were asking about was Anjin --

QUESTION: That’s right.

AMBASSADOR MILOVANOVIC: -- and I will tell you, in all honesty, that it is not something that I am sufficiently familiar with at this stage to be able to give a response on. I believe, in any case, that this is something that perhaps we can get some information for you on. If you want to pursue that, I’d be glad to take that back and see if we can get you further information.

QUESTION: Okay. That would be very kind. And I just have one follow-up, if I could, just based on your response where --

AMBASSADOR MILOVANOVIC: Please.

QUESTION: -- you said that one of the things you’d be looking at would be systems and definitions.

AMBASSADOR MILOVANOVIC: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Could you explain a little bit more about that? Definitions of what? I mean, are you looking at really – at trying to perhaps broaden the remit of the Kimberley Process so that it would have a more specific function in sort of dealing with industry, dealing with national governments that it – that – are you trying to make it to strengthen its actual functioning systems? And then how would you expand the definitions of what it does?

AMBASSADOR MILOVANOVIC: Okay. Well, again, there is a certain relationship de facto between the questions that are being looked at by the process itself and its review committee and those elements which we have as a number of our goals. Exactly how – exactly what’s going to fit within each of these things remains to be determined by the process. But I would say that overall, yes, the organization is looking, for example, at its core objectives and core definitions. That would include the definition of conflict diamonds. Now where that will go remains to be seen, but the goal, certainly, is to look at is there a need to make some changes – breadth, depth, whatever – and then look at what that might – what those changes might be.

On the efficacy side, there are a number of issues, including compliance and enforcement improvements, and administrative workings of the KP and a number of other things. But we will try to get a combination of looking at the core functions and also improving, on a day-to-day basis, the efficacy of the process.

QUESTION: Thank you.

AMBASSADOR MILOVANOVIC: Thank you very much, Andrew.

OPERATOR: Once again, if you would like to ask a question, please press *1 and record your name at this time. One moment, please.

Stephen Kaufman of America.gov, you may ask your question.

QUESTION: Thank you, Madam Ambassador. I’m looking over some of the stats. I’m really wondering if you have any updated figures on how the process has been working. For example, I see that back in the 1990s, maybe 4 to 15 percent of the diamonds that were being traded were considered conflict or blood diamonds, and within just the first few years of the Kimberley Process, that figure had gone down to 1 percent. I don’t know if that – if those figures are absolutely correct or not, but I’m wondering if there’s any new updated figures you might have to – that could explain how the process has been working. Thank you.

AMBASSADOR MILOVANOVIC: Well, Stephen, thank you very much for that question. It’s an excellent one, and I am sorry to say that I have no information that I can give you right off the bat here today. We can certainly look into that as well. What I can say is that the Kimberley Process has clearly had a positive effect on stemming the tide of conflict diamonds, and that the trend, as you yourself pointed out with the statistics that are available to you that you were citing, is definitely a – has been a positive one. But exactly as to what the latest figures are, if we have any, I really don’t have that.

Anything else you’d like to ask?

QUESTION: I’m afraid – well, maybe if you – even anecdotal evidence of what – of how things – the only reason is because that figure I cited, I think it was from 2003, and of course, it’s been a while since then. Even if there are no statistics you could cite, any kind of even anecdotal evidence?

AMBASSADOR MILOVANOVIC: Well – sorry, am I still on? Okay. What does seem to be the case – and again, since I’m relatively new to this still, it takes me a while to sort it all out. But at the present time, I am told, the only country whose diamonds are fitting within the definition of conflict diamonds is diamonds from Cote d'Ivoire. And that represents, overall, far less than 1 percent of all diamonds.

QUESTION: Okay. Great. Thank you.

AMBASSADOR MILOVANOVIC: You’re very welcome. Thank you for calling.

OPERATOR: At this time, I’m showing that we have no further questions.

AMBASSADOR MILOVANOVIC: In that case, then, Operator, we appreciate it. Patrick, did you want to close this out?

OPERATOR: And actually, we did have one more question come in, if you’d like to take that last one.

All right. Andrew Quinn of Reuters, your line is open.

QUESTION: Yes, it’s me again. Sorry.

AMBASSADOR MILOVANOVIC: Okay.

QUESTION: I couldn’t let it go. (Laughter.) Madam Ambassador, I was wondering if you could talk a little bit, if you have anything to share on this, on the question of supply chain controls over polished diamonds. I mean, obviously, the U.S. has sanctions on a lot of diamond sector businesses in Zimbabwe, including state-owned mining corporations. But these are only covering rough diamonds, and the point of – the activists will tell you that they are being sent to other places, polished, and then shipped into this country.

Is there any notion that the Kimberley Process could somehow gather itself to try and figure out a way to establish verifiable supply chain controls so that we can be sure that our own sanctions aren’t being violated by diamonds that are polished in second countries.

AMBASSADOR MILOVANOVIC: Andrew, you raised some excellent questions. What I have to say, however, is that – look, I’m the chair of the Kimberley Process. The Kimberley Process deals in rough diamonds. That is what it was created for, that is what its mandate is. And so I do not foresee within the Kimberley Process, per se, going beyond the question of rough diamonds.

QUESTION: Okay. Okay. Thank you very much.

AMBASSADOR MILOVANOVIC: Thank you very much.

OPERATOR: And now we have no further questions.

MODERATOR: Okay. Thank you to the ambassador and to all of you for participating in today’s call. Operator, that concludes today’s call.

Thanks. Thank you.

AMBASSADOR MILOVANOVIC: Thank you.

QUESTION: Thank you.

AMBASSADOR MILOVANOVIC: Okay.

U.S. Policy Toward Post-Election Democratic Republic of the Congo

Daniel Baer
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor

Testimony Before the House Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health and Human Rights

Washington, DC

February 2, 2012

Good afternoon, Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Payne, honorable Members of the Committee: Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the United States’ policy toward the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the DRC, in light of what Secretary Clinton has described as “seriously flawed” presidential and parliamentary elections held last November 28. If I may, I’d like to commend the Committee for holding this timely hearing to draw attention to this large, troubled country and the recent elections. I also appreciate the Committee’s focusing on important questions about the human rights climate.

The Administration is monitoring events closely and shares Congressional concerns. We are taking action as events unfold. For example, in recent days, the Department Spokeswoman publicly expressed our concern about reports of Radio France International (RFI) having been shut down. We urged relevant Congolese authorities to reinstate RFI’s frequencies immediately (which the government did) and we continue to advocate to all Congolese political leaders and their supporters the need to act responsibly and to renounce violence.

I would also like, at the outset, to reiterate our serious concern about genderbased violence in the DRC. Every hour of the day dozens of women are raped in DRC. This is why the United States continues to champion improved protection of civilians, especially an end to the epidemic of rape and gender-based violence. The United States has worked successfully to secure new Security Council sanctions against individuals who lead armed groups operating in the DRC or are linked to crimes involving sexual and gender based violence and illegal child soldier recruiting. Additionally, the United States led the adoption of a UN Security Council resolution that supported, for the first time, due diligence guidelines for individuals and companies operating in the mineral trade in Eastern Congo.

In general, and in part as a result of the training provided by the U.S. to the Congolese National Police, the police in the DRC have l exercised restraint when dealing with provocations by demonstrators and protestors. However, in some notable instances during the run-up to the elections, and in their immediate aftermath, the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (GDRC) resorted to excessive force to break up protests. Citizens were shot and beaten; detained without charge; and, sometimes, “disappeared.” The GDRC also placed restrictions on the freedoms of speech, press and assembly in breach of democratic norms.

We expect the GDRC will be tempted to resort to such behavior in the future. For this reason, the USG has repeatedly and will continue to forcefully advise the GDRC that such violations of civil and human rights are unacceptable and must cease immediately, and that the perpetrators of human rights violations must be brought to justice. We expect that the GDRC’s ability to focus on substantive issues will unavoidably be attenuated until the election controversy is resolved. We are cognizant of the dangers this presents, and will work with the international community and press the GDRC to stay focused on electoral and human rights reforms.

The court system in the DRC is dysfunctional at best, and in many parts of the country nonfunctional. The electoral law calls for the establishment of a Constitutional Court, among whose functions would be the review of electoral challenges, but to date the new Court has not been established. The existing court system will be severely challenged to judge impartially and credibly the thousands of challenges expected to be filed by disappointed parliamentary candidates. If provincial elections go forward as scheduled, the number of challenges will increase substantially. This surely will exacerbate the already troubling situation. Moreover, the Congolese Supreme Court is widely considered to be biased towards President Kabila and its decision validating his electoral victory was extensively criticized as premature, unfair, and poorly considered. Its future decisions will undoubtedly similarly be criticized.

The U.S. and international community – foreign governments, international organizations, and NGOs – have contributed billions of dollars and thousands of advisors into the DRC over the years. To date, unfortunately, the GDRC has not shown the same commitment to reform, and we need to be clear: Without a strong and sustained commitment by the GDRC to democracy and human rights, little can be done that will be sustainable. However, the very fact that the elections have been so widely condemned may provide an opening to press for internationally accepted human rights standards and norms. Certainly, as Dr. Mendelson and Ambassador Yamamoto have testified, we will be pressing the GDRC to undertake effective reforms – not just with respect to elections, but with respect to the entire spectrum of human and civil rights.

Of course, we must also acknowledge the fact that the DRC is one of the least developed countries in the world. Even were the GDRC completely committed to improving democracy and human rights, its ability to do so is limited. And, developing the capacity of the GDRC -- enacting laws and transferring tools and know-how -- is but a small part of the solution. Helping them foster and inculcate a respect for human rights and the rule of law—and embed it institutions as a way of doing things – is the central task, and the larger part of a sustainable solution. I have already addressed the issues surrounding the courts. In addition, a free and robust media sector must be established and allowed to function freely. A vibrant civil society must be supported and recognized as a vital partner in building a stronger DRC. Children must be educated, and all people need to know their rights, and be given a chance to understand through experience how those rights undergird democratic societies.. All of these are hard, long term tasks, and none can be accomplished until the GDRC is able to provide for the physical security of its people. Democracy and human rights are both contributors to and vitally dependent on peace and security. Security agencies must be better trained on civilian protection and human rights as part of overall security sector reform. This is why we are focused on improved protection of civilians. In this regard, Dr. Mendelson and Ambassador Yamamoto have described our work with the international community, particularly MONUSCO, as well as a number of important programs that they are implementing. DRL likewise has relevant programs in the DRC, totaling some $7.5 million:

• We have granted two programs totaling approximately $4.3 million to build the capacity of Congolese justice sector actors and local leaders to investigate cases of mass violence and sexual and gender-based violence, and to initiate a pilot program to reform prisons and detention centers in Eastern DRC.
• Two other programs, totaling approximately $2.5 million will strengthen protection of human rights defenders by helping them take on and fight impunity within security forces for attacks on defenders and other civilians. We’re also supporting NGOs working to foster grass-roots action on security, human rights, and corruption. .
• And finally, we fund a program for $700,000 to support the Team of Experts of the UN SRSG for Sexual Violence in Conflict in training selected security forces in the East on how to address SGBV crimes that might be committed by colleagues, and teaching civilian protection techniques that security forces can and should employ to prevent SGBV crimes.

In conclusion, I want to assure this subcommittee that this Administration is unwavering in its commitment to move the Congo to internationally accepted human rights standards and norms. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I welcome your questions.

Assistant Secretary Johnnie Carson to Lead Energy Trade Mission to Africa

Office of the Spokesperson

Washington, DC

February 2, 2012

Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Johnnie Carson will lead an Energy Trade Mission to Mozambique, Tanzania, Kenya, Nigeria, and Ghana February 6-17. The mission is a public-private partnership with the Corporate Council on Africa. The delegation of U.S. government and private-sector executives will meet host country senior government officials to discuss challenges for U.S. private-sector investment in energy infrastructure projects. Delegates from the American business community will represent firms in a position to advance large-scale, on-grid generation and fuel supply projects. Discussions are to include specific constraints to attract private-sector investment in the power generation and fuel supply sectors.

The mission will underscore economic development as a path towards sustained prosperity and peace and highlight the U.S. initiatives in the region, such as the Partnership for Growth Initiative and the Millennium Challenge Corporation programs. Additionally, the mission provides an opportunity for U.S. power developers and fuel suppliers to promote new energy infrastructure projects. The U.S. government is committed to assist and facilitate trade and investment through its existing programs and advocacy both in the United States and through its embassies abroad.

Learn more about the activities of the Bureau of African Affairs at the Department of State at: http://www.state.gov/p/af/index.htm

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter at: http://www.facebook.com/DOSAfricanAffairs and http://twitter.com/#!/AFAsstSecy

Deputy Secretary Burns Completes Week-long Trip to Africa

Office of the Spokesperson

Washington, DC

January 30, 2012

Deputy Secretary of State Bill Burns wrapped up his week-long visit to Africa today in Ethiopia. As head of the U.S. delegation to the African Union Summit, he met yesterday and today with a number of leaders in Addis Ababa, including UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, South Sudanese President Kiir, Sudanese Foreign Minister Karti, Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles, Libyan Prime Minister al-Keeb, Chinese Foreign Minister Yang, and Kenyan Foreign Minister Wetangula. Over the weekend, the Deputy Secretary was in Uganda, where he met with Ugandan President Museveni and visited a public-private partnership at Wagagai, one of more than a hundred clinics that the United States supports in Uganda to provide preventive care and comprehensive maternal and child health services. He also traveled on January 28 to South Sudan, where he met with a number of senior officials including Vice President Machar.

Throughout his meetings at the African Union, as well as in Ghana, Uganda, and South Sudan, the Deputy Secretary highlighted our ongoing commitment to work with African partners to support gains in democratic governance, sustainable development, economic growth, and the peaceful resolution of conflict. His discussions also covered a range of security, political, and humanitarian challenges facing the continent. The Deputy Secretary expressed deep concern regarding the Government of Sudan’s continued denial of humanitarian access to Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile, and also underscored the need for Sudan and South Sudan to quickly reach agreement on oil and related financial issues. Various leaders he met with expressed concern about the growing threat posed to Nigeria and the region by Boko Haram. The Deputy Secretary stressed that the United States will continue to support the Government of Nigeria on this and other challenges facing the country. On Somalia, the Deputy Secretary noted U.S. support for the work of the African Union Mission in Somalia and the need for the Transitional Federal Government (TFG) to make steady and sustained progress on the Roadmap in advance of the end of the TFG’s mandate in August. The Deputy Secretary highlighted ongoing U.S. collaboration and partnership with the African Union on a broad range of issues, and assured leaders of the U.S. commitment to continue to assist the African Union in augmenting its capacity to address the many opportunities and challenges facing the continent.

In Ghana, Uganda, and Ethiopia, the Deputy Secretary took the time to engage with a cross section of young leaders, entrepreneurs, and civil society activists engaged in every sector of society. The Deputy Secretary’s visit, coming on the heels of the Secretary’s visit to West Africa last week, reaffirms the high priority that the Obama Administration attaches to Africa, and the special emphasis the United States has placed on engaging the continent’s next generation of leaders.

Remarks to Regional Journalists on the Margins of African Union Summit

William J. Burns
Deputy Secretary

U.S. Mission to the African Union - via Teleconference

Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

January 30, 2012

MODERATOR: Good afternoon. I would like to welcome you to today’s briefing with Deputy Secretary of State Bill Burns. Today we have participants calling from Kenya, South Africa, Senegal, Tanzania, Ghana and Angola, who are connected through the Africa Regional Media Hub. We thank you for taking the time to join us. We will start with brief remarks from Deputy Secretary Burns. Following the remarks, we will take a question from a journalist in the room and then we will open it up to questions from our callers. Callers can ask their questions by pressing star one to enter the question queue. Again, today’s event is on the record and will last approximately twenty minutes. And now I’ll turn the call over to Deputy Secretary Burns for brief remarks.

DEPUTY SECRETARY BURNS:  Thank you very much and good afternoon.

I am very pleased to be in Addis Ababa. My visit to Ethiopia concludes a week-long trip to Africa, which also included visits to Ghana, Uganda, and South Sudan. My trip, which comes on the heels of Secretary Clinton’s visit to West Africa last week, reaffirms the high priority the Obama Administration attaches to Africa. It highlights our ongoing commitment to work with African partners both to seize opportunities and address common challenges.

America’s commitment to the continent is underscored by our work to support gains in democratic governance, sustainable development, economic growth, and the peaceful resolution of conflict. This includes our support for democracy and governance programs across the continent, our ongoing efforts to strengthen commercial ties between the U.S. and Africa, and our steadfast support for the protection and promotion of human rights.

The United States is committed to supporting programs that both support Africa’s long-term goals and short-term needs. President Obama’s Feed the Future Initiative, to which we committed $3.5 billion over 3 years, promotes food security and helps reduce vulnerability to drought and other shocks in partnership with governments across Africa. In the near-term, we are leading international efforts to respond to drought and famine in the Horn of Africa, including by committing over $870 million in relief for the crisis. The United States also continues to provide extensive assistance to combat disease and to build the capacity of health systems across Africa, part of a $63 billion commitment over five years. On Thursday, I visited one excellent example of that effort, a public-private partnership at Wagagai in Uganda, one of more than a hundred such clinics that we support across Uganda to provide preventive care and comprehensive maternal and child health services.

Over the last week I have also had the pleasure of meeting with civil society leaders engaged in compelling and vital work in their communities. This includes meeting with a cross-section of young leaders who are engaged in dynamic work in every sector of society. As many of you already know, the Obama Administration has made a special point of engaging the continent’s next generation of leaders to discuss the broad spectrum of U.S.-African issues.

At the same time, this last week of discussions also covered a range of security, political, and humanitarian challenges facing the continent. The humanitarian situation in Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile featured prominently in many of these discussions. The U.S. remains deeply concerned regarding the Government of Sudan’s continued denial of humanitarian access to those two states. Conflict and aerial bombardments have disrupted the planting season. Experts predict that, absent immediate humanitarian access, we could see emergency levels of food insecurity in a matter of weeks. The international community will not be able to stand by as this preventable humanitarian crisis unfolds.

My consultations also underscored the need for Sudan and South Sudan to quickly reach agreement on oil and related financial issues. The time has come to reach an amicable and negotiated solution. Unilateral actions on both sides only risk greater tension and further economic losses for both countries. Resolving this and other pending issues is the best path to achieve long-term peace, stability, and economic prosperity.

The challenge of Somalia came up frequently in my meetings and of course during discussions here at the African Union as well. As I said to President Museveni and others, the United States commends the work of the African Union Mission in Somalia. We hope that the African Union will continue to move quickly in finalizing a concept of operations for an expanded AMISOM so that we can discuss this issue in the UN Security Council as soon as possible. These discussions also centered on the need for the Transitional Federal Government to make steady and sustained progress on the Roadmap in advance of the end of the TFG’s mandate in August.

Additionally, various leaders expressed concern about the situation in Nigeria. Boko Haram poses a growing threat to the region. We will continue to support the Government of Nigeria on this and other challenges facing the country.

I was particularly delighted to be able to lead the U.S. delegation in attending the opening of the African Union Summit. The United States has a special relationship with this vital regional organization, including by being the first non-member state to accredit a diplomatic mission dedicated exclusively to the African Union. And last year Secretary Clinton became the first Secretary of State to address a formal session of the AU. We collaborate and partner with the African Union on a broad range of issues and will continue to assist in augmenting the AU’s capacity to address the many opportunities and challenges facing the continent.

And now I’d be glad to take some questions.

MODERATOR: Okay, we will go ahead and take a question from here in the room, and then we will turn it over to our callers. Please remember to state your name and affiliation before asking your question.

QUESTION: Thank you. My name is Haile Mulu, Reporter News paper. I am from The Reporter Newspaper. My question is can you tell me more of the issues that you raised when you met with Prime Minister Meles Zenawi, and my second question, is the United States working with the African Union to promote good governance on the continent, but up to now only fifteen African countries have ratified the African Charter on Democracy. What is the reason behind that? My final question is what role will the United States play in promoting peace in South Sudan? Thank you.

DEPUTY SECRETARY BURNS: Thank you very much for all those good questions. I had a very constructive meeting with Prime Minister Meles Zenawi yesterday. We discussed a range of issues on which the United States and Ethiopia work together to help promote regional security. We discussed also the further possibilities for economic growth and development in Ethiopia, how we can promote greater American trade and investment here. I am convinced that the opportunities are growing for American companies.

We talked about the range of issues on which we are working together to address significant problems here, and across the continent, in food insecurity and in health. I believe we are making progress on those issues. We also talked about the importance that the United States continues to attach to democratic development as a part of Ethiopia’s effort to realize the full potential of all of its citizens, the importance of building strong democratic institutions, respect for the rule of law, respect for human rights. We believe it is very important, obviously, for the African Union to promote many of these same priorities, and we are proud that we have been able, in recent years, to find practical ways, tangible ways, in which we can help augment the capacity of the AU to deal with many of these challenges. We certainly hope that AU members will renew and make clear their commitment to democratic principles such as those laid out in the Democratic Charter.

With regard to South Sudan, the United States has taken great pride in the role that we and many in the international community played in South Sudan’s independence. We continue to work in support of South Sudan’s efforts to build a sustainable economy and build democratic institutions. We recognize that these are difficult challenges, and we are increasingly concerned, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, by the differences which exist, and which seem to be sharpening, over the oil question between the government of Sudan and the government of Southern Sudan. We urge both parties, working with the AU panel, to reach the earliest possible negotiated resolution of these issues. That’s deeply in the interest of the people in both of those countries, and so we will do everything we can to help facilitate that.

MODERATOR: Thank you very much. And now I will turn the call over to my colleague at the Africa Media Hub to moderate questions from our callers. Carrie.

MODERATOR: Thank you. At this time I will ask our callers to ask a question, please press star one to enter the queue. Our first question comes from Dakar, Senegal. Please state your name and affiliation before you ask your question. Dakar, your line is open.

Question (translated): Jean Baptiste Sallie, from Radio Television Senegal. His question is Senegal-related, and he said, regarding the violence that has been in Senegal the last few days over the Constitutional Council’s decision to validate President Wade’s eligibility for a third mandate. What is the U.S. position on this matter?

DEPUTY SECRETARY BURNS: Thank you very much for your question. The United States attaches a great deal of importance to our relationship with Senegal. We certainly urge calm, and we urge that the political process be pursued in an exclusively peaceful manner. We urge all parties to avoid violence.

Second, I would say that obviously the United States respects the political and legal processes in Senegal, but I also have to add, honestly, that we are concerned that the decision by President Wade to seek a third term undermines the spirit of democracy in Senegal. We are concerned that it could jeopardize the many achievements of President Wade’s tenure in office, and that it could jeopardize the decades-long record that Senegal has built up on the continent for democracy, democratic development, and political stability. So we hope very much that the political process will be a peaceful one and that it will allow for the free and active participation of all Senegalese.

Moderator: Thank you. Our next question comes from Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Please state your name and affiliation. Dar es Salaam your line is open.

QUESTION: My name is Jaffer Mjasiri with Daily News which is an English paper based in Dar es Salaam. My question is, currently you have spoken very strongly about the situation in Sudan. Do you think that military intervention will be inevitable to resolve the civil war which is going on? And my second question is, how—[pauses]—Tanzania is a strategic partner to the U.S., if so, can you shed light on this partnership?

DEPUTY SECRETARY BURNS: Sure. Thank you very much. First, on your question on our partnership with Tanzania. We attach a great deal of importance to our relationship and to our partnership. We consider Tanzania to be a model of democratic and economic development on the continent. We have tried to demonstrate our respect for what Tanzania’s leadership and its people have achieved in a number of ways.

It is important to remember that President Kikwete was the first African leader received by President Obama at the White House. It is also important to note that Tanzania is one of the four founding partners in the Partnership for Growth program which the Obama Administration has inaugurated to try to underscore the efforts of governments around the world, countries around the world, that we think offer great promise in economic development and are pursuing responsible, sensible economic growth policies so that we can bring to bear all the resources of the U.S. Government to help support them in that effort.

The Feed the Future program that I mentioned in my opening remarks is a very important feature of our partnership with Tanzania. The same is true with regard to PEPFAR and the Global Health Initiative where we have invested a considerable amount of money, well over a billion dollars, in support of Tanzania’s own efforts to deal with those kinds of health challenges. So, we consider Tanzania to be a very important partner, and we look forward to continue to deepen our cooperation in the years ahead.

With regard to your question on Sudan, it is no secret that we in the international community have deep concerns about human rights issues in Sudan, about the absence of democratic government and respect for those rights. We believe that there is no military solution to those challenges and those problems, but we emphasize our call for peaceful, non-violent efforts to resolve those kind of challenges and to build the kind of democratic future for Sudan that is deeply in the interest of the Sudanese people.

MODERATOR: Thank you. Our next question comes from Accra, Ghana. Please state your name and affiliation before asking your question. Ghana, your line is open.

QUESTION: My name is Michael Sarpong Bruce, I work with Business and Financial Times newspaper. My question, Deputy Secretary of State, is last week you had a meeting with our president, John Atta Mills, and you disclosed the United States will be seeking further discussions on food security and health. Why food security and health?

DEPUTY SECRETARY BURNS: Well, first I enjoyed very much the opportunity to visit Accra and the very constructive discussion I had with the President. As you know, we attach a lot of importance to our partnership with Ghana. We have just about completed the first MCC [Millennium Challenge Corporation] compact program under the Millennium Challenge Account which has been quite successful in Ghana. We are looking forward to a second one.

Ghana is, like Tanzania, one of the first four countries around the world in which we are working in a Partnership for Growth. We are also proud that we have been able to support the efforts of the Ghanaian Government to make progress on food security issues and on health issues. I mentioned the importance that we attach to working on, those issues on a number of the other stops on my trip, and certainly in Ghana, I think, we have helped the Ghanaian Government make some important strides. We look forward, like Ghanaians do, to another peaceful and transparent election later this year and to finding further ways in which we can strengthen our relations.

MODERATOR: Thank you. The next question comes from Nairobi, Kenya, from Dana Hughes. Operator, can you please open the line for Nairobi, Kenya. Dana, your line is open.

QUESTION: Great. I would like to ask about the recent crackdown on journalists, both foreign and local, in Ethiopia, the recent large jail sentences given to the Swedish journalists as well as to bloggers and local journalists under Ethiopia’s anti-terrorism laws. Is that something that came up at all in your discussions with the Ethiopian Government at this forum?

DEPUTY SECRETARY BURNS: Thank you for the question. Yes, I did the raise the issue in the meeting that I had with Prime Minister Meles. I underscored America’s commitment to freedom of expression, to independent media, and the importance that freedom of expression and independent media for the democratic growth of any country. Obviously, any government has an obligation to ensure against terrorist threats, but I did express our concern that the application of anti-terrorism laws can sometimes undermine freedom of expression and independent media. So we hope very much that that range of cases that you mentioned can be carefully reviewed, and that great care can be taken in ensuring the protection of freedom of expression.

MODERATOR: Thank you. Okay, the next question comes from Jason Straziuso in Nairobi, Kenya.

QUESTION: Thank you Mister Secretary. I have two questions. You said in your opening remarks, I don’t know if I got it down exactly correct, but something about the international community will not be able to stand by as this preventable humanitarian crisis unfolds. You were talking about the issues between Sudan and South Sudan. I know that those are your prepared remarks, but can you expand on what you mean there? There is a hint of, I don’t think you mean military action, but if you could just tell us what you do mean. The second question is about Somalia. Last week the U.S. inserted itself quite forcefully to resolve a hostage situation there, but there is still one American hostage being held in the country. I wondered if you could say what the U.S. is doing to resolve that situation, and generally speaking, how does the U.S. choose when to use military force or not to use military force to resolve hostage situations? Thank you.

DEPUTY SECRETARY BURNS: Thank you. On the first question that you asked, I think the key here is ensuring access by international humanitarian organizations in Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile to avert what could be a humanitarian crisis there. That is what our focus is on right now. That is a call that has been made, not only by the United States, but by many here at the African Union Summit and many others in the international community. It is extremely important that that urgent humanitarian concern be addressed.

Second, with regard to Somalia, it is obviously an essential obligation for any government to do everything we can to protect our citizens. That is exactly what President Obama did when he ordered the successful hostage rescue operation that took place recently. That was certainly another illustration of the enormous courage and capability of the American military. We are obviously very concerned about the other hostage case that you mentioned. We are following it very closely and taking it very seriously, but I don’t really have anything to add beyond that.

MODERATOR: Thank you. We have time for one more question. That question comes from our embassy in Luanda, Angola. Please state your name and affiliation before asking your question. Your line is open.

QUESTION: Domingos Balumuka, working for the international channel of Angolan National Radio. Mister Burns, tell us a little bit about evolvement of Angola in terms of the economy, politics, and other domains after nine years of peace, just as the country is going to hold also elections this year. The second question has to do with the prevailing situation in the DRC and Guinea-Bissau, because there are some conflicts. For example, in Guinea-Bissau the country is also going to hold elections on 18 March 2012. In DRC, after their parliamentary elections, there are no results so far. There is also the coming back of some rebel groups, like Mai-Mai, and Katanga wants its independence. What is your comment about it?

DEPUTY SECRETARY BURNS: Thanks. On your first question about Angola and the Unites Stated, I had the pleasure of visiting Angola about a year-and-a-half ago, I guess, and I was struck by the economic opportunities which exist there and we will certainly do everything we can to encourage the expansion of American trade and investment which I think can be an important ingredient in Angola’s own continued economic growth. We are continuing to work together in a number of areas as well. We know Angola faces challenges in expanding and sustaining with economic growth, and fighting against corruption, and building strong democratic institutions. Those are all efforts that we are going to continue to support.

On your second question on the DRC, a number of observers, including the United States, have highlighted the serious flaws in the technical processes and the conduct of the recent election. We are not sure that those technical flaws would have changed the outcome of the election, but they certainly need to be investigated thoroughly, and certainly it seems to be in the interest of the DRC to undertake steps to ensure that they are not repeated in the future. With regards to Guinea-Bissau, we obviously support a transparent and free conduct of elections.

MODERATOR: Thank you. And that concludes today’s call. On behalf of the Africa Regional Media Hub, I would like to thank Deputy Secretary of State Bill Burns, and thank all of our callers for participating in today’s call. If you have any questions about today’s call, you can contact the media hub at afmediahub@state.gov. Thank you very much.

Remarks at Wagagai Flower Farm

William J. Burns
Deputy Secretary

Entebbe, Uganda

January 27, 2012

DEPUTY SECRETARY BURNS: Thank you very much and good afternoon. It's a pleasure to see all of you and I'm certainly very pleased to be here in Uganda. This, as you may know, is part of a week-long trip across Africa that my colleagues and I are taking, and during which I'll also lead the U.S. delegation to the African Union summit in Addis Ababa this weekend.

As Secretary Clinton did in her visit to Africa earlier this month, my trip reaffirms the high priority that the Obama Administration attaches to Africa, and our continuing strong commitment to doing everything that we can to help Africans realize the enormous promise that lies ahead in economics and democratic development, as well as doing everything that we can to help Africans deal with the very real challenges that remain.

We seek relationships built on mutual respect and mutual interest. We approach the partnerships that we want to build and to strengthen with a view toward genuine partnerships; not partnerships of senior partners and junior partners, but of equal partners.

I'm especially pleased to have a chance to visit Uganda. I look forward to meeting President Museveni, as well as civil society and human rights leaders. I look forward to the opportunity to highlight the strength of our bilateral relations on a range of issues, including our strong common interest in promoting regional security. I also look forward to highlighting the American commitment to help Ugandans in their efforts to strengthen respect for human rights, the rule of law, and good governance, which are so deeply in the interests of this country and of this country's future. We have a long history of cooperation and we look forward very much to building on it.

I'm very grateful for the chance this afternoon to visit this health clinic here at Wagagai. Health, as you know, is one of our most important priorities across Africa and especially here in Uganda. Our support for this clinic is part of $400 million in assistance to the health sector in Uganda this past year alone. Our program of health assistance in Uganda is one of the biggest such programs we have anywhere in the world today.

We seek to deepen cooperation with Ugandans in the fight against HIV/AIDS and other infectious diseases, and in improving maternal and child health care. This clinic demonstrates the potential of public-private partnerships. It is one of the more than 100 clinics, as the Ambassador was telling me earlier, around the country that we're proud to support, and it helps Ugandans to deal with some very real problems. Right now, for example, 16 Ugandan women die in childbirth across this country each day. That's a devastating statistic. We share the determination of Ugandans to reduce that statistic dramatically. Clinics like this one are an essential part of the solution, and an essential part of a more hopeful future for Uganda.

With that, I'd be glad to take your questions.

QUESTION: I'm Gloria from Capital Radio, Kampala. Since the last elections in February 2011, there's been an increase in demonstrations and protests in Uganda. As a result, you've seen the government and security agencies respond with a lot of force and brutality to the demonstrators. And in spite of the continued advice to Uganda by the U.S. and observers of human rights and freedom, government actually has failed to take heed. What would be your comment on that? And in relation to that, Uganda's Minister for Internal Affairs recently was quoted as saying that the U.S. and the United Kingdom are behind these uprisings that we are seeing in Uganda, with the walk-to-work demonstrations to signal uprisings like we saw in the Arab world. Your comment?

DEPUTY SECRETARY BURNS: First, the allegation that you mentioned is simply not true. The United States, whether it's in Uganda or any place in the world, will continue to stand up strongly for respect for human rights, in particular the right to freedom of assembly and freedom of association. It's extremely important in any healthy democratic society for people to be able to express themselves peacefully and to express their views peacefully. Where there are cases of abuse, it's very important that they be investigated thoroughly and that those responsible be brought to justice. I know that there's been some consideration by civil society groups and by the Government of Uganda's human rights commission to pursue new legislation about freedom of assembly and it would be our strong hope that any such legislation be consistent with international standards and international practice. So we're unapologetic about our support for human rights, for rule of law, for good governance, which is deeply, as I said before, in the interests of Uganda and the stable democratic system that it seeks to build and that serves the best interests of its people.

QUESTION: There was another question in line with that, on the U.S. role in the uprisings.

DEPUTY SECRETARY BURNS: No, that's what I tried to address first. That allegation is simply not true, as I said at the start. The United States will continue to stand up for human rights and democratic freedoms, as we do every place in the world, and we will continue to offer the benefits of our experience to those who are seeking to build those kind of democratic systems. But political choices in Uganda are the business of Ugandans, not Americans or any other outsider.

QUESTION: My name is Candia Steven from The New Vision newspaper. My questions are about regional security. The first part is about the U.S. mission in Somalia. Under this administration there has been a spike of attacks in Mogadishu, an al-Shabab initiative. President Museveni is proposing a no-fly zone over Mogadishu in Somalia. I'm wondering, what is the take of the Obama administration on that? And lastly, just about two days ago there was an intervention by the U.S. Navy Seals in Somalia carrying out a rescue mission. I'm wondering, are we going to see more solid intervention by the U.S. Army in Somalia?

DEPUTY SECRETARY BURNS: Let me try to address your questions. What I would say in general is that the United States both admires and strongly supports the constructive role that Uganda has played in seeking to help Somalians deal with the very serious challenges that they face. Uganda's leadership role in AMISOM, for example, has been extraordinarily important and we will continue to do everything we can to support that role materially as well as diplomatically. I don't have a particular comment on the issue of a no-fly zone, except to once again reinforce our strong commitment to the international efforts, the efforts of AMISOM and in particular the leadership of Uganda in helping Somalians to deal with those problems. And I don’t have much to add to what's already been said about the recent operation that helped free two hostages. Obviously the United States takes very seriously its responsibility to American citizens any place in the world, and we're proud of the capability of our armed forces to help deal with those kind of challenges.

QUESTION: I'm Sudhir Byaruhanga, NTV. My question is about gay rights in Uganda. Although they have been pushing, still gay people cannot live freely in Uganda. What would be your comment on that?

DEPUTY SECRETARY BURNS: The United States strongly supports human rights around the world, and that means rights that apply universally to any human being--to LGBT individuals, as Secretary Clinton said very clearly in her recent speech--just as to any other human being. I think it's important to note that the Ugandan government's own human rights commission has spoken out clearly about what it believes to be the unconstitutionality of the draft legislation that's been proposed, and the fact that it runs counter to international law. So we will continue to express strong support for human rights for every human being, whether it's LGBT individuals or others. That's important in any society.

QUESTION: My name is Tabu, with the Daily Monitor newspaper. It's exactly 107 days since the U.S. Special Forces were dispatched to Uganda to track Kony. Do you know what the activities record of their operations has been since October last year? And, just as a last part, what is the honest view of the Obama administration about President Museveni, who has been in power now for 26 years, who has removed constitutional term limits and continued to win elections that some argue are rigged?

DEPUTY SECRETARY BURNS: First on the question you asked about the LRA. The United States continues to strongly support regional efforts--efforts led by countries in the region to deal with the scourge that Joseph Kony and the LRA represent. As you know very well, this is a group that has caused enormous damage and for far too long has threatened far too many people across large parts of this continent. Our President recently decided to provide limited military advice because we think that will help our partners--those in the region who are leading this effort--to be more effective and to pursue more effectively the LRA. That's a very important challenge and it's an effort that has won support from the UN Security Council as well as the African Union.

With regard to your question about President Museveni, our view is that the president is the democratically elected president of this country, and he's been an important partner on a range of regional security issues and other questions, as I mentioned before. We think that area of cooperation is something that we want to strengthen. We note that the most recent elections were, in the judgment of many outside observers, an improvement on the previous elections, but there were also flaws that a number of observers took note of and that are very important to address. And we believe that it's extremely important, as I said before, to build greater respect for human rights, for the rule of law, and to build stronger democratic institutions, which certainly includes an independent media that is able to hold officials accountable and ensure that there is transparency. It's extremely important to continue to build and strengthen those kind of institutions in the years ahead, because those are the real building blocks, I think, for a stable democratic society of the sort that is most likely to realize the full potential of Ugandans.

QUESTION: Tabu again--one more question on Sudan. With everything going on in the region, from violence in Kenya to the elections in the DRC, plus South Sudan maybe imploding, how will you raise the issue of South Sudan with President Museveni?

DEPUTY SECRETARY BURNS: South Sudan is a very important issue, not just for President Museveni and Uganda, but for the African Union, whose leaders will be meeting in a couple of days, as well as for the international community. The United States has been proud to contribute in the past toward a road map that has produced the independence of South Sudan, but we remain quite focused on the importance of follow-through now on the remaining issues that have to be sorted out between Khartoum and Juba. As I said before, regional leaders, particularly with the African Union leaders about to meet, have an extraordinarily important role to play in helping the parties to get back on a path that is going to produce the kind of stability that both of those countries--the Republic of Sudan and South Sudan--need and deserve. The United States will continue to play a very active role, but I think there's also an extremely important role for the African Union to play as well, and for important leaders in the region like President Museveni.

Thank you all very much.