Victoria Nuland

Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC

• DEPARTMENT
  • Budget Rollout
  • Amb. Ford Facebook Page / Imagery Available / StateOnDemand
• SYRIA
  • A/S Feltman Trip/ Meetings with Arab and European Leaders / Spiral of Violence Continues / Sanctions
• MALDIVES
  • Transfer of Power / A/S Blake Travel to Male
• SOMALIA
  • al-Shabaab
• PAKISTAN
  • Pakistan's Internal Review
• BURMA
  • Detention of U Shin Gambira
• ANGOLA
  • Allocco Case / Consular Support
• CHINA
  • Poet Zhu Yufu Prison Sentence / Human Rights Situation / Chinese VP Visit
• MIDDLE EAST PEACE
  • Jordan Rounds / David Hale Travel
• TURKEY
  • Foreign Minister Davutoglo Meeting Monday / Iran

12:49 p.m. EST

MS. NULAND: Happy Friday, everybody. All right. A couple of housekeeping things before we start. First of all, on Monday we’re not going to do a full-up brief. We’re just going to gaggle, probably around 11:30. This is because we have White House budget rollout at 12:30, and then we’ll have Deputy Secretary Nides and AID Administrator Shah at 1:30 here for our budget rollout. And then after that, we have the Secretary with Turkish Foreign Minister Davutoglu. So plenty of news, but we’ll do our business early in gaggle format on Monday.

QUESTION: So what time is the Secretary meeting with Davutoglu?

MS. NULAND: She’s giving him lunch, then they’re having a meeting, and I think the presser is somewhere in the 3 o’clock area. I’m not sure precisely. Okay? A lot to talk about there, obviously.

Second item, for those of you who are fans of our Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford’s Facebook site, just because he’s left the country doesn’t mean he’s not up and running still, talking to the Syrian people. I commend to you his post of yesterday which included some declassified U.S. national imagery of destruction of Homs – very gruesome pictures showing lines of tanks, showing fire, showing the kind of thing that you really only see if you have a major military attacking in a civilian area.

We will have more of this declassified U.S. national imagery available both on Robert’s site in coming days but also on our new site www.stateondemand.com, where news organizations can find all of our content to pull down around the world. These will be pictures – the ones coming later today will be pictures of Zabadani, of Halbun, and of Rankus. Our intent here is to, obviously, expose the ruthlessness of the brutality of this regime and its overwhelming predominant military advantage and the horrible kinds of weaponry that it’s deploying against its people.

Robert will also be continuing to use the Facebook site to talk to the Syrian people on a regular basis along with his Twitter feed.

Let’s go to what’s on your minds.

QUESTION: Well, talking about the photos, those photos, are the ones that you’re going to be releasing later any more clear? Because the ones that are on the Facebook post --

MS. NULAND: Yes, yes.

QUESTION: -- are not very clear. And frankly, I don’t think that – I mean, unless you are a trained military analyst, you wouldn’t be able to see what it is that you say there is. I mean, I looked at those pictures and I couldn’t tell what it was.

MS. NULAND: Well, first off, the images that are going to be coming are going to be better resolution. But more importantly, if you are interested as a news organization in using these photos, the resolution is going to be a lot better on the stateondemand site than you get when you put them on Facebook and they go through the Facebook filter. So we are working on that.

If, as we put them up, you conclude that you’d like a briefing, an analyst to walk you through exactly what is there, we can arrange that, of course, too.

QUESTION: Yeah. That will be great. For other countries as well.

Can I just ask about Jeff Feltman’s trip and how it’s going as it relates to Syria?

MS. NULAND: Well, Assistant Secretary Feltman was in Paris yesterday. He was working with the French. He also had some meetings, as we said yesterday, with Arab leaders. He’s now in Bahrain attending a conference that includes a broad cross-section of Arab leaders as well as European leaders. So the work continues on putting together the Friends of a Democratic Syria or the Friends of the Syrian People. We’re still working on the name. And we’ll see how that goes as the weekend proceeds.

QUESTION: You’re still working on the name?

MS. NULAND: We are.

QUESTION: Is that an issue of contention really?

MS. NULAND: It’s an issue that needs to be consensual among the friends.

Please.

QUESTION: Where do those photos come from exactly?

MS. NULAND: They are declassified U.S. national imagery. So you can imagine that they started out classified, and beyond that I’m going to let you use your imagination.

QUESTION: And that site, the ondemand site, is that new or --

MS. NULAND: It is a new site for us to bundle all our content and make it more available to you.

QUESTION: As of now?

MS. NULAND: Yes.

QUESTION: Did it just start in Syria?

MS. NULAND: No, it’s been – it’s a – it’s run by the Department for content from around the world to give you pictures and content from all of our various folks.

QUESTION: But it just started --

MS. NULAND: I don’t know the answer to that. Mark is telling me relatively recently. I think about a month ago. So if we didn’t shout it out then, we should have.

QUESTION: Victoria, these images from Syria, now are they U.S. sources or are they collected through YouTube and so on? I didn’t – I know you answered that, but I couldn’t hear you.

MS. NULAND: U.S. declassified national imagery.

QUESTION: So you are certain of the sources? It’s not someone that has sent it?

MS. NULAND: Correct.

QUESTION: Continuing on Syria, on the name. Now, what would the difference be between Friends of Syria and Friends of a Democratic Syria in terms of a message that the Syrian people should receive?

MS. NULAND: You’re getting me ahead of where we are. I think we really shouldn’t be parsing these kinds of details. We’re simply trying to work through what the various countries involved think the right name is, think the right agenda is, think the right timing for the first meeting is – all those kinds of things. So this is live diplomacy going on now, Said.

QUESTION: Okay. But do you think that choosing a name like Friends of Democratic Syria automatically puts these friends in opposition to the regime and in opposition to the system that is there and aiding the opposition to the regime?

MS. NULAND: Said, the goal of all of the countries and partners that we expect will participate in this is to support the kind of plan that the Arab League put forward, which spoke very clearly about a democratic transition in Syria.

Please, Jill.

QUESTION: Yeah. There are the reports – and it’s correct – that Syria does have chemical weapons. There has been some concern that something might get loose, something might be used. And all of this aside, are there any direct efforts now to talk with Syria and hopefully get some type of insurance that nothing is going to go astray, nothing would be used?

MS. NULAND: Well, I don’t have anything new to say to you on this subject. You know that for many years we’ve had a dialogue with Syria about the importance of security and safety of these weapons. We’ve had concerns about these weapons and we’ve been trying to work on them. So that was always part and parcel of our diplomacy with Syria.

Please.

QUESTION: I’m just – back to the kind of Friends of a Democratic Syria, whatever you’re going to call it, the group, I’m just wondering if, as you plan this meeting and the proposed dates that we’re hearing are ways away, I’m just wondering if you’re not going to be overtaken by events on the ground. I mean, hundreds of people are getting killed every day. Is there more immediate – are there any type of steps that you can take in the immediate to protect some civilians? I mean, there’s been – I know you’ve been talking about it for days, but I mean, I just don’t understand what – if you’re going to have a meeting weeks down the line and you’re talking about more sanctions, you’re talking about trying to increase the pressure, I mean, I’m just wondering if you’re not going to be overtaken by events on the ground and the level of killing just continues to increase.

MS. NULAND: Well, first of all, you’re not wrong. The killing increases. The killing is obviously being planned and executed primarily at the hands of the regime. We have reports that on February 9th, at least 137 people were killed by pro-regime forces throughout Syria, 110 of those in Homs. You’ve seen the press reporting of suicide bombings now in Aleppo, which had previously been a relatively peaceful place in Syria. So obviously, we are deeply concerned about this spiral of violence.

That said, even in advance of this meeting, as we have said, and part of the Secretary’s diplomacy, the President’s diplomacy, Assistant Secretary Feltman’s diplomacy with all of these countries is to begin – is to continue working on this track that we’ve been working on for some months to increase the economic and political pressure on the regime.

On the economic side, I think you’ve seen the reporting that the Europeans are considering in the very near future, greatly ratcheting up their own sanctions. We’re talking to the Arabs about what they might do at their Arab League summit with regard to the sanctions that they have on the books, but they have to make some decisions about implementing how that might work, et cetera. So we are not stopping and waiting while we plan this meeting and this new group. We are obviously continuing the work that we’ve done, and the diplomacy leading up to the meeting obviously gives us an opportunity to work with countries about the agenda.

QUESTION: Just one more: I understand that you’re continuing additional sanctions, but as you know, these kind of sanctions take a while to implement, and for there to be a tipping point in which the regime would make a strategic choice to end the violence. So how do you take steps in the short term while you wait for these sanctions to work in the long term? I mean, what kind of more immediate steps in terms of humanitarian access? I know that there’s a lot of talk. I know you’ve been speaking about safe havens or corridors. I mean, what type of immediate, tangible steps can you do to help the people on the ground while you wait for these very tough measures to be implemented and the regime to feel the effect?

MS. NULAND: Well, first, with regard to the sanctions that have already been implemented and those that we’re looking to increase and tighten, we are seeing the effect. We have been seeing the effect for a number of weeks, actually a number of months. If you have followed the press reporting about what’s happening with the Syrian currency in freefall, the regime increasingly having difficulty trading around the world, the regime increasingly having to resort to its reserves in order to fuel this violence – again, we’ve spoken out about this in the context of stealing the wealth of all Syrians to fuel the killing machine and how horrible that is – but one should be under no illusions. The regime is beginning to feel the heat.

So what is the effect of this kind of thing, and why do you want to continue to tighten that noose? It’s not only about Assad himself and the regime turning a switch, seeing the light. It’s also about those who support the regime inside Syria, whether it’s those who take up arms in its name or whether it’s the business elites who have to decide about their own money and their own future. We’re trying to influence all of these groups to abandon this regime and to side with a democratic Syria. So the degree to which you bring economic pressure, we’re also seeing the results of that in choices by some senior figures around the regime starting to move their families, trying to move their money, the increasing pace of military defections. All of these things are important for the tipping point we’re trying to reach.

Said.

QUESTION: Victoria, at today’s bombing in Aleppo, someone claiming to speak on behalf of the Syrian Free Army called the BBC and took responsibility for that. Do you think that such things will complicate whatever aid might be in the offing that may be delivered to the Free Syrian Army or the opposition?

MS. NULAND: Well, with regard to the two bombings in Aleppo, we have seen the regime blame the opposition and the FSA. We’ve seen members of the opposition accuse the regime of staging these kinds of bombings for propaganda effect. Frankly, we don’t know what the ground truth is here. The concern is simply that the violence is spiraling.

QUESTION: Should this turn out to be true that someone actually did call the BBC and tell them that the Syrian Free Army did that, would that – do you think that makes life difficult for giving any kind of aid?

MS. NULAND: Our point here is, Said, that there are claims and counterclaims of responsibility. This is a very dangerous situation, as the President’s been saying, as the Secretary’s been saying, with regard to the potential of where this violence could cycle to. So that is why the international community has got to do what we can to assist these parties in getting to a democratic transition.

QUESTION: Back to the diplomacy on the meeting, you seemed to suggest, I think, that the name of this group is an actual issue. So if the name were – can a nondemocratic state be a member of the friends of democratic Syria? In other words, like, Saudi or some of the Gulf countries? Is that an issue?

MS. NULAND: Again, I think you are taking us to places that we’re not at yet. Obviously, we have to –

QUESTION: Aren’t you – isn’t this being discussed?

MS. NULAND: What it might be called?

QUESTION: Yes. You said it was. I mean, I –

MS. NULAND: No. I mean, I don’t know that there’s – I’m not trying to claim that there’s any contention about the name. I’m simply saying that until the group is formed, until the group is announced, we’re not going to know what the name is. So I wouldn’t read too much into that. Okay?

QUESTION: Okay. Do you know who Jeff met with in Bahrain?

MS. NULAND: As I said, he’s at this conference that the Bahrainis have, I think, on an annual basis, and there are a broad cross-section of Arab leaders there, there are also a lot of Europeans there. I think it was less a matter of sitting down and having bilaterals the way one would in a formal way and talking to as many people as he could. I don’t have an actual list of who he got a chance to see.

QUESTION: How about the meetings that he had with Arab – and forgive me if you said this in yesterday’s briefing – with the Arab officials that he met in Paris yesterday? Were they the Saudis, the Qataris –

MS. NULAND: I know that he met with Arab League Syria coordinator, the Qatari Prime Minister Hamad bin Jasim. I believe he had at least one other meeting, but I don’t know who it was.

QUESTION: Can you check if it was with Saudi Foreign Minister Saud Al-Faisal?

MS. NULAND: I will. I think I would have remembered, but I’ll certainly check whether he had a chance to see him.

Nicole.

QUESTION: Toria, just back to Syria. Is there anything more you can say about these senior members of the regime trying to move their families or their money? Who and where?

MS. NULAND: I think you’d be taking us into the realm of intelligence and some of our sourcing on the ground that we want to protect. So at this point, let me just assert that we are beginning to see this trend accelerate.

QUESTION: Once they – once people are getting out of the country, are they contacting you? I mean, as of maybe last week, there were no indications that maybe while they were moving their people out of the country that there was a direct pipeline to members of the regime or members of his inner circle, of the business community that were beginning to abandon him and contact you.

Just to take us back to Libya, I remember you speaking out very forcefully about that you were getting kind of rumblings from people.

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: Are you starting to be contacted by people that are looking to get out, looking to abandon the regime?

MS. NULAND: Let me just say that I think it’s premature for us to be talking about those issues. Obviously, the first thing people need is a way out. They need to get somewhere with their families and their money. The Syrian National Council does report increasing interest in help from it by a number of people in (inaudible).

QUESTION: (Inaudible) violence by any group in Syria?

MS. NULAND: Yes.

QUESTION: -- with the caveat that people have the right to defend themselves. Do you think that caveat can embolden some action that maybe action like we’ve seen today, among some certain circles in Syria?

MS. NULAND: Said, we’ve talked about this every day this week. We want to see a nonviolent solution to this. We want to see the violence, first and foremost, at the hands of the regime, end. And it is Assad that bears responsibility for this.

Please, Goyal.

QUESTION: Maldives?

MS. NULAND: Sorry?

QUESTION: Maldives.

MS. NULAND: Yes.

QUESTION: Yeah. Madam, any comments that – the ousted president has said that he was ousted at gunpoint. Do you believe it was some kind of a military coup against him?

MS. NULAND: Well, again, the circumstances are murky, they are contested, the situation is somewhat fluid. As you know, after the briefing yesterday, we put out a clarification of precisely where we are with regard to the Maldives. So just to repeat that, our position is that we will work with the Government of the Maldives, but believe that the circumstances surrounding the transfer of power need to be clarified, and we also suggest that all parties agree to an independent mechanism to do that.

As I said, Assistant Secretary Bob Blake will be there – he’ll be in Male tomorrow – and he will see all of the major players and have a chance to talk about an appropriate way forward in reconciliation and national unity mechanism.

QUESTION: Well, the – are you happy the way now the new leader is there and the ousted president is unhappy that he was ousted at gunpoint? And second, if any way he had indicated any kind of problems before he was ousted to the U.S. in any way?

MS. NULAND: I can’t speak to that one way or the other, Goyal.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: When you said that you will work with the Government of the Maldives, that means that you do not regard this as a coup; correct?

MS. NULAND: Again, I think what – where we are is that the circumstances are contested, and we need to have Bob Blake get there, talk to the various parties before we start opining one way or the other ourselves, because there are a lot of contested facts here that need to be sorted.

QUESTION: Right. But in the interim, you will – you do not --

MS. NULAND: In the interim, I’m not going to opine at all.

QUESTION: Well, but you say – you didn’t opine, but you said you will work with the government, which means that you don’t have – you don’t regard it as an illegal or unconstitutionally created government; correct?

MS. NULAND: Again, we – I got myself in a place yesterday that was not borne out by the facts, so we’re going to stick exactly where we are, which is that Bob is going to go talk to the current president, he’s going to talk to the former president, he’s going to talk to representatives from all the political parties. And between now and then, until he has a chance to report and make recommendations, our posture is that we are going to work with the government, but we believe that the circumstances need to be clarified. We’re going to try to clarify them for ourselves, and we also think that the parties need to agree on a mechanism forward.

QUESTION: Okay. So there has – so you have not made a determination about whether this was an extra-constitutional change in power?

MS. NULAND: We do not have a clear view of the facts at the moment.

QUESTION: So --

QUESTION: Toria?

QUESTION: -- I just want to make sure that means that after Blake is there, you will come to an assessment one way or another?

MS. NULAND: I would expect that we will have, certainly, ideas about the way forward, and with regard to what we’re dealing with now, yes.

QUESTION: One --

QUESTION: Can I ask about --

MS. NULAND: Still on Maldives?

QUESTION: Yes, a quick one on Maldives: According to some businesses here, that the president was pro-business and also he brought some economic growth and prosperity for the people of Maldives, and most of the people are not happy what happened in their country, like they’re confused, like you said.

MS. NULAND: Well, we’re also at that point where we need to sort through the facts and we need to talk to all the parties, okay?

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS. NULAND: Nicole.

QUESTION: I wanted to ask if the Embassy or the lawyers for the NGO workers in Egypt have seen the charging documents yet, if there’s any progress.

MS. NULAND: We have not.

QUESTION: Still not.

MS. NULAND: We have not.

QUESTION: Do you have an indication of when you might?

MS. NULAND: We have been asking for them; we have not seen them.

QUESTION: So what was the document that you made reference to on Wednesday, then?

MS. NULAND: You missed our fabulous briefing yesterday, Arshad, in which I had to say that we had miscommunication with our Embassy in Cairo. They were expecting to see it when I said we had seen it.

QUESTION: Got it, sorry.

MS. NULAND: In fact, we did not see it, and still haven’t seen it.

QUESTION: What is the latest in the situation with Egypt?

MS. NULAND: I don’t have anything new to report.

QUESTION: Pakistan?

MS. NULAND: Let’s go to Scott, who’s been patient in the back. Sorry.

QUESTION: Just quick, just on Egypt?

MS. NULAND: On Egypt, yeah.

QUESTION: Can you find out if Feltman saw any Egyptians --

MS. NULAND: I don’t believe that he did.

QUESTION: -- in Bahrain?

MS. NULAND: I don’t – oh, in Bahrain?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MS. NULAND: Yeah, let’s take that one. Yes.

Scott.

QUESTION: Al-Qaida and al-Shabaab seem to have consummated their longstanding relationship. Any reaction and how you think that might complicate efforts to bring peace in Somalia?

MS. NULAND: Well, we’ve seen the press reporting. Obviously, one can’t independently verify these things, but obviously, it’s bad and it’s dangerous, and it’s further to our grave concerns about al-Shabaab and the danger it poses in that part of the world.

QUESTION: Any – would that affect the way that the Obama Administration supports the African Union mission there? Perhaps additional intelligence, anything to try to counter this union?

MS. NULAND: Well, obviously, we’re looking at what the implications might be, but I don’t want to predict any changes in policy at the moment.

Please.

QUESTION: Pakistan?

QUESTION: Russia?

MS. NULAND: Let’s do Russia, then go to Pakistan.

QUESTION: Yes. I was wondering if you had any comments on the Russian engineer who was sentenced to 13 years for passing data to the CIA (inaudible)?

MS. NULAND: Yeah. We don’t comment on intelligence matters, as you can imagine.

Okay. Goyal.

QUESTION: On Pakistan, any update as far as any openings of U.S.-Pakistan relations, as far as goods going through or not, or any – this new budget has anything, any new fundings for Pakistan because of what’s going on between the two countries as you --

MS. NULAND: You’re talking about our Fiscal Year 2013 requests that we’re going to roll out on Monday? I think we’ll roll that out on Monday. I don’t have anything new to report on the U.S.-Pakistan side. We are still where we’ve been, which is awaiting the completion of the internal review on the Pakistani side.

QUESTION: And one more thing quickly: Many people have been asking that – as far as Usama bin Ladin’s hiding in Pakistan, what many people were asking here, if ever Pakistan had apologized to the U.S. that they were hiding knowingly, or if U.S. ever asked any apology from Pakistan?

MS. NULAND: I don’t have anything new on that for you, Goyal.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS. NULAND: Anybody else?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MS. NULAND: Yes, Matt.

QUESTION: Yesterday, the subject of Argentina and the Falklands came up --

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- and the question was: Is the United States concerned about what the Argentine president says is a militarization of the South Atlantic? You said you hadn’t been briefed on the military postures, but I’m wondering if you have an answer to that question today.

MS. NULAND: So we didn’t get back to you one way or the other, so let us make sure that we do. But I don’t have anything further right now.

QUESTION: Okay. And then do you have anything on this monk in Burma who was one of the people behind the Saffron Revolution, who was released and then today was arrested again?

MS. NULAND: Yeah. This is the reported re-arrest of --

QUESTION: Ashin --

MS. NULAND: -- U Gambira, you’re --

QUESTION: -- Gambira.

MS. NULAND: Yeah, U Gambira, Ashin Gambira. We are deeply concerned that Burmese authorities removed U Gambira from a monastery in Rangoon early in the morning on February 10th. His whereabouts are still unknown. U Gambira is a former political prisoner who was one of those released on January 13th. We urge the Government of Burma to release him immediately and unconditionally, and to provide clarification on the purpose of his detention.

Given the Burmese Government’s stated commitment to reform and democratization, we call on Burmese authorities to protect the fundamental freedoms of all its citizens, including all of those recently released from detention.

QUESTION: Do you – does – that means that you are – you’re confident that the government was the one – that it was – that he was taken by security or police or whoever, and that he is being held by the government?

MS. NULAND: We are confident, based on our Embassy reporting, that he was officially detained, yes.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. NULAND: And it is of concern.

QUESTION: And then I wanted to know, back on Angola again, if there’s anything new in that case, if you have any concerns for the safety of these American citizens much in the same way you have concerns about the safety of this monk in Burma.

MS. NULAND: I don’t have anything new over what I said to you yesterday, which we consider to be accurate in terms of our information and experience with these individuals. They are subject to the fraud case, and now there’s an investigation about what happened on the evening that the son appeared at the Embassy. We are providing all consular support to them. We are in daily contact with them.

QUESTION: Is that – that’s an investigation by the Angolans or an investigation --

MS. NULAND: By the Angolans.

QUESTION: And is the Embassy looking into it at all, into its handling of this situation?

MS. NULAND: Into the Angolan Government’s handling?

QUESTION: No. I’m wondering if there’s any kind of look being taken into how the Embassy handled this situation up to this point. It’s my understanding the Embassy has not been particularly forthcoming with information, either to this building or to members of Congress.

MS. NULAND: That is not my information, Matt.

QUESTION: Well, okay. We’ll talk about it afterwards.

MS. NULAND: Please.

QUESTION: You just said that your – which has been your position earlier, that you are waiting for the parliamentary review to complete. But --

MS. NULAND: Subject Pakistan?

QUESTION: Yeah. But it seems that the Government of Pakistan is caught up with so many internal issues, there is a kind of judicial crisis there, government versus judiciary or something. So does that concern you, although that is Pakistan’s internal matter, that it could delay the completion of internal review and forwarding of recommendations to United States?

MS. NULAND: Well, our sense from our contacts with the Pakistani Government is that they are still trying to work through the issues, and we will be patient as they work through these things.

QUESTION: Have they given you any timeline as to when these are going to be forwarded?

MS. NULAND: We are talking about what we might expect. But again, I’m going to refer you to Pakistan because it’s subject to their process, so I think it’s they you should be asking about the timing.

Please.

QUESTION: A veteran Chinese dissident Zhu Yufu has been put in prison for inciting subversion of state power by a court in Hangzhou in eastern China. Apparently his crime was posting a poem and some other stuff on the internet that called for mobilizing in the name of democracy. Do you have any comment on his incarceration, and do you expect his name to get raised when the Chinese vice president is in town?

MS. NULAND: Well, on the last question, let me just say, as the Vice President’s made clear in recent days, we always talk about the human rights situation in China when we have high-level visitors. I expect that will be the case. But with regard to specific cases that they may or may not raise, I would refer you to them. I think you got the notice that the White House will be doing a backgrounder on the visit later this afternoon.

With regard to the case of Zhu Yufu, we are deeply concerned about these reports that he’s been found guilty of inciting subversion of state power and sentenced to seven years in prison for writing a poem. We remain more broadly deeply concerned about the worsening human rights situation in China, including the Chinese Government’s harsh sentences of human rights activists and recent violence in Tibetan areas. We believe that Mr. Zhu’s conviction, as well as the recent lengthy convictions of Chen Wei, Chen Xi, Li Tie, are inconsistent with China’s commitments under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and we call on the Chinese Government to release Zhu Yufu and all others detained for exercising their rights and to respect the universal human rights of all their citizens.

QUESTION: The tone of your reply suggests that the U.S. – that either you or the U.S. Government doesn’t believe that writing a poem should be punished by any kind of jail term. But do you – is it possible that poems can be subversive? Do you think some of --

MS. NULAND: Well, you know how we feel about freedom of speech and freedom of expression.

QUESTION: Well, fair enough. But I mean, poems can be subversive, can’t they?

MS. NULAND: You know how we feel about freedom of speech and freedom of expression.

Samir.

QUESTION: There are press reports quoting Palestinian officials saying that the Palestinian Authority decided not to return to their talks with Israel in Jordan. Did Ambassador Hale confirm this to you?

MS. NULAND: We are still engaged with the parties. We believe this process was a good one. We want to see the parties return to the talks. So as you know, we often in these cases have a press report here, a press report there. David Hale remains in the region. He’s coming home, I think, tomorrow, so we’ll get a report from him for the Secretary when he comes back.

QUESTION: Has he been in touch with you in the last day or so?

MS. NULAND: David Hale?

QUESTION: David Hale.

MS. NULAND: Yeah. He’s in touch with us every day. He’s one of our pen pals.

QUESTION: Okay. And what did he say?

MS. NULAND: What did he say?

QUESTION: I mean, what – how did he assess the situation?

MS. NULAND: Again, I think where we remain is that we think that these Jordan rounds were good preliminary meetings. We think that it’s important to continue this process, and that’s what we’re working to.

Okay.

QUESTION: Just one more.

MS. NULAND: Arshad.

QUESTION: The Turkish foreign minister this morning told a number of reporters that the Iranians have agreed to resume talks with the P-5+1, and he said there may be some technical issues, including the matter of a response to the Ashton letter. Just for the record, have you – are you aware of any response to the Ashton letter, one? And two, if not, are you aware of any material evidence that suggests that the Iranians are indeed prepared to return to talks on a basis that the P-5+1 might find acceptable?

MS. NULAND: With regard to response to Ashton, the answer is no. We don’t have anything new. With regard to new evidence, nothing that I have particularly seen or heard about. But more broadly I think the Secretary does look forward to hearing directly from Foreign Minister Davutoglu about his contacts and how he comes to the conclusions when she sees him on Monday. I do expect that Iran will be one of the subjects that they work through.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS. NULAND: Okay. Thanks very much, everybody. Happy Friday.

(The briefing was concluded at 1:24 p.m.)

Victoria Nuland

Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC

• MALDIVES
  • U.S. Support for Peaceful Resolution / A/S Blake Conversations and Upcoming Travel
• INDIA
  • Iranian Oil / Foreign Secretary Mathai Meetings at State Department
• IRAN
  • Sanctions / Impact on Iranian People / Provision of Food and Medical Supplies
• KEYSTONE
  • Inspector General Report
• SYRIA
  • Friends of Syria / A/S Feltman Travel and Meetings / Secretary Clinton meeting with Turkish Foreign Minister Davutoglo / Want to See Peaceful Resolution
• ARGENTINA
  • President Kirchner Remarks / Bilateral Issue between Argentina and UK / Acting A/S Jacobson in Argentina
• MIDDLE EAST PEACE
  • Special Envoy David Hale Meetings in Region / Hamas
• EGYPT
  • Status Update on Charging Document
• DPRK
  • No Change Since Bilateral Talks in Mid-December
• RUSSIA
  • Reports about Reopening of Sergei Magnitskiy Case
• ANGOLA
  • Status of Allocco Case / Consular Support

12:25 p.m. EST

MS. NULAND: All right. We are up on time today because we are motivated to be upstairs for the Secretary’s bilateral meeting with Italian Foreign Minister Terzi. I have nothing at the top, so let’s go to what’s on your minds.

QUESTION: Can we ask about Maldives?

MS. NULAND: Andy. Anything?

QUESTION: Well, let’s start with Maldives, I’m fine with that.

MS. NULAND: Okay. Let’s start with Maldives.

QUESTION: So what is your assessment of the situation there in Maldives?

MS. NULAND: Well, let me say that we did talk about this quite a bit yesterday, that we have been concerned about the fact that it doesn’t appear to have been as peaceful in subsequent days as it was initially.

In that context, Assistant Secretary Blake spoke this morning to former President Nasheed conveying our assurances that the United States supports a peaceful resolution of this, that we are also expressing our views to the government that his security should be protected, but also encouraging him, as we encouraged President Waheed, that this needs to be settled now peaceably through dialogue and through the formation, as the new president has pledged, of a national unity government. And as we said, Assistant Secretary Blake will be there on Saturday. When he is in Male, he’ll have a chance to meet with President Waheed, with former President Nasheed, with civil society, and he will be encouraging this national unity conversation.

QUESTION: So does – the U.S. considers the new government a legitimate government of the Maldives?

MS. NULAND: We do.*

*The United States will work with the new Government of the Maldives but believes that the circumstances surrounding the transfer of power must be clarified, and suggests all parties agree to an independent mechanism to do so.

Jill?

QUESTION: India?

MS. NULAND: Yes.

QUESTION: India, oil, Iran. Can you set us straight? How does the U.S. – we kind of got into this a little bit yesterday, but how the U.S. look at these continuing purchases of Iranian oil by India?

MS. NULAND: Well, Jill, as we’ve said, in the context of the legislation that the President signed on December 29^th, we are working with countries around the world, including India, that maintain strong oil relationships with Iran, encouraging all of them to reduce their dependence on Iranian crude.

So as you know, we had the foreign secretary here in the Department yesterday. That was an opportunity to continue conversations that we had started in Delhi about how India might be able to wean itself from Iranian oil. Those conversations continue. We’re having similar conversations with countries in Asia, in Europe, in other parts of the world.

QUESTION: So when you say “wean itself,” in other words, you don’t feel that this is a direct attempt to subvert the sanctions? Is it --

MS. NULAND: Well, India has had a trading relationship and oil relationship with Iran. What we are saying to all of our allies and partners around the world is that we are encouraging everybody to buy less Iranian crude – as little as possible – to find alternative sources of supply in the context of the economic squeeze that all of us are trying to put on Iran to encourage Iran to come clean with the international community about its nuclear weapons program.

QUESTION: But is India doing enough? I mean, you’re telling them. Are they --

MS. NULAND: Again, I think we’ve said a number of times that in the context of this 180-day period where we’re working with countries as the legislation stipulates, we’re not going to be giving individual countries a grade. We’re simply talking to you about the general message that we’re giving to everybody. In each case, the circumstances are quite specific in terms of the relationships countries have with Iran, in terms of their energy needs, in terms of where and how they might find alternative sources of supply. So we’re working with each country on an individual basis. But we’re not going to be grading them as we go along.

QUESTION: And what are they saying to you?

MS. NULAND: I think in all of these conversations, including with India, everybody shares the goal of getting Iran to wake up, to come back to the table, and come clean about its program. They obviously understand the intent of this legislation. Countries have various different circumstances, as I said, with regard to their contractual obligations, with regard to their energy needs, with regard to their abilities to switch quickly to other suppliers, and we’re trying to work through all of those things.

QUESTION: Okay. And just one thing: Secretary Otero, I believe, is going to be meeting with the ambassador. Is that on this subject, or is that --

MS. NULAND: With our ambassador – with the ambassador --

QUESTION: Otero meeting with --

MS. NULAND: -- of India?

QUESTION: Yes.

MS. NULAND: My understanding is that the Otero meeting was in the context of this general interagency session that we’re having with the foreign secretary. So he’s seeing, as I said yesterday, all of our key under secretaries. She generally wouldn’t be leading on this set of issues; she leads on the civil society issues, the justice issues, et cetera. His conversations about oil would have probably taken place with Under Secretary Sherman.

QUESTION: Can we change --

QUESTION: Financial sanctions on Iran are – increasingly seem to affect Iran’s ability to import food; you have reports that grain shipments are being – are channeled away from Iran. Palm oil is drying up for them. Does it concern you at all that this may now begin to hit the Iranian on the street? I mean, you constantly say that you want to put pressure on the government and not necessarily on the average citizen. But it seems like now, if you’re talking about food supplies, things could be getting very dicey. What’s the U.S. view on these – this impact of the sanctions regime?

MS. NULAND: Well, Andy, I can’t remember if it was you or if it was Arshad, but we had a long discussion of this earlier in the week – I think it was Tuesday, probably. Obviously, we have no beef with the Iranian people. In fact, our intention is to be able to end the isolation of Iran and have it reintegrated into the international community so that the Iranian people can live the way they want to live – in a state that is increasingly democratic and prosperous.

Unfortunately, the Iranian Government has not lived up to its international commitments, has not come clean with us about its nuclear program, and so we are having to squeeze and squeeze and squeeze economically. And we have seen these reports, obviously, about the impact on the Iranian rial, that in general, the chilling of the economic environment around Iran is causing companies and nations that have other forms of trade with Iran to think twice.

I do want to make clear, as we said the other day, that with regard to U.S. sanctions, we do have carve-outs for the provision of food, medical equipment, medicines to the Iranian people because we don’t want to hurt them any more than we need to. But they are living in a state with a government that would rather spend money on a nuclear weapons program than on the welfare of its people, and that’s why we are compelled to increase the pressure and increase the isolation until they see the light.

QUESTION: But on this issue, Victoria, I mean, how would you avoid the situation? I understand that you don’t want to hurt the Iranian people, and that’s quite admirable, but how – what lessons have you learned, let’s say, from the Iraq situation where Iraq was not allowed to have graphite pencils or strings for the musical instrument for the Baghdad Philharmonic or things for medication and so on, where not only people suffer but also their culture suffers a great deal?

MS. NULAND: Again, those are not the kind of sanctions that we’re seeking. We’re seeking sanctions on those things that provide funding for the regime to continue to pursue its nuclear program, and that’s why these sanctions are focused on the government, are focused on crude oil.

QUESTION: But inevitably, you have things that are called dual use or double purpose and so on. How do you deal with that issue?

MS. NULAND: Well, again, we don’t have any gripe with the Iranian people at all, and we are doing our best to target this situation so that it is the Iranian regime that has to make the difficult choice ahead of it. And we do regret that this is having an impact on people, but it’s having an impact on people because their government is making a very bad choice for Iran’s future, and frankly, for regional security and global security.

Nicole.

QUESTION: Iran.

QUESTION: New subject?

MS. NULAND: Let’s do – actually, guys, we only have about half an hour, so let’s keep moving.

QUESTION: The Inspector General has come out with a report on Keystone and a finding that the State Department is not at fault in any way, I think, is my understanding. Could you comment on that for us?

MS. NULAND: Well, as you remember before, while we were still in the process of reviewing the Keystone application, we – the way the Department had been handling this was referred to the Inspector General. So the Inspector General did a full inspection, which it has now conveyed to the Congress.

As you point out, Nicole, the OIG found in that report that the State Department conducted a thorough, rigorous, and transparent review of the environmental impact of the proposed project. The OIG also found that our processes were in accordance with applicable regulations and guidance, that the State Department’s contractor did not have a conflict of interest, that there was no improper influence in the – by the applicant in the selection of the contractor, that the Department was responsive to the views of other agencies during the review and then in preparation of the final EIS, and that we were also responsive to FOIA requests.

That said, the OIG does make some recommendations about how we can improve these processes in the future, and we’re going to take all of those on board.

QUESTION: Syria?

MS. NULAND: Syria, yeah.

QUESTION: Would you be able to tell us what’s the latest on this friends of Syria group that you mentioned?

MS. NULAND: Well, we are continuing to work with allies and partners around the world, particularly in the Arab world and in Europe, and some of our other UN Security Council partners who supported the vetoed resolution, on how this group might come together and what its mandate might be.

The Secretary has sent Assistant Secretary Feltman out to talk to countries. He was in Morocco a couple of days ago. You recall that Morocco was the original sponsor of the UNSC proposal. He’s in Paris today where he’s meeting not only with French leaders, he’s also meeting with Prime Minister of Qatar Hamad bin Jasim, who was also very active in the original resolution and is the Arab League’s representative on Syria. He’ll go tomorrow to Manama to a conference – a previously scheduled conference – where there are lots of Europeans and lots of Arab League representatives to continue to talk about how this group might come together and what its mandate might be.

And as you know, Turkey is very much interested in this group as well, and the Secretary will have a chance to discuss how this can come together when she sees Turkish Foreign Minister Davutoglu on Monday.

QUESTION: Assistant Secretary Feltman, on the Hill, while he was testifying about three months ago, he mentioned this friends of Syria contact group kind of thing. So is it fair to say that the last three months, you have not taken any kind of steps to create this group, but waited till the UNSC – failure at the UN?

MS. NULAND: Well, I think a lot of countries and a lot of the countries that have expressed interest in participating have been talking about this kind of an idea over the last couple of months, and certainly, recent weeks. I think the original expectation and hope was that we would have this Security Council resolution, and then countries would be able to help implement it in the context of a friends group, and that was the sequence we envisioned.

But as I said yesterday and as the Secretary has said in Sofia, now that the UN Security Council action has been blocked by the double-veto, we are compelled to work outside the UN system, and so that’s why you see this sort of groundswell of work now to get this friends group together.

QUESTION: When Feltman was on the Hill three months ago as well, he spoke about Syrians taking up arms against Assad, and at that time, he said that it was a bad idea and that it should be discouraged because it plays directly into Assad’s hands. Does that remain this Administration’s position that people who take up weapons and fight Assad – this is something that should be discouraged?

MS. NULAND: Well, as we’ve said many times, we think the best solution in Syria is a peaceful solution, a negotiated conversation about a democratic transition. We have discouraged violence on any side throughout this 11-month conflict.

First and foremost, as we continue to say, responsibility for the violence, responsibility for the bloodshed is at the feet of Assad and his regime, and they are the ones who are keeping it going. What we do have, sadly, is that in the context of the relentless assault, particularly in places like Homs and Hama that the regime is exacting on its people, you have people taking up arms to defend themselves. This is exactly the situation that the Secretary’s been warning about, that the White House has been warning about. This is unfortunate, but this is the way it goes when you’re trying to defend your hearth and home and children in a situation like this.

QUESTION: So is it fair to say that, over time, there’s become – there has been a greater acceptance of this activity as somehow a legitimate defensive effort, considering the Assad attacks.

MS. NULAND: Our position remains that the international community needs to come together to support those who want change in Syria, and that we need to accelerate those efforts even as – after the UN Security Council failure so that the situation doesn’t spiral down into the kind of civil war that we’ve all been worried about. So we want to help the people of Syria have a peaceful alternative, a peaceful way through this, and for Assad to understand that not only does the violence need to end, but that he’s lost his right to govern his country, from our perspective.

QUESTION: But in lieu of a peaceful solution that’s out there right now – and it’s hard to see one, considering the Syrian regime’s attitude – is there a growing sense that armed defense, some sort of armed struggle, is legitimate, considering the level of atrocities now?

MS. NULAND: I think what we’ve said, again and again and again, is we don’t condone violence on any side, but what we are seeing now is self defense in light of the absolute horrors that Assad is exacting on his own people. That is why we are redoubling our efforts to help the – those Syrians who want to live in a better way, increasing the pressure, increasing the isolation on Assad until he stops or – and leaves power.

Please.

QUESTION: Does this understanding of the people and the need of the people to defend themselves factor in in sort of devising a strategy of the friends of Syria group?

MS. NULAND: As we look – as the Secretary said when she was in Sofia, as we look at what a friends of Syria group could do, we see three fundamental tracks. The first is the sanctions/economic pressure track. We’ve obviously been working for many months in the international community to pass national sanctions, regional sanctions. The EU, as you know, is on its way to taking more moves. The Arab League has taken some moves, and could take more. So – and first and foremost, to look at how we can increase the economic pressure, working together, close the loopholes in the funding to him.

The second track is supporting the democratic opposition in its effort to come together. Under the Arab League plan, with the Arab League plan as a signpost, but to come together on its own roadmap of how a democratic transition could go forward, to be unified, to ensure that its plan represents the interests of all Syrians – Sunni, Alawite, Druze, Christians, all minorities, et cetera – in a way that can be unifying, in stark juxtaposition to what Assad is doing, which is dividing his country.

And then the third vector, as we started to talk about more actively now, is this question of how we can provide more humanitarian support to the people. And that’s an issue that’s going to take a – quite a bit of work among us.

So we’re going to – we’re working on the agenda, we’re working on these three tracks, in anticipation of having a meeting at some time in the relatively near future, but we haven’t been able to set that yet, either.

Nicole.

QUESTION: Toria, has the Secretary had a conversation with Lavrov yet about his visit?

MS. NULAND: She has not.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: Assistant Secretary Roberta Jacobson today is in Argentina, and the president of Argentina mentioned this week that they did a claim that Argentina’s going to go to the Security Council of the United Nations because, in their view, there is a militarization in the South Atlantic. I want to know if there is any advance – any view of the U.S. in this situation.

MS. NULAND: Well, we’ve seen the remarks by President Kirchner. I’m sure that Assistant Secretary – Acting Assistant Secretary Jacobson will be talking about these issues during her visit today. Our policy is unchanged. We believe that this is a bilateral issue that needs to be worked out directly between Argentina and the United Kingdom. That’s what we are encouraging both sides to do as we head towards this anniversary.

QUESTION: So – sorry. So you don’t think that it’s abnormal that a nuclear submarines and destroyers from England are going into the South Atlantic and these may create a security situation there in the south waters?

MS. NULAND: Again, we are encouraging Argentina and the UK to work this out peacefully, to work it out through negotiations.

QUESTION: Hold on a second. But you’re not answering that question. Are you concerned at all about a militarization of the South Atlantic? Regardless of the claims over the islands, what – are you concerned about the deployment, the British deployment of troops? Do you agree with the Argentine president that this is creating tensions?

MS. NULAND: Well, I’m not in a position to comment one way or the other on what the British may not – may or may not be doing in the oceans. Frankly, I don’t have the information, so I’m going to send you --

QUESTION: You sent the --

MS. NULAND: I’m going to send you to the – to DOD on that.

QUESTION: Prince – they sent the heir to the throne there.

MS. NULAND: They did, as part of his normal work --

QUESTION: Right. But I mean – so you don’t have any concerns about the current situation there?

MS. NULAND: I said that I was not in a position to comment on whether this is a change from past practice, et cetera. I, frankly, am not briefed on what the military posture is. Thanks.

QUESTION: New topic?

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: Toria, on Tuesday you said that you are not issuing grades to the new agreement between Fatah and Hamas in Doha, that you will wait until you discuss or be clarified on the issue by the Palestinian Authority. Today, The Wall Street Journal took issue with your statement, and they are holding you to the statement made by Secretary Clinton back in 2009 that you will never negotiate with a government that includes Hamas.

First, do you have a comment on this? And second, since Mr. Hale has already met with Mr. Abbas after the agreement, have they clarified their position?

MS. NULAND: Well, first of all, David Hale remains in the region. He’s talking to all the stakeholders here. He’s been in Amman, he’s been in Jerusalem, he’s been in Ramallah. Obviously, we stand by what we had to say, which is that we are waiting to see whether – how this deal might be implemented if, in fact, it is implemented at all. We’ve seen lots of deals come and go of this kind. What matters to us and what matters, we think, to the process that we are trying to keep on track here is that Abbas remains the president, that Fayyad remains the prime minister. So we’re not going to speculate on what the effect might be.

However, as we’ve said again and again and again with regard to Hamas, any Hamas participants who come into the government, if they want to work with us, have to recognize the state of Israel, have to renounce violence, and have to agree to uphold any past agreements of the PA. That standard does not change. And we’ve said that every time we’ve talked about this subject.

Okay.

QUESTION: Can I go back to Syria for a second?

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: So it’s fair to say that you do not oppose any country to arm the FSA or other opposition within Syria?

MS. NULAND: What we have said is we want to see this resolved peacefully and that we don’t think more weapons into Syria from the outside is the way to go. The way to go here is to increase the pressure on Assad, to stop the violence, and to help the people of Syria get to a democratic transition.

QUESTION: But we know that Russia and Iran and Iraq have been selling arms to Syrian regime.

MS. NULAND: And we have opposed that and we have called out those countries that continue to sell arms.

Please. Yes.

QUESTION: Has Pakistan reached out too?

MS. NULAND: Actually, Ros, did you have something else?

QUESTION: Yeah, I wanted to go back to Iran very quickly, just one question. A couple of senators are introducing a sense of the Senate resolution essentially calling on the Administration to take containment of a nuclear Iran off the table. Have you heard about this resolution that they’re introducing today? Is there a comment from this Department?

MS. NULAND: We’ll wait and see what this looks like. I don’t have a comment particularly today.

Andy, did you have something?

QUESTION: Yes. I had something on Egypt.

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: I was just wondering if you had been able now to go over this charging document and had any clearer read on what it may or may not require.

QUESTION: And whether it was a charging document or not.

MS. NULAND: Well, thank you for the opportunity to fix something that was incorrect yesterday. Yesterday, I implied that we had the document and that we needed to translate it and read it. It turns out that that was inaccurate. I had inaccurate information. I think we were yesterday expecting to see the charging document.

In fact, the situation is – and I talked to our lawyers on the ground there about an hour ago – the investigative magistrate has forwarded a charging document to the public prosecutor. At least that’s what we understand. But we have not seen it. The Embassy has not seen it. And in fact, the attorneys working with our affected Americans and their organizations have not seen it. So we are asking for it and we are still waiting for it, as are the attorneys for the affected Americans. So we haven’t actually been able to get off square one to begin to look at it and evaluate it.

QUESTION: So what was the 175-page document?

MS. NULAND: Well, we understood that it was 100 to 175 pages. I think there was a miscommunication between us here and our folks in Cairo. They were expecting to see it and they didn’t see it yesterday.

QUESTION: And this may be testing your knowledge of the Egyptian judicial processes --

MS. NULAND: Yeah. I tried to bone up today.

QUESTION: -- but is it your sense that, given where we think this document is in the process, that that means that charges have not been filed yet? I mean, this is still sort of an internal thing that the Egyptians are trying to figure out how to do, that it hasn’t actually risen to the level of filing charges?

MS. NULAND: My understanding – and if this is not right because this has been pretty fluid and we’re all learning about the Egyptian judicial system here – is that the transferring of the charging document from the investigative magistrate to the public prosecutor, which apparently did happen, is equal to what we would consider charging. That said, further to the difficulty of this situation, since neither we nor those charged have seen this thing, it’s hard to know what to do with it.

QUESTION: American lawyers or –

QUESTION: Toria, you said --

QUESTION: I’m sorry, just a clarification. American lawyers or Egyptian lawyers that you’re talking to?

MS. NULAND: We have – well, we’re working with both Egyptian and American and international lawyers who have been retained by those who might be affected, both the organizations and the individuals.

QUESTION: So was there anything that was being reviewed by the Embassy yesterday?

MS. NULAND: There was not. They were waiting for it. So that was our miscommunication.

QUESTION: There wasn’t anything?

MS. NULAND: Correct. We have had meetings trying to get clarification but have not succeeded yet.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Actually, I had one more question on Egypt. Sorry.

MS. NULAND: Please.

QUESTION: Is that standard – do you know – in the Egyptian system that these charges are being sent to the public prosecutor but not to the people being charged?

MS. NULAND: I frankly don’t know if this is normal procedure that it takes a while to actually get to the affected people. I just don’t know, Nicole.

QUESTION: So it’s not the public prosecutor who then charges? It’s the actual investigative magistrate who doesn't – he doesn’t recommend it, he does the charging? Because I thought you were saying a few days ago that he recommends charges.

MS. NULAND: He recommends charges which then go to the public prosecutor, who accepts them, which is what we understand has happened. But since we haven’t seen them, we can’t speak to them.

QUESTION: So he would – so theoretically, you’d have something as well from the public prosecutor at some point explaining if he’s --

MS. NULAND: Again, I don’t know if he does a separate document or if he just says yes to this.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MS. NULAND: Yeah. We’re now well beyond my capabilities.

Please.

QUESTION: Has Pakistan reached out to you officially on the hearing on the Capitol yesterday on Balochistan? Because their officials have publicly expressed concern about those hearings.

MS. NULAND: I don’t know the answer to that. I don’t think so, but I don’t know the answer.

Jonathan is giving me the high sign. Let’s take one more.

QUESTION: Victoria, it’s about North Korea.

MS. NULAND: Yes.

QUESTION: I just heard that U.S. and the North Korea direct talk will be held anytime soon. So would you please update the current status of the U.S.-North Korea talk?

MS. NULAND: I don’t have any change from what we’ve been reporting over the last month and a half that we had bilateral talks in mid-December before the death of the former leader trying to clarify what it would take to come back to talks, that we were awaiting an updated set of instructions to our interlocutors, that we are still awaiting clarification as to whether North Korea is ready to come to the talks along the lines that we would expect if we’re going to resume them.

QUESTION: Do you have --

QUESTION: Will it be coming – has to come from the North Korea?

MS. NULAND: Correct.

QUESTION: So what about the status about the nutritional assistance?

MS. NULAND: And there again, we were in conversations, as we reported to you, about what we might be able to provide, what we thought was appropriate, and about what it would take to monitor that. And we have not been able to have the kind of reassurance that we need from the North Korean side before we can go forward with a decision. So there’s no decision yet.

QUESTION: Do you have any comment on the Russians planning to try Sergei Magnitskiy posthumously?

MS. NULAND: I do.

QUESTION: And then the last one, Angola?

MS. NULAND: Angola, yeah. I was hoping for Angola today. We’ve seen the press reports about the reopening of the Magnitskiy case. We continue to call for Russian authorities to bring those responsible for Sergei Magnitskiy’s death to justice.

QUESTION: No, this is the case against him.

MS. NULAND: This is the case against –

QUESTION: They’re going to try him.

MS. NULAND: I thought it was – they were reopening the case against some – more found guilty.

QUESTION: No, they’re going to try him. And he’s dead.

MS. NULAND: Are you confident that --

QUESTION: Well, that’s what I was told earlier today.

MS. NULAND: No, I think it’s a reopening of the case against some of those --

QUESTION: And your position on the bill --

MS. NULAND: -- Who should have been accused the first time.

QUESTION: Your position on the Magnitskiy bill on the Hill is the same?

MS. NULAND: It is.

QUESTION: Okay. And then, Angola?

MS. NULAND: On Angola, and then we’ve got to get upstairs. Okay. So we had previously talked about Americans we had on – under investigation in Angola for fraud charges in connection with a concert that they were promoting that didn’t happen. Their name is Alcoa. We --

QUESTION: It’s Allocco, actually.

MS. NULAND: Is it Allocco?

QUESTION: Yeah, Alcoa is a big company in --

MS. NULAND: Apologies to the Alloccos. See, Matt has been in direct contact with them, so – anyway, just to make clear that we do now have a Privacy Act waiver. Embassy officials have been in nearly daily contact with the Alloccos, have visited them at their hotel some seven times. We have been present at all of their legal proceedings. We have also helped them to find English speaking attorneys and other things. We did have an incident with them on January 23^rd, where the younger Allocco, the son, Patrick J. Allocco, sought refuge at the Embassy after he was involved in a nightclub altercation. He did not meet the criteria for refuge, but we did keep him at the Embassy until consular officers were able to ensure that he could get back to his hotel safely.

QUESTION: The nightclub altercation wasn’t at all related to the case?

MS. NULAND: Not to our knowledge. However, the police in Angola have now opened a second investigation with regard to the altercation.

QUESTION: Why – is it not correct that both Allocco sought refuge in the – at the Embassy?

MS. NULAND: Our understanding is that only the son sought actual refuge. By the way, we did facilitate – we gave him some clean clothes, some medicine, cleaned him up.

QUESTION: They claim that they were abducted at gunpoint and taken away by plain clothes –

MS. NULAND: Abducted from where? From the nightclub?

QUESTION: No, no, no. Abducted –

MS. NULAND: From the Embassy?

QUESTION: No. From their hotel. Taken somewhere and interrogated by thugs and you’ve determined – I think, that is not the case, that in fact, they were not?

MS. NULAND: We don’t have that.

MS. NULAND: What we had was junior Allocco, Patrick Allocco, appearing after this altercation in bad shape, at the Embassy looking for help and looking to ensure that he could get back to the hotel safely, which is what we took care of with our superb consular officers there in Angola.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. NULAND: All right. I need to get upstairs. Thanks, everybody.

(The briefing was concluded at 12:57 p.m.)

DPB #27

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

Victoria Nuland

Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC

• IRAN
  • Condemn Recent Increases in Repression against Journalists / Call to Cease Harassment
  • Reducing Indian Dependence on Iranian Oil / Indian FS Mathai Meetings Today
  • Iran Default on Rice Payments to India
  • Sanctions / Exemptions for Food and Medical Supplies / Regret Effect on Iranian People
  • Gas Pipeline with Pakistan
• DEPARTMENT
  • Change of Station for U/S Tauscher to Special Envoy / Gottemoeller as Acting U/S for Arms Control
• ISRAEL
  • Secretary Clinton's Meeting with Israeli FM Lieberman / Wide-ranging Discussion
  • Peace Process / Hamas / Hale Travel
• SYRIA
  • FM Lavrov's Mission / Focusing on Ending the Violence / Arab League / United Nations / Regimes that Continue to Trade Arms / Various Intervention Proposals / Consulting With Various Groups
  • Local Employees of U.S. Embassy / Syrian Embassy in Washington
  • Turkish Initiative / Turkish FM Davutoglu
  • Various Countries Recalling Ambassadors
• EGYPT
  • Status of Charges against NGOs / Americans at U.S. Embassy
  • Assistant Legal Adviser Linda Jacobson Travel to Cairo
• IRAQ
  • Reports that Embassy Baghdad Will Reduce Staff by Half / D/S Nides Review Underway
  • Ambassador Jeffrey
• CUBA
  • Summit of the Americas / US Policy on Cuba Unchanged
• PAKISTAN
  • NATO Airstrikes / Awaiting Completion of Pakistan's Internal Review
  • Reconciliation / Meetings in Qatar
  • U.S. Civilian Assistance MALDIVES
  • Security Situation under Control
  • Embassy Colombo Travel to Maldives JAPAN
  • DAS Zumwalt, Meeting with Japanese Officials

1:03 p.m. EST

MS. NULAND: All right. We must be very late today because all the staff are already eating their lunch, eating my lunch. (Laughter.)

All right. I have a couple of things at the top, and then we’ll go to what’s on your minds. First, with regard to Iran, we want to take this opportunity to condemn again recent increases in repression with – against journalists, bloggers, and free-speech advocates in Iran. We’re particularly concerned and alarmed by reports that Iranian authorities have now been harassing family members of a BBC reporter. This is actually quite a horrific story of Iranian authorities going into the apartment of the sister of a London-based BBC correspondent, forcing her to Skype with her sister, and then using the Skype opportunity to try to interrogate this BBC reporter in London.

Our concern is that the Iranian regime is putting a further chill on the press environment in advance of their parliamentary elections, their legislative elections on March 2^nd, and that they are even trying to reach the arms of the state out to overseas Iranians who work for international press organizations.

So, obviously, we call on Iranian security forces to cease the harassment of those seeking to exercise their universal rights, and we will stand with Iranian journalists and civil society activists in their continuing fight for the ability to express themselves freely.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) the use of a new media that you do not approve of?

MS. NULAND: Correct. Second, I think you may have seen reports about a change of station for Under Secretary of State Ellen Tauscher. Ellen will, effectively today, begin serving as Special Envoy for Strategic Stability and Missile Defense. Our Assistant Secretary for Arms Control and Verification and Compliance, Rose Gottemoeller, will be Acting Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security.

In her special envoy role, Ellen Tauscher will continue to be responsible for bilateral work with the Russian Federation, and particularly the work that she does with Sergei Ryabkov to try to come to agreement with the Russians on a missile defense cooperation regime, and also co-chairmanship of the U.S.-Russia Bilateral Working Group on Arms Control and International Security.

Let’s go to what’s on your minds.

QUESTION: Just very briefly, I was wondering if you could tell us about the meeting the Secretary had with the Israeli foreign minister this morning.

MS. NULAND: The Secretary sat with Foreign Minister Lieberman this morning. They had a very wide-ranging discussion: U.S.-Israeli relations, Iran, Egypt, Syria, Middle East peace, Turkey, Iraq, just a little bit on each.

First of all, obviously, with regard to U.S.-Israeli relations, the Secretary reconfirmed our unshakable commitment to the relationship, not only to Israel’s security but to Israel’s democracy, based on our shared values and the ties between our people.

With regard to Iran, they talked extensively about the impact that the new sanctions are having and our efforts to work with countries around the world to wean them from Iranian oil, and obviously, our mutual commitment to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon and to increase the pressure through these sanctions.

They talked – we talked about the situation in Egypt and our shared support for a democratic transition there and, obviously, the situation with the U.S. NGOs ongoing.

They talked about the situation in Syria in the aftermath of the double veto in the UN.

They – with regard to Middle East peace, the foreign minister reconfirmed Israel’s commitment to the two-state solution, made clear that this is the policy of the entire coalition government, and their interest in continuing the process of trying to get to direct talks. The Secretary again raised the issue of trying to complete the procedures on the Israeli side so that the customs revenues can be released back to Palestinian Authority.

The Secretary, also with regard to Turkey, urged again, as she has with both Turks and Israelis, that the countries work together on rapprochement. Both are allies of the United States – a lot of work to do together.

And with regard to Iraq, they talked about the importance of helping the various political actors in Iraq get back to political dialogue to settle their issues.

So a very wide-ranging meeting, as I said.

QUESTION: On the peace process, did they talk about what the Palestinian leadership decision will mean for that?

MS. NULAND: Well, with regard to our view on this, I spoke to this a little bit yesterday. The Secretary reiterated some of the points that were made here yesterday, but just to make clear where we are on this, we’ve seen these reports about what happened in Doha. And as we’ve said many times, our view on Hamas has not changed. Our view is that Hamas needs to – any participants in the Israeli Government – in the Palestinian Government obviously need to recognize Israel’s right to exist, they need to commit themselves to nonviolence, and they need to accept the previous agreements. They did discuss the fact that it’s not particularly clear what this agreement will change in particular. We still have President Abbas at the head of the government, we still have Prime Minister Fayyad responsible, and so, frankly, any impact this may or may not have is unclear.

QUESTION: Well, but the problem is that Prime Minister Netanyahu, Foreign Minister Lieberman’s boss, said that the Palestinians had to choose one or the other, Israel or Hamas. So if this doesn’t change anything, is it your view that the Palestinians have, in fact, chosen Hamas over Israel?

MS. NULAND: No. Again, I think our view is that we wait to see whether this arrangement will actually be implemented, whether it will actually change anything. At the moment, the fundamentals have not changed, which is that Abbas remains the president, Fayyad remains the prime minister. That has been important for this process. And our own position with regard to any role that Hamas might play in the government is absolutely clear, and it’s not actually clear what this agreement would result in, in terms of who comes in.

QUESTION: Well, how exactly have Abbas as president and Fayyad as prime minister helped the process, since it’s gone absolutely nowhere?

MS. NULAND: Well, I think we would --

QUESTION: It would be worse?

MS. NULAND: I think we would reject that, Matt.

QUESTION: It’s hard to see --

MS. NULAND: We’ve had – as we’ve been saying for a while now, we’ve had a number of good preliminary rounds in Amman under the Jordanian auspices. We’re now having a pause while the parties are home and working. We have David Hale out in the region now consulting with the parties. And our hope and expectation is that the parties will come back to the table soon under the Jordanian auspices, and that’s what we’re working for.

QUESTION: Victoria, the foreign minister has stated very clearly in the past that including Hamas in any government excludes the Palestinian Authority from the peace process as a partner. Did he reiterate this stance today with the Secretary of State?

MS. NULAND: Well, I’m not going to characterize his view other than – and I would refer you to him with regard to this – but that’s not the way this conversation went. This conversation was very much about trying to get to a two-state solution, about the importance of trying to maintain the momentum that’s begun, and about the fact that we are continuing to work with the partners that we have on the Palestinian side who have been important to this process.

QUESTION: And so does the Secretary of State and the foreign minister see eye to eye if Hamas agrees to these three things that you always say over and over again, that in this case it can be a partner in the peace negotiations?

MS. NULAND: They didn’t get into hypothetical scenarios. Our redlines about Hamas are the same redlines that the Israelis have: recognizing Israel, renouncing violence, and agreeing to all of the past Palestinian agreements. So that hasn’t changed on either side.

QUESTION: And finally, has he – did he discuss with the Secretary of State any kind of Israeli proposal with borders?

MS. NULAND: It was not that kind of discussion. As I said, in the course of half an hour, 40 minutes, they covered all of these subjects. So obviously, this was not a negotiation of those issues that we were having.

Jill.

QUESTION: A question on Syria, if I may?

MS. NULAND: Jill.

QUESTION: Sorry.

MS. NULAND: Jill.

QUESTION: Syria, in fact. Yeah.

QUESTION: Sorry, go ahead --

QUESTION: Change subject?

QUESTION: If I could just ask a quick question on – yeah.

QUESTION: Oh, thank you.

MS. NULAND: Was there anything --

QUESTION: Please go ahead. Yeah.

QUESTION: Same subject.

MS. NULAND: Anything else on this subject before we move on?

QUESTION: Yes.

MS. NULAND: Okay. Yeah. Go ahead, Matt.

QUESTION: On Israel, right?

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: Jill, Israel?

QUESTION: No, Syria.

QUESTION: Oh. No, on Israel.

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: Did – you said that they – the meeting was only 40 minutes long?

MS. NULAND: Actually, it was – it might have been half an hour. Half an hour, 40 minutes.

QUESTION: Thirty minutes? And they talked about one, two, three, four, five, six, seven subjects?

MS. NULAND: Highly efficient humans, both of them.

QUESTION: Amazing. It doesn’t sound like they got into very much detail on any of them, did they?

MS. NULAND: It was a solid exchange on all the issues that I cited.

QUESTION: For four minutes each?

MS. NULAND: Matt --

QUESTION: We go on here for what – they must have – this was an interesting – an interesting meeting.

MS. NULAND: We’re obviously highly less efficient than they are.

QUESTION: Apparently so. I hope that his questions were answered better than the one – than ours are here.

MS. NULAND: Didn’t we miss him yesterday?

QUESTION: Do you know if – since those are all the subjects they discussed, they didn’t talk anything about internal Israeli – things going on inside Israel, in specific, the treatment of prisoners, that kind of thing? I realize that’s not really in the foreign minster’s --

MS. NULAND: They did not. They did not.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: One last thing on this issue. Did they discuss the future of the Amman talks? Was the foreign minister aware of the resumption?

MS. NULAND: I think I spoke to that, that there is an interest in maintaining this so that we can get to a real dialogue.

QUESTION: But the actual status, what is going on now with the Amman talks?

MS. NULAND: Are you asking me what’s going on with the Amman talks?

QUESTION: Yeah. I’m asking you, yes. Yeah, what is happening as far as the talks are concerned that are either on hold or in the offing?

MS. NULAND: So as we’ve discussed, under the Jordanian host’s auspices, there have been a number of rounds. They’ve now been in a pause for about a week or week and a half. Our envoy David Hale is out in the region. He’s been in Jordan, he’s been in Israel, he’s been in Ramallah, talking to all the parties. They are also taking stock at home. And our expectation is that this process will resume back in Jordan, and we hope that will be as soon as possible.

Jill.

QUESTION: Have you seen any of the comments coming out of Syria in connection with Lavrov’s meeting?

MS. NULAND: We’ve seen the press reporting. We obviously haven’t heard from the Russians directly yet.

QUESTION: What’s your opinion?

MS. NULAND: Well, we’ve seen some of this press reporting with regard to Assad making yet another proposal on new constitutional amendments, new elections, sounding an awful lot like proposals he’s been making for months and months.

Let me just say that with regard to Foreign Minister Lavrov’s mission, the Secretary and the Department will obviously reserve judgment until the Secretary has a chance to consult with Foreign Minister Lavrov after he gets back to Moscow on his conclusions from the visit. We obviously owe him that, and that will happen.

That said, with regard to this press reporting, you can understand that the international community as a whole would be pretty skeptical if, instead of focusing on ending the violence, what we seem to have is a re-upping of this same offer that Assad has been making for months and months and months that he would put forward some sort of constitutional referendum and have people vote on it. It sounds like another promise by the Assad regime to put forward a piece of paper that they control for a vote that they can control. And frankly, how that gets us to the kind of peaceful national dialogue about a democratic future for Syria that we all want to see is not very clear.

QUESTION: There are two points also that came out in the Syrian media. One is that the – that President Assad assures them that he fully supports the ending of violence wherever it comes from, and that the observer mission should continue and expand the team.

MS. NULAND: Well, if, in fact, Assad supports the end of violence, he knows what he can do today, which he has neglected to do for these 11 months. He can stop the attacks by his forces on innocents in cities across Syria. And the violence continues in Homs, in Hama, around the outskirts of Damascus, et cetera, as so many of you are now able to report.

QUESTION: Can I just ask a question on Syria as well? Given the limitations of diplomacy that were obvious at the United Nations at the weekend, and despite the strong rhetoric coming out of the Administration, what is your government willing and able to do to actually change the situation in Syria?

MS. NULAND: Well, I think the Secretary spoke to this quite clearly in Sofia, and the President spoke to it last night. In the absence of being able to get the kind of action that so much of the world – Europeans, the Arab League, countries ranging from India to South Africa – wanted to see the United Nations take and it was unwilling to take, unable to take because of the double veto, we want to support those Syrians who want a peaceful, democratic process.

What is that going to involve? As the Secretary said in Sofia, it’s going to involve, first and foremost, working with as many countries as we can to strengthen regional sanctions, strengthen unilateral sanctions against the Assad regime, to squeeze the money that he gets to continue to fuel his war machine. We’re going to work with countries around the world to call out those who are still sending him weapons and expose that. We are going to – we’re talking, as we said yesterday, as the Secretary said in Sofia, about working together as the friends of a democratic Syria to support the democratic movement, to help them to plot a way forward, and also to do what we can about the humanitarian situation. It’s frankly not clear how much we’re going to be able to do, but we want to help.

QUESTION: But however much the United States squeezes, if Russia and China are still doing business with the government in Damascus, it’s not going to make any difference, is it?

MS. NULAND: Well, we’ve made absolutely clear how we feel both bilaterally and publicly about regimes that continue to trade arms with the Syrian Government. They’re simply fueling the violence. How --

QUESTION: You’re trying to shame the Russians into stopping their current policy?

MS. NULAND: We have made absolutely clear that we think that this is wrong, that it’s dangerous, that it’s fueling the cycle of violence. Now, I would disagree with you that the question of sanctions isn’t an important one. We’ve already seen the Syrian regime increasingly squeezed. It’s starting to run through national reserves that are better spent on the good of the people to fuel its weapons. It is having a harder and harder time trading with countries around the world. So the sanctions are having an effect, and we’ll continue to use them.

QUESTION: A follow-on, if I may. Senator John McCain yet again this morning called for the United States to help arm the rebels, the insurgents, against the Assad government. Have you ruled that out?

MS. NULAND: Well, we never take anything off the table. The President does – doesn’t. However, as the President himself made absolutely clear, and as the Secretary has continued to say, we don’t think more arms into Syria is the answer. We think the answer is to get to a national democratic dialogue, for the violence to stop, for the regime’s tanks to come out of the cities, and then for monitors to be able to go back in.

QUESTION: But they were the answer in Libya, weren’t they?

MS. NULAND: Libya was a completely different situation.

Please.

QUESTION: Also one more on that, please. The humanitarian corridors, the idea of the humanitarian corridors or safe zones – would the U.S. support that idea?

MS. NULAND: That is not the stage that we are at, at the moment. We are trying to work as friends of Syria to see what might be necessary. Frankly, Jill, some of these proposals that people are brooding about could not be done without foreign military intervention, which, again, as we have said, we don’t think more arms into Syria is the right answer.

Please.

QUESTION: Victoria, could you explain to us how the friends of Syria would work? Is it the coalition? There’s a group? How does it meet? Does it have representatives of certain governments?

MS. NULAND: Said, we talked about this quite extensively yesterday. I can’t expand on that any further than to say that the idea here is to gather those countries who are interested in supporting a democratic Syria, many of whom made their views known in the UN, but there’s also a broader group of them in the Arab League and in Europe to work together to do what we can. And we are consulting now on how this might work. I think if you see some of the comments coming out of Arab League countries, some of the comments coming out of Turkey, some of the comments coming out of European leaders, we’re all talking in the same vein about forming a group of friends who can do more together in the absence of being able to do more in the UN.

QUESTION: My apology about the Embassy. Maybe you addressed this before. But now with the Embassy completely closed and the lights are shut off and so on, what happens to the local employees, the locally employed Syrians that worked at the Embassy? Do they still have a job? Are they safe? Do you have any kind of guarantees to maintain their safety and security?

MS. NULAND: Well, the situation for the local employees is similar to the situation in other places where we’ve had to suspend operations like in Libya. We continue to pay them. They stay in our employ. Generally, if the Embassy itself is closed, they don’t obviously show up to work. But we would expect that when that happy day comes, that we can reopen that they will be fully back to work. And in the meantime, we make sure they don’t suffer economically.

QUESTION: So, how do you ensure their safety, that they are not subject to interrogation or even more severe measures by the Syrian Government? Is there such a thing?

MS. NULAND: Well, obviously we have a number of ways to stay in touch with them, including through the Polish protecting power, but also through our direct contacts so that we can advocate for them if there are difficulties.

QUESTION: And lastly on the Embassy, the Syrian Embassy in Washington – it continues to operate as normal, correct?

MS. NULAND: It does. They don’t have an ambassador present there, under the management of a chargé.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: How do they presumably – if there are sanctions on – Syrian banks, right? So how do they get paid?

MS. NULAND: You’d have to ask them about that. You mean about how are our employees --

QUESTION: No, no. How do you get the money to them?

MS. NULAND: How our employees get paid?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MS. NULAND: I can take that question if you want to know, Matt.

QUESTION: Sure. And then you mentioned some of these ideas that have been brooded about – can you – which ideas are you talking about?

MS. NULAND: Well, Jill –Jill was – what Jill was talking about, corridors and things here.

QUESTION: Well this is – are you talking about what Anne-Marie Slaughter wrote about today?

MS. NULAND: I’m not talking to anybody’s specific proposal.

QUESTION: Well what is – okay.

MS. NULAND: I’m simply saying that some of the issues that Jill raised would raise a lot of questions about how one would do that.

QUESTION: Well, what was raised by the former policy planning director was the – who was also very early in coming out for NATO intervention in Libya, was the idea of these zones or corridors that could be protected by Arab troops. Is that something that you’re familiar with or is that something that you were referring to when you were talking about these ideas that are percolating?

MS. NULAND: I have to admit, I haven’t read the piece yet, so let me do that.

QUESTION: Another subject?

QUESTION: No. Turkish prime minister has said today that Turkey will launch a new international initiative on Syria and his foreign minister is coming to Washington tomorrow. Will you discuss this initiative with the Turkish --

MS. NULAND: Well, we always talk about Syria with Foreign Minister Davutoglu. As you know, the Secretary had a brief meeting with him also in Munich, and Syria was very much a topic. So I think we do look forward to hearing the ideas from the Turkish side going forward.

QUESTION: And do you know about this initiative?

MS. NULAND: Well, obviously they’ve been talking about it in public, so I would expect they’ll also want to talk about it tomorrow.

QUESTION: One more thing. The Gulf states have decided today to expel Syrian envoys and recall their own. How do you view this action?

MS. NULAND: Well, a number of countries are making decision about their diplomatic presence. This continues the trend that we’ve seen. We also understand that the British, the French, the Italians, the Belgians, and as you’ve said, a number of GCC countries have, at a minimum, brought their ambassadors home for consultations. In some cases, these -- they have the same kinds of security concerns we have, but in other cases it’s also linked to their dissatisfaction with what happened in the UN.

QUESTION: It wasn’t that long ago that you were encouraging those countries to return their ambassadors to Syria.

MS. NULAND: Listen, it was--

QUESTION: Right? Correct?

MS. NULAND: It was our preference, as you know -- and we spoke to this yesterday -- to have been able to keep the Embassy open and to have been able to keep Robert Ford there. That was our preference. Unfortunately, security conditions did not allow.

QUESTION: Iran?

QUESTION: No. That’s not the point that I was trying to make. I mean, why is it now you are welcoming these people withdrawing their ambassadors when --

MS. NULAND: I don’t think I qualified it one way or the other. I simply noted it.

Please.

QUESTION: Iran.

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: What is the U.S. reaction or comments on this Iranian default, financial default, their inability to pay for Indian rice? That’s one. And the second is they are pressing India for a – with a deadline to go for an oil deal, the Farsi offshore block that needs to be developed. In 2010, India had said, okay, we will develop it. But they have given them one month deadline to sign a contract. So --

MS. NULAND: Well, I’m obviously not going to get between – into the middle of an Iranian-Indian discussion. You know that we are working with the Indian Government, as we’re working with governments around the world, to encourage them to reduce their dependence on Iranian oil. Clearly, we have Iran nervous about this and so trying to put pressure on its partners.

With regard to the defaulting on a rice payment, we’ve seen the press reports. We’re not in a position to independently confirm this. Just to make clear that U.S. sanctions on Iran include exceptions for exports of things like food, medicine, medical devices. So from our perspective, this kind of trade would not be sanctioned. That said, if it’s true, that Iran is defaulting, it would simply speak to the financial pressure that they’re feeling around the world, from sanctions I would guess.

QUESTION: If a --

QUESTION: Hold on.

MS. NULAND: Let’s let Tejinder finish, and then we --

QUESTION: But if the Indian companies go in for this contract that will be under the sanctions for the oil development?

MS. NULAND: Well, again, I’m not going to be judging Indian policy before they’ve made it. The Indian Government is absolutely clear about our concern that countries ought to be weaning themselves off Iranian oil, and we are working together on how that might be achieved in – with India and with other countries.

Arshad?

QUESTION: Just staying on Iran --

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: I mean, even though you note that the latest U.S. sanctions have exceptions for food and medicine and so on, what has already begun to happen -- and we’ve reported on at least two transactions, one involving, I think, India and the other one involving Ukraine grain shipments -- is that companies are not willing to – I mean, they’re just backing out of any dealing through Iran, including on food stuff. And we have reported over the weekend very extensively about the ways in which you’re starting to see almost sort of panic buying in parts of Iran, people stocking up on certain food stuffs. So whether you intend the sanctions to – whether you intend to allow for these exceptions for food and medicines and so on – you’re already seeing effects that clearly hurt the population. How do you address that? I mean, you’ve always said that you have no quarrel with the Iranian people, but is this what you actually want, that you want to see the sanctions squeeze the ordinary people so that they will try to get their government to change its policies?

MS. NULAND: Well, just as you have said, Arshad, we do have no quarrel with the Iranian people. In fact, it is the Iranian people’s future and their hopes and aspirations to live in a freer, more democratic state that actually provides for them rather than siphoning off vital resources of the state into the nuclear program that we are seeking to help them achieve here with these policies. Our sanctions are designed to make it hurt the Iranian regime, that it is making the choice not to come clean on its nuclear program, not to allow the IAEA in to see what it needs to see.

And we frankly do regret the fact that this has begun to have some knock-off effect on the people. And we are trying, through all of our media platforms to the Iranian people, to make clear that this is not directed at them, that our own policies do allow continued trading in food stuffs and medicines and medical supplies. But frankly, the bad choices that their government is making are chilling the international environment for any kind of trade with Iran. But all of this will end -- Iran’s own isolation will end when it comes clean with the international community about its nuclear program and particularly makes clear that it -- and demonstrates that it doesn’t have an intent to build a weapon.

QUESTION: Even if you regret it and even if you have (inaudible) exceptions for food and medicine, one of the clear effects of the sanctions passing or being signed into law on New Year’s Eve has been a depreciation in the Iranian currency. As a result of that – and this is on the front page of The New York Times, we wrote about it over the weekend – there is considerable inflation as people are uncertain whether Iran will be able to continue to import foodstuffs or other essential goods. And it seems like you want to have it both ways: You want to be able to say, well, we regret that this hurts the Iranian people, we’re not really trying to hurt the Iranian people; but you are hurting the Iranian people.

MS. NULAND: Our message to the regime is that they need to look very hard at what their lack of openness, their lack of transparency, the fact that they continue to profess that they don’t have or want a nuclear weapons program but won’t demonstrate that to the world, what the knock-off effect of that is on their own people. These are their bad choices that are resulting in the situation on the ground in Iran.

QUESTION: Toria, the word around town that is used – on Iran, still on Iran – that is used time and time again to describe as an alternative to war is crippling sanctions. How do you define crippling sanctions? What does that mean?

MS. NULAND: Said, I think we’ve made absolutely clear what we are trying to do here is wake up this regime about the cost of the policy path that it’s on.

QUESTION: What does a crippling sanction mean? What is that supposed to mean?

MS. NULAND: It is twofold. It is first designed to cripple the flow of revenue that the regime can use to fund its nuclear ambitions. And secondly, it’s designed to make the choice for Iran crystal clear.

QUESTION: Iran?

MS. NULAND: Goyal.

QUESTION: Foreign Secretary of India, Mr. Ranjan Mathai, is in town and he has met some high-level officials here in the building. What he was telling yesterday that India has no alternative as far as Iranian oil is concerned because of India’s energy needs. And my question is same thing was made by the foreign minister of India in India. Do you have any alternative that as far as oil India is buying from Iran? Because India is saying they will continue to have relations with Iran as far as sanctions are concerned. They will support the sanctions against nuclear will of Iran, but as far as buying oil, they will continue. So as far as his meeting in the building is concerned, this issue came up?

MS. NULAND: Well, I guess I would fully expect that the Iran issue will be discussed at length. As you know, Under Secretary Sherman is hosting this Indian delegation today. Secretary Clinton – and as is Deputy Secretary Burns, Secretary Clinton dropped by the meeting with Indian Foreign Secretary Mathai this morning to make clear that we support these consultations on the full range of issues including – and that she’s looking forward to the U.S.-India Strategic Dialogue later this year.

Our conversation with Iran does continue – with India on Iran does continue – I think the jet lag’s catching up with me today – including how India might find alternative sources. As we’ve said many times, this is a two-track policy both to encourage countries to wean themselves from Iranian oil but also to work with suppliers around the world to help countries find alternative sources of supply. This includes working with Libya, working with Iraq, working with other countries in the Gulf, to increase the supply and create alternatives for countries.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) about Iran and that the Pakistani and Iranian authorities met yesterday and they decided to go ahead with the gas pipeline project despite the U.S. opposition, do you have a comment on that? And if they do go ahead with it, will the U.S. sanctions affect the assistance to Pakistan?

MS. NULAND: Well, we’re also talking to Pakistan about these issues, and our view with regard to this pipeline hasn’t changed. We think it’s a bad idea and we’re continuing to talk to Pakistan about that.

QUESTION: And have you also – are you also giving them some alternative options?

MS. NULAND: We are working with Pakistan as we’re working with countries around the world on other ways to meet their energy needs.

Nicole. Yeah.

QUESTION: Do you have any news for us on Egypt and the NGOs? Are there any new developments?

MS. NULAND: I wish I did, Nicole. I don’t. We are basically where we were yesterday, where we have information about recommendations of charges. Formal charges have not yet been filed. We are continuing our efforts to try to settle this issue as quickly as possible with the Egyptians.

QUESTION: When was the last time the Secretary made a call on this issue or reached out in any way to Egyptian officials?

MS. NULAND: The Secretary saw Foreign Minister Amr in Munich. They had a bilateral meeting on Saturday, which did not resolve the issue.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) haven’t had anything since then, that you’re aware?

MS. NULAND: Well, Anne Patterson’s been in every day, obviously.

QUESTION: Well, I mean with the Secretary.

MS. NULAND: Not from the Secretary, no.

QUESTION: On Iraq?

QUESTION: Wait, wait. Hold on. Just on Egypt again. Are there now definitive numbers that you have on the terms of --

MS. NULAND: Yeah. We had – I mean, I can’t speak to what the Iranians are putting out --

QUESTION: No, not the Iranians. The Egyptians.

MS. NULAND: I really – I need more sleep, I think.

QUESTION: Maybe you should have taken yesterday off. (Laughter.)

MS. NULAND: All right. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. (Laughter.)

Some of you are reporting numbers of 19. I think those came from Egyptian sources. As I said yesterday, we were endeavoring to make a count of affected Americans based on our conversations with individual Americans or with their organizations or lawyers. Yesterday our count was – the count I gave you was 17; that was not accurate. Our today count is 16 affected Americans of whom less than half are actually currently resident in Egypt. And some of them haven’t been resident in Egypt for quite a while – a number of years. So a little bit unclear how the Egyptians came up with this list.

QUESTION: Less than half – meaning seven?

MS. NULAND: I think, given the fact that numbers are changing, I don’t have a precise figure, but it’s definitely less than half.

QUESTION: You say not actually resident. You mean they’re not actually there?

MS. NULAND: They’re not in the country.

QUESTION: Okay. Can we go to Iraq?

MS. NULAND: And some of them have not been resident in Egypt for a while.

QUESTION: Are you aware if all of the ones who are in the country are at the Embassy?

MS. NULAND: What we have done is made clear that Ambassador Patterson’s invitation to stay on the compound is open to any Americans who have heard that they may be charged and are not able to leave the country. So this is open to all of those. Some of them have chosen to accept her hospitality. Some of them have not. Some of them have been coming and going.

QUESTION: On Iraq?

QUESTION: How many are there now?

MS. NULAND: I think I’m not going to get into the numbers in the interest of protecting the privacy of those people and also because the numbers are changing, as I said. Some of them come for a couple of nights and then go do other things. Some of them are still deciding what they want to do.

QUESTION: Iraq?

QUESTION: No, wait. Just on this then. How does it square now with the foreign affairs manual and the official policy of giving shelter if these people are now being protected from a legal process of a sovereign country?

MS. NULAND: We – well, first of all, with regard to the judicial process that’s been going on for some weeks and months, as we said yesterday, all of these organizations, all of these Americans, have been cooperating fully. They’ve been in for hours and hours of questioning --

QUESTION: They have. But now they’re going to be charged with something, so --

MS. NULAND: They have not been charged, so --

QUESTION: Well, once they have been charged, will that change? Let me put it this way – it’s a hypothetical question – but if they are charged, will that change their status vis-a-vis the refuge in the Embassy and your policy?

MS. NULAND: We will speak to that if we come to it. At the moment --

QUESTION: Well, you have to be making preparations for it.

MS. NULAND: We will speak to that if we come to it. Our goal is to try to solve it so it doesn’t come to that. We – at the moment, these people are guests of Ambassador Patterson. They are not in formal refuge status. They are her guests, and that is – and as we said yesterday, this is a highly unique situation. It is engaging the highest levels of both governments.

QUESTION: So --

QUESTION: Toria, do you have faith in the Egyptian judicial system?

MS. NULAND: I have said many times I’m not giving a grade to the Egyptian judicial system from this podium.

QUESTION: So the official status of these people is basically they’ve just been like invited over for dinner and they can – and then they can stay?

MS. NULAND: They are guests of the ambassador. Given this unique situation, that is her right to invite them as guests.

QUESTION: Well, but I mean what you’re seeming to suggest is that they could be invited like guests, but just like a guest who shows up for a dinner party --

MS. NULAND: Again, Matt --

QUESTION: -- that that’s the kind – they’re not – that they don’t have any protected status at all and they’re just there for --

MS. NULAND: Well, obviously the territory of the Embassy compound, as we said yesterday, is inviolable.

QUESTION: Yeah.

MS. NULAND: So – but from that – from the perspective that I gave you before, these people have not been formally charged. So the circumstance that you’re alluding to has not arisen as of yet.

QUESTION: Yeah. But surely someone has thought about – given the fact that the Egyptians say that they’re going to be charged, the great legal minds at the State Department I’m sure are – they’re thinking about what this will mean in terms of --

MS. NULAND: I’m sure they are.

QUESTION: And you don’t know if they’ve reached a conclusion --

MS. NULAND: I --

QUESTION: -- about whether they would be allowed to stay.

MS. NULAND: If we come to that issue, we will speak to it.

I neglected to advise you of one other thing. We did, today, send Assistant Legal Adviser of the Department Linda Jacobson to Cairo. She’s been sent to reinforce our Embassy in the legal support that we are able to give these individuals and the affected organizations. So she’s on her way to Cairo. She is Harold Koh’s deputy for this part of the world and very experienced in these matters.

QUESTION: Has she been – was she told before she went that she might have a problem coming back?

QUESTION: Surely she has diplomatic immunity.

MS. NULAND: She’s on a diplomatic passport.

QUESTION: Can we go to Iraq, please?

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: Can I just ask one small question?

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: What is the size of the legal team working on this issue in Cairo?

MS. NULAND: In the mission?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MS. NULAND: The U.S. Government legal team, or are you talking about the legal team for the individuals? I mean, the individuals have --

QUESTION: The U.S. Government legal team.

MS. NULAND: Yeah. The individuals have obviously retained their own counsel, some in Egypt, some in the States. The – we have the Department of Justice’s Defense Legal Attache Office – I don't have the numbers on that office, but as I said, Assistant Legal Adviser Jacobson’s gone out. Whether she’s taken a couple of people with her, I don’t know. I – we will try to size it for you, Nicole. I’m not sure. But I can --

QUESTION: To Iraq?

MS. NULAND: Iraq.

QUESTION: The New York Times is reporting that – quoting U.S. officials as saying that the State Department is considering slashing the number of staff at the U.S. Embassy in Iraq from what it says is about 16,000, including contractors, by as much as a half. Is that true?

MS. NULAND: Well, we saw this reporting just as we were preparing to come down today. First, let me say that with regard to our diplomatic presence, there is no consideration being given to slashing our diplomats by half. What we are doing – and Deputy Secretary Nides is leading this process – is looking at how we can right-size our Embassy in Iraq and particularly how we can do more for that mission through the hiring of local employees rather than having to be as dependent as we’ve been in the past on very expensive contractors. So we’re trying to do our best to save the American taxpayer money in the way we support our diplomatic personnel.

We’re also looking to acquire more of the supporting things for the Embassy, including food supplies, et cetera, from the local economy, so trying to do more locally with local Iraqis and on the local economy and save the taxpayer money. So what ultimate numbers will result from this in reductions in contractors, we don’t know yet. This process has just begun, but we are trying to ensure that it is rigorous and that it gets us to a much more normal embassy, like some of our big embassies around the world.

QUESTION: So just talking about the diplomats for a moment, so you’re not considering slashing their numbers by a half?

MS. NULAND: Correct.

QUESTION: Are you considering slashing their numbers by 40 percent, by 30 percent, by 20 percent, by 2 percent, by zero? I mean --

MS. NULAND: Again, if we can find efficiencies, we will. Obviously we’re still working with the Iraqis on some of the programming that these diplomats are charged with managing. So with regard to whether we may be able to reduce some of the diplomatic staff, we will look at that. But I just wanted to make clear that we have a lot to do in Iraq, so some of these reportings about the level of diplomats is – were exaggerated.

QUESTION: Okay. And then the number of contractors – are you looking to slash those by as much as a half?

MS. NULAND: We’re looking to save the taxpayer money and do the same work as efficiently as we can. I can’t predict where this review will come out, but obviously we will brief you fully on it when we get to the end of it.

QUESTION: I can’t predict where the review will come out either, but the report is that you’re looking to cut the number of contractors by as much as a half. I mean, is that right?

MS. NULAND: Again, we --

QUESTION: That would save the U.S. Government a lot of money. It would cut the amount presumably you’re paying for contractors in half.

MS. NULAND: We want to save as much money as we can without sacrificing the quality of the work or our support for our people. So that’s what Deputy Secretary Nides is looking at now. It’s going to be a bottom-up review. And I can’t tell you where it’s going to come out, because it’s really just started, okay?

QUESTION: Is it not – does the fact that you are considering this not suggest that the U.S. Government grossly overestimated how many people it would need in Iraq?

MS. NULAND: Again, I think what we have here is an embassy structure that was built for a different time and that relied a lot on expensive contracting for a whole range of reasons, some of them historic, some of them security-related. Our judgment now is that we can adapt that for today’s Iraq, do our diplomatic business just as well and just as rigorously, but far more efficiently. So that’s the task that Deputy Secretary Nides has been tasked with. I don’t want to get ahead of what he’s going to conclude as he looks at this and as he works with our mission out there.

QUESTION: You’re talking about a different time, but the Embassy only opened, I think, in early 2009 or at the – maybe it was 2008. It’s not that long ago. It’s only three years ago.

MS. NULAND: Well, we’ve had a diplomatic presence in Iraq all the way through, and it’s waxed and waned. But our view is that it is currently too dependent on contractors. We can do more with Iraqi staff. We can do more on the local economy, and it’ll make it cheaper.

QUESTION: When did this start?

MS. NULAND: Deputy Secretary Nides has been working on it informally for a number of months, but he’s now put together a real bottom-up review team in the last couple of weeks.

QUESTION: Okay. And then when did the magic light bulb go off of somebody’s head that 16,000 contractors might be a few too many?

MS. NULAND: Well, we’ve been working on rightsizing this mission all the way through as we looked at the transition. Obviously, this is a time of transition for us too.

QUESTION: Where – do you know where the half figure that Arshad kept alluding to, which is actually in the headline of the Times story but never appears in the body of the story -- where would that have come from, if you know?

MS. NULAND: Sounds like a question for The New York Times, not for me.

QUESTION: Well, no. But --

QUESTION: Toria, it’s in the lead of the story, also.

QUESTION: Well, it’s nowhere --

MS. NULAND: Guys, I’m going to leave you to dispute this with the Times.

QUESTION: The lead is part of the story.

QUESTION: No, no, no, no. It’s not about that. It’s just that it came from somewhere. It’s not – but it’s not mentioned again. I mean, is it -- is that the optimal?

MS. NULAND: Again, I think I’ve spoken to this for about the last 10 minutes. We don’t know yet where this is going to go on the contractor side.

QUESTION: All right. And then –

QUESTION: Different topic.

QUESTION: One simple one on this. How do you tell the American people that you weren’t grossly mistaken here?

MS. NULAND: We have been in the process of transitioning this Embassy from a civilian staff that worked within the context of an entire American footprint that included a very large military footprint, which has been going down. So at a certain point in time, we had diplomatic staff out in many, many parts of Iraq, co-located with our military staff. We have, over the last few months – as you know very well, Arshad – been pulling this staff back to consulates. They continue to cover all of Iraq, but they do it in a different lay down than we did it before. The military has traditionally been dependent on a lot of contractor support, some of which stayed to work with us as we move to a civilian structure. So now in the context of getting ourselves to a purely embassy and consulate structure, we are able to take that next step, which is to look at whether contracting is still as necessary.

QUESTION: It’s not as if this was a great surprise to you that the number of military was going down. I mean, President Obama campaigned on it.

MS. NULAND: That’s right. And this process of looking at the right size of our civilian presence has been going on for many months and this is the stage that we’re at right now.

Said?

QUESTION: Quick clarification on this. You said that you want to cut down in the contractors. Many of these contractors provide protection and security and so on. And you say that you want to hire local. So would you rely on Iraqis to provide security for the U.S. Embassy? Is that what you’re saying?

MS. NULAND: I’m not going to get into, in advance of Deputy Secretary Nides’s review and his recommendations to the Secretary, what functions might be able to be done locally. But we’re looking at the whole thing.

In the back.

QUESTION: Hold on.

MS. NULAND: Is it still Iraq?

QUESTION: Thank you. It’s different topic. It’s about the Summit of the Americas.

MS. NULAND: Hold on one second. Let me just finish Iraq. I hope finish Iraq.

QUESTION: So, in the story that they’re talking about the examples of hardship faced by people at the Embassy included dwindling lettuce at the salad bar, the cafeteria, and the lack of Splenda sweetener for their coffee. Does the State Department consider not enough arugula to be a hardship in Iraq?

MS. NULAND: Frankly, I saw that story, and it was – looked like some, some wingeing that was inappropriate. Let’s put it that way.

QUESTION: Inappropriate on the part of who? Embassy employees?

MS. NULAND: On the part of Embassy employees, with regard to the quality of the salad bar.

QUESTION: Does -- okay. Thank you.

MS. NULAND: Thank you.

QUESTION: Can I ask about Ambassador Jeffrey? The same article mentions that Ambassador Jeffrey is going to be stepping down in a couple of weeks. Has he communicated that intent to the Secretary?

MS. NULAND: Ambassador Jeffrey is on a regular diplomatic assignment. It was of a particular duration. Frankly, I don’t have at my fingertips here when his assignment is completed. But obviously in the context of regular rotation of ambassadors, when his tour is completed or in the context of his tour being completed, the President will nominate a new ambassador for Iraq, who will have to have the consent of the Senate. So we’re not at that stage yet. The President hasn’t put forward a nominee yet, and I can’t actually tell you what the end of tour date for Jim Jeffrey is. But this is normal and in keeping with the commitment that he made when he took the job.

In the back.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS. NULAND: Summit of the Americas.

QUESTION: This is about the Summit of the Americas.

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: What does the U.S. think to have Cuba as a guest country? And if the Cuba (inaudible) will U.S. attend this summit?

MS. NULAND: Well, I’m obviously not going to get into hypotheticals. Our view on the posture of Cuba has not changed with regard to the Summit of the Americas and we don’t think that the posture of the Summit nations should change either.

Please.

QUESTION: Another New York Times story this morning that says that the United States is considering an apology to Pakistan on NATO airstrikes. Do you have a comment on that? The story also says that General Mattis is on his way to Pakistan to meet General Kayani and break some ice?

MS. NULAND: Well, first of all, with regard to General Mattis’s travel, our brothers at the Pentagon spoke to this today and said that we don’t have any particular travel plans to announce. When we do, we will. As we said here day after day after day, we’re not going to be able to make any decisions about where we might go until Pakistan itself completes its internal review that is still ongoing and until we have a chance to consult directly with Pakistan. So that situation has not changed.

QUESTION: Have they indicated any timeline to you as to when they are going to forward these recommendations to you?

MS. NULAND: There have – we are continuing to talk about the timelines. But until they complete their process, we can’t be sure when that will be.

QUESTION: Pakistan’s prime minister is in Qatar and he’s talking about Afghanistan. Is he – is it the same track that the U.S. initiated in Qatar? And is he meeting any U.S. officials there?

MS. NULAND: I don’t think he’s meeting any U.S. officials on this trip – not to my knowledge anyway. We have long said that we would hope that Pakistan would continue to support the process of Afghans reconciling with each other. We have kept the Pakistani Government briefed. I can’t, frankly, speak to what kinds of meetings Pakistan and Qatar are having with each other. I would refer you to them.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) kind of a following up on what Mr. – Ambassador Grossman did in Qatar, I mean --

MS. NULAND: I can’t speak to that. I refer you to the Pakistanis.

Please.

QUESTION: I missed the first part of the second to last question, which was on the apology issue, and I missed it because I don’t think you answered it.

MS. NULAND: Again, we’re not going to be able to discuss or talk about where we’re going to be able to go with Pakistan until the Pakistanis complete their review until we’ve had a chance to talk about it.

QUESTION: I think we’re talking at cross-purposes here. The story referred to the State Department supporting the U.S. – a formal apology for the airstrike.

MS. NULAND: Again, I don’t have anything new to announce. You know where we’ve been on this.

QUESTION: No. I understand. Yeah, I understand that. But I don’t understand your response, “We’re not going to be able to do anything until the Pakistanis complete their review.”

MS. NULAND: Well, we --

QUESTION: How does that relate to an apology or not making an apology?

MS. NULAND: Well, what we’ve already said, what we said at the time, what we said for days and days, continues to stand.

QUESTION: But is there some possibility that if – once the review – once the Pakistani review is over that might change?

MS. NULAND: I mean, this was the reporting, but as I said, we will make no decisions until we have a chance to consult with the Pakistanis.

QUESTION: Okay. Can you explain to me why it would change if the Pakistani’s complete the --

MS. NULAND: I didn’t say it would change.

QUESTION: Well – but you said that it might change.

MS. NULAND: The report – the reporting said it would change.

QUESTION: No. I know, but you’re saying that we’re not going to make – we wouldn’t change --

MS. NULAND: We haven’t – we’re not going to be able to

QUESTION: Why would there be any change? I mean why would you even consider making a change depending on what the Pakistani report review says?

MS. NULAND: I didn’t say that we would. I said that with regard to where we go with Pakistan on the full range of issues, we are not going to be able to be clear about how we’re going to get this relationship back on track until we hear from the Pakistanis what the result of their review is and we have a chance to work with them on where we might go.

Please.

QUESTION: Change of subject.

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: In Maldives, the president of Maldives resigned today off the clashes between the police and the military. Are you following the developments domestically there and what’s a readout on it?

MS. NULAND: We are – Assistant Secretary Blake spoke with the newly sworn in president of the Maldives, President Waheed Hassan, earlier this morning. President Waheed informed of us that the security situation in the Maldives is now under control and generally peaceful. He expressed his strong commitment to a peaceful transition of power, the preservation of democracy going forward. He expressed his intent now to form a national unity government that will include participation from the opposition parties in the lead-up to the regularly scheduled presidential election, which will be in November 2013.

So obviously, Assistant Secretary Blake expressed our appreciation that the situation is now peaceful, that the transition was peaceful, and made a commitment to staying in open communication.

QUESTION: When Assistant Secretary travels to Colombo next week, does he has any plans to go to Maldives also?

MS. NULAND: To my knowledge, he does not. Some of our Embassy Colombo people who also cover Maldives are traveling there in the next couple of days.

QUESTION: They are already traveling?

MS. NULAND: Yeah. Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Japan, please?

MS. NULAND: Japan.

QUESTION: A readout of the meeting yesterday?

MS. NULAND: I do have something on this. Let me just find it. So yesterday, we had meetings here, as we said, between Deputy Assistant Secretary for East Asia Pacific Affairs Jim Zumwalt and Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Michael Schiffer and Japanese counterparts, specifically Deputy Director General for North American Affairs Mr. Akiba and Deputy Director General representing Japan’s Ministry of Defense Tetsuro Kuroe. Their meeting reaffirmed our government’s commitment to maintaining and enhancing robust security alliances.

They also discussed their support for the principles of the 2006 realignment roadmap, as I said yesterday, and they made clear that we all remain fully committed to the implementation of the Futemna replacement facility and the relocation of the air base to Camp Schwab. We made clear that Guam remains an essential part of our larger Asia Pacific strategy, including Guam as a strategic hub, and to establishing operational Marine Corps presence on Guam and relocating some of our Marines from Okinawa to Guam. But with regard to any further details, that’s all I have for you at the moment.

QUESTION: Do you know if any agreements, concrete agreements, were made within this meeting?

MS. NULAND: I don’t have anything to announce at the moment.

QUESTION: Do you know when announcements will be made? I heard tomorrow, actually, February 8^th.

MS. NULAND: I don’t have anything to confirm on that at the moment.

Yeah. In the back.

QUESTION: I’ll just take you back on the Summit of the Americas.

MS. NULAND: Yes.

QUESTION: Will the U.S. condition its participation in the summit if Cuba is in attendance?

MS. NULAND: Again, I’m not going to get into any hypotheticals here.

Please.

QUESTION: A quick follow-up on Pakistan. Last week, you have provided some figures about U.S. civilian assistance to Pakistan, and you said that since the passage of Kerry-Lugar bill, the United States Government has distributed 2.2 billion in civilian aid. But on the other hand, the Pakistani officials are saying that they have only received 400 million. Why there is a huge difference in these figures?

MS. NULAND: I can’t speak to that. Our figures, as we put them out, speak to what we have allocated. It may be that we have money that has been assigned against projects but hasn’t yet flown into the country. I can’t actually speak to what the differences might be there without seeing how the Pakistanis themselves make their accounting.

Okay. Last one.

QUESTION: Is the U.S. satisfied with the explanation being given by India on its relationship with Iran, in particular the sanctions and the oil imports?

MS. NULAND: Well, again, we have U.S.-India consultations going on now, so why don’t we read those out after they’re finished.

Okay? Thank you.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS. NULAND: Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:03 p.m.)

DPB# 25

Victoria Nuland

Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC

• DEPARTMENT
  • Designation of Ambassador Kathleen Stephens as Acting Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs
  • Nomination of Tara Sonenshine as Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs
• SYRIA
  • Suspension of Embassy Operations / Security and Safety Concerns
  • Ambassador Ford / Continue to Maintain Contacts/Connections
  • UN Resolution / Arab League Plan / Friends of a Democratic Syria / Russia / Foreign Minister Lavrov
  • Poland U.S. Protecting Power / Consular Services for American Citizens
• MIDDLE EAST PEACE
  • Palestinian Government / Expectations
  • Special Envoy David Hale
• PAKISTAN
  • Dr. Shakeel Afridi
  • Internal Review / Security and Counterterrorism Issues
• EGYPT
  • Concern over NGO Crackdown / Promote Democracy and Free Elections
  • U.S. Assistance to Egypt
  • SCAF Public Commitment
  • Americans at the U.S. Embassy
• JAPAN
  • Japanese Delegation meeting with U.S. Officials / Futenma Issue / 2006 Realignment Roadmap

1:02 p.m. EST

MS. NULAND: Happy Monday, everybody. I see after our grueling trans-Atlantic flight yesterday, Matt’s sleeping in. Some of us are here.

QUESTION: I’ll speak only for myself. (Laughter.)

MS. NULAND: Secretary’s here. I’m here. Before we start, let me just do one thing at the top, which is to let you know we’ve also put out a public notice about this, that the – President Obama has designated Ambassador Kathleen Stephens as Acting Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs pending the Senate’s confirmation of the President’s nominee for that job, Tara Sonenshine. Ambassador Stephens began working as our – today. As you know, this is similar to the procedure that we used when Under Secretary for Political Affairs Wendy Sherman was awaiting confirmation. We brought Ambassador Shannon back from Brazil to fill the gap. This is something that we do when it’s a big job where we need somebody to do the work in the interim. It had been done previously by Ann Stock, who is also Assistant Secretary for Educational Cultural Affairs, but that’s a big a job, too, so we decided we needed to bring in reinforcements for the interim period. But the full expectation is that the Senate will act promptly on Tara Sonenshine’s nomination.

Let’s go to what’s on your minds. I can’t imagine what that could be. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: On Embassy Damascus, we all saw your notice this morning. I’m just wondering if you can tell us what that means for the state of communication between the U.S. Government and the Assad regime, given that Ambassador Ford is no longer in Damascus, presumably no longer able to at least directly confer with either regime officials or opposition. Does that mean that’s we’re cutting a line of communication? How are you going to keep those open?

MS. NULAND: Well, first, as we notified this morning, we have concluded that we need to suspend operations at our Embassy in Damascus in light of the fact that we have security concerns about the safety of our personnel. As you know, we had been working for many weeks with Syrian officials to try to control access around our Embassy facility. We were not able to come to appropriate arrangements there. So the decision was made to suspend operations. Ambassador Ford and the remaining personnel departed the country – Damascus time – this morning and the flag’s been taken down.

We have asked our ally Poland, and Poland has agreed, to be our protecting power in Damascus. So big thanks to Warsaw for that. So any remaining American citizens in Syria who haven’t heeded our repeated travel warnings, which were updated again today, can receive consular services through the Embassy of Poland.

QUESTION: Okay, but that – the question was: How are you going to maintain lines of communication with the Assad regime given that you don’t have anybody on the ground?

MS. NULAND: Ah, yes. Yes. So after a brief little break in Europe, where he’s going to meet up with his wife, who he hasn’t seen for a while, Ambassador Ford will be coming home. He will set up shop here as head of our Syria team. The expectation, as our announcement said earlier today, was that – is that Ambassador Ford will continue to maintain the contacts that he has broadly across Syrian society, but particularly with Syrian opposition, as will the Secretary’s Special Advisor, Fred Hoff, who works with Syrians outside of the country, so that we can maintain contact, so that we can make sure that the Syrian people know that we stand with them in their desire for a democratic future.

QUESTION: And when you have to --

QUESTION: Will all the Syrian personnel who have also been evacuated – will they also be working out of this makeshift office here at State in the interim?

MS. NULAND: A number of them will be reassigned. We have a pretty big staff already here in the Department, but we will have those that we need to maintain the business will be working here.

Yeah.

QUESTION: You didn’t mention anything about when contacts need to be made with the Syrian authorities, whether an American is detained or any other reason. How will that – will that go solely now through the protecting power, or will those contacts be maintained from here as well?

MS. NULAND: Well, the Syrian Embassy in Washington remains open at the level of the charge, as necessary, particularly having to do with security issues. As you know, in the past, we have done business with the charge. We can also – the Polish protecting power, obviously, will do the business in the way that the Swiss do for us in Iran, et cetera.

QUESTION: Have you received assurances from the Syrian Government that your property will be protected in your absence? Or do you expect it to be ransacked in the next 72 hours, or something like that?

MS. NULAND: Well, before departing the country today, Ambassador Ford did go in and see Foreign Minister Mualem* to formalize our decision to suspend, inform him, and also to make clear that we expect that the remaining Vienna Convention obligations that they have to our property, et cetera, will be respected, and to formally make clear that the Government of Poland will be our protecting power. So our expectation is that our property will be protected and the hope is, as I said, this is a suspension, and when there are better days in Damascus, we’ll be able to reopen.

*Ambassador Ford met with Deputy Foreign Minister Arnous.

QUESTION: This is their first conversation in quite some time, I imagine.

MS. NULAND: I’m not sure of the answer to that. I know that when this issue of requiring a hardening of the Embassy and the streets around it first came up in December, they had at least one direct conversation. And Ambassador Ford has been in a number of times since to talk to Foreign Minister Mualem’s deputies, but I don’t think that in a couple of weeks they’ve had a direct conversation.

QUESTION: Did they speak about the violence at all, about the fighting, the – Homs, Hama?

MS. NULAND: My understanding – and I don’t have a full readout on that conversation -- is that it was relatively pro forma, businesslike. We don’t think that the Syrian Government has any questions about where we stand on these issues, particularly given the President’s statement over the weekend about the violence and the strong comments that the Secretary had both in Munich and in Sofia, strong statements from Ambassador Rice in New York over the weekend.

Please, Nadia.

QUESTION: Victoria, can you elaborate a little bit about the nature of the threat. Some news reports have said that it’s directly linked to al-Qaida. Is this precisely the threat, or are you talking about general things that emanate from other groups? Some even talk about President Assad release some fighters who’s going to arrive and they might be linked to al-Qaida.

MS. NULAND: Nicole, have a seat there. Some room down here. She’s being modest and sitting over there.

Well, I’m not going to get into details of our security assessment, beyond saying – as we say in the statement that we released today – our concern is that the situation in and around Damascus is becoming increasingly violent, reflecting the fact that the regime is increasingly losing control of the situation, because itself – it itself has resorted to violence, rather than dialogue with its own people.

Our Embassy facility – for those of you who know – Damascus is right at the confluence of many main streets. It has no protection or setback to speak of. I will say, Nadia, that for almost 20 years, the U.S. Government has been petitioning the Government of Syria to be able to move the Embassy, to have a plot of land elsewhere that was better protected as we have for many of our missions, and we were never able to come to an agreement on that. So this is obviously regrettable and not what we wanted, but where we are.

QUESTION: Just a follow-up quickly?

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: I know that you’re talking about a security threat, but some saying that basically Arab states now should close their embassies in Damascus as a measure to step up pressure on President Assad. Would you encourage that?

MS. NULAND: Well, a number of Arab states have already taken that measure. You remember that our analysis was that that if we could keep Ambassador Ford and our personnel there, our analysis was that would help us to maintain contact with the Syrian people. We will now endeavor to do that from Washington. I think each nation has to make its own decision how best to support the Syrian people as we go forward.

QUESTION: Could you underscore the exact state of the relationship between Washington and Damascus? I’ve had people ask me, “Does this mean that relations have broken off?” And I’ve said no. But can you explain exactly what it means to not have a physical ambassador right there in Damascus?

MS. NULAND: We have suspended our diplomatic presence in Damascus. We have not broken diplomatic relations. And there’s a difference there.

Nicole.

QUESTION: Hi, Toria.

MS. NULAND: Hi.

QUESTION: Would you tell us a little bit about what steps the U.S. might take next? What is Plan B, given the failure of the resolution in the Security Council?

MS. NULAND: Well, I think the Secretary spoke to this quite fully in Sofia yesterday. She was asked the “what next” question, if you will. And she spoke about a number of measures.

First of all, in a situation where the Security Council has been blocked from acting in support of the Arab League Plan, in support of the defense of a democratic path for Syria, we’re going to have to take measures outside the UN to strengthen and deepen and broaden the international community of pressure on Assad. So to continue his diplomatic isolation, to work with as many countries as we can, to increase both regional sanctions and unilateral national sanctions on the Assad regime, to pressure those countries that are still trading with him – and particularly that are trading weapons or otherwise fueling his war machine – to stop.

Secretary also spoke yesterday, and you’ve seen a number of other foreign ministers speak about the friends of a democratic Syria – those countries around the world that stand for a transition that support the Arab League plan, doing more together to support a path forward for them, to provide what humanitarian relief may be possible – that’s obviously difficult, but we want to look at that – and to provide political support for them. So those conversations are now going forward among the countries that might want to be part of this kind of a friends initiative, and we’ll see where that conversation goes in the coming days and weeks.

Please.

QUESTION: Can I follow up on that? Will there be some kind of formal meeting of this new group?

MS. NULAND: Again, we’re at the stage of consulting with likeminded countries and with the Arab League, and we’ll see how this develops as we go forward.

Still on Syria?

QUESTION: Yeah. Foreign Minister Lavrov will be visiting tomorrow Damascus. Do you expect any more hardening position – Syrian hardening position – or what do you expect?

MS. NULAND: Well, I’d obviously refer you to the Government of Russia with regard to their expectations for this visit of Foreign Minister Lavrov. He did advise the Secretary that he intended to do this when they saw each other in Munich. Our hope and expectation is that Foreign Minister Lavrov will use this opportunity to make absolutely clear to the Assad regime how isolated it is and to encourage Assad and his people to make use of the Arab League plan and provide for a transition and step away.

QUESTION: One more question, please. One more. Did you receive any signal from their embassy here that they may suspend their operation as well?

MS. NULAND: We have not.

QUESTION: How are they – how is he going to show the isolation of the Assad regime if he’s coming to visit the government in Syria at a time when everyone else is running away?

MS. NULAND: Well, he can certainly make clear what it felt like to be two of fifteen on the Security Council. That certainly speaks to the isolation. Thirteen, as my – as the Secretary made clear, both in Munich and in Sofia – 13 other members of the council were ready to join this resolution from four continents.

QUESTION: Yeah, okay. They had China. That’s over 1 billion people. So they – you already got 20 percent of the world’s population --

MS. NULAND: And it’s --

QUESTION: It’s not complete isolation.

MS. NULAND: It’s two countries from two parts of the world, when the rest of the Security Council representing four continents was ready to support the Arab League plan and the Syrian people.

Please.

QUESTION: Why have you chosen Poland to represent the U.S. interests in Syria? And could you elaborate on the role of Polish diplomats representing the United States?

MS. NULAND: Well, as I said, we are delighted that the Government of Poland was willing and able to accept this responsibility. To my knowledge, it may be the first time that we’ve asked our ally Poland to be a protecting power for the United States.* Poland maintains an embassy that is effective enough to take on this extra work load. They are a strong ally and partner of the United States. A protecting power obviously provides consular services to Americans in need, provides advice to Americans, and as necessary – if messages have to be transferred between us and the Government of Syria in Damascus – they will be the transferring entity in that case, both from Damascus to us and the other way around.

*Poland has previously served as a protecting power for the United States in Iraq following the first Gulf War.

QUESTION: But Toria, you just said that you’re hoping that when Foreign Minister Lavrov meets with the Assad regime on Tuesday, that he would deliver the message that perhaps Syria should go along with the Arab League initiative. If Russia took the time to veto it on Saturday, what did Lavrov indicate to Secretary Clinton that gives the U.S. the impression that he might actually say, “You need to take a second look at this Arab league proposal”? It doesn’t seem to make sense.

MS. NULAND: Well, I’m obviously not going to get too deeply into the conversation that they had in Munich, which we described at the time as quite a vigorous conversation. I will say that it was clear from that conversation that the Government of Russia also, as they’ve said publicly, has concerns about the escalating spiral of violence in Syria and about where this could lead not only inside the country, but for the region as a whole, for Russia’s relationship with the Government of Syria.

You’ve seen recently some public statements from Foreign Minister Lavrov and his people that they are not interested in protecting anybody in particular, that they are also interested in peace and security. So they have made some public statements about wanting to seek a political solution. Let’s see what they can achieve.

QUESTION: A quick couple questions. A couple of other world leaders over the weekend also talk about a contact group on Syria or friends for Syria. What’s your understanding? Have you started any kind of a process to create this group?

MS. NULAND: Well, Nicole, I think, asked and her colleague sitting next to her asked the same question a moment ago and my answer to that was that this is an idea that a number of countries have been thinking about, of how the friends of a democratic Syria can work better together, and we’re continuing to talk about it among interested countries, including the Turkish Government. The Secretary had a relatively brief meeting with Foreign Minister Davutoglu in Munich about the way forward, et cetera, and we’ll continue to talk about it.

QUESTION: Foreign Minister Davutoglu is coming to U.S. this week. Some say in Turkey that one of the topics will be buffer zone. Is there any way you can elaborate the issues regarding Syria?

MS. NULAND: Well, beyond saying that they always talk about Syria – and I expect that they will again – I’m not going to preview a meeting that hasn’t happened yet.

Please, in the back. Still on Syria?

QUESTION: Just on this friends of Syria group – just if you can – could you be a tiny bit more specific just about who we’re talking about other than Turkey and Great Britain and the United States?

MS. NULAND: Well, let me – beyond saying that we have a number of European countries interested in this idea, a number of Arab countries interested in this idea, I think we need to have a little bit of time to work with partners and allies. But as we made clear, we had 13 out of 15 Security Council members thinking we need to do more to support the Arab League plan and a democratic Syria. In the absence of being able to work in a UNSC context, we have to clearly put together a group that can work outside the UNSC.

QUESTION: So what is the hope, then, for the Syrian people? We’re seeing more video coming out of the crackdown in Homs over the last 72 hours. How much longer do they have to wait for someone to try to help them against this government?

MS. NULAND: Well, again, Ros, this was the travesty – as Secretary Clinton said – of what happened in New York on Saturday. There is a plan on the table. It’s a plan that would provide a very clear way forward. And it was blocked and vetoed in the UN.

So the question becomes how we can support – continue to support the Syrian opposition in its effort to pull together its own plan to work in a consolidated and unified way to have its voices heard in a peaceful manner going forward, and how, if and as necessary – and it’s very difficult now with the monitors unable to operate – we might be able to provide some humanitarian support. So these are all things we’re going to look at, but also, this issue of squeezing and pressuring the regime economically and by cutting off its arms so that the money that’s fueling this war machine dries up.

Please.

QUESTION: Would you support any move – I mean, to bring Assad before the International Criminal Tribunal?

MS. NULAND: Well, obviously, he’s going to have to be accountable for what he’s done. It’s going to be up to the Syrian people how that happens.

Please.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) quickly?

MS. NULAND: Yeah. Are we still on Syria? One more on --

QUESTION: Are you considering --

MS. NULAND: I like the beard, I think. I can’t tell from here. Yeah.

QUESTION: Yes. (Laughter.) On Syria.

MS. NULAND: Are we keeping it or is it just a vacation hangover?

QUESTION: Till Assad goes.

MS. NULAND: Till Assad goes? Wow, wow.

QUESTION: I think – yeah, yeah, I’m thinking about it.

MS. NULAND: Excellent, excellent. (Laughter.) I like that. I like that.

QUESTION: Thank you. Are you considering to open virtual embassy or digital diplomacy for Syria since you closed your embassy there?

MS. NULAND: Well, again, we have a very active digital program with the Syrian people now. Ambassador Ford will obviously continue his Facebook page, his Twitter, his dialogue with the Syrian people, and we do that not only with Ambassador Ford, but through the State Department platforms, so we have many, many ways to maintain our connections as well as the connections of some of our other senior folks here in the Department.

Please, Nadia.

QUESTION: Your good ally, Qatar, seems to have brokered another deal between Fatah and Hamas, whereby President Abbas is going to be the head of this interim government. First of all, your reaction to that? Do you welcome this?

MS. NULAND: Well, we’ve seen these reports of the developments in Doha. We’re obviously seeking more information about precisely what was agreed. But as we’ve said many times, questions of Palestinian reconciliation are an internal matter for Palestinians. What matters to us are the principles that guide a Palestinian government going forward, in order for them to be able to play a constructive role for peace and building an independent state.

Let me just reiterate those for all of you again: Any Palestinian government must unambiguously and explicitly commit to nonviolence. It must recognize the State of Israel. And it must accept the previous agreements and obligations between the parties, including the roadmap. So those are our expectations. So we are continuing to engage with President Abbas and his government. David Hale is seeking further clarification about what the implications of this might be.

QUESTION: Toria, the details are already out. I mean, we know it in the media, so I’m sure you have the outline of this agreement. But you indicated or you seemed to indicate that you don’t mind if President Abbas is the head of this government, saying that most of the ministers is going to be a technocrat, an independent, not Hamas member.

MS. NULAND: Again, we are not going to give a grade to this thing until we have a chance to talk to Palestinian Authority leaders about the implications. And our redlines remain the same in terms of what we expect of any Palestinian government, and those – the redlines that affect our ability to deal with it.

QUESTION: So this --

QUESTION: So you don’t --

QUESTION: So will this help or hurt the peace process that – or the lack of peace process, if that’s not really going well?

MS. NULAND: Again, I’m not going to wade into that until we’ve had a chance to talk to the Palestinians about it. I will say that our own position on Hamas hasn’t changed. It remains a designated foreign terrorist organization.

QUESTION: You don’t believe that peace talks with Israel are impossible now?

MS. NULAND: We want to talk to the Palestinian Authority about what this might mean. As you know, we have been working hard to continue to send the message to the parties that we think that the work that they did a few weeks ago – a couple of weeks ago in Amman was useful, was a good start, and we want to see them come back to the table. But again, we have to evaluate the implications of this, both inside the Palestinian Authority and with regard to this process, because we think that the work that’s already been done is valuable, and we don’t want to see it disrupted.

QUESTION: Are you counseling your ally, Israel, to take a similarly measured approach when viewing this new government?

MS. NULAND: Well, again, I think the Government of Israel is also looking for clarification.

QUESTION: Well, actually --

QUESTION: No. It sounds like they say it’s impossible.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) has basically said that --

QUESTION: That peace is over.

QUESTION: -- it’s an either/or, it’s either with Hamas or peace with Israel. It seems --

MS. NULAND: But again, it’s not particularly clear to us until we have a chance to talk to Palestinian Authority leaders exactly how this might be implemented in the short term and what it might mean. Our redlines remain the same, as do those of Israel.

QUESTION: Would you caution Prime Minister Netanyahu to perhaps be a little more measured in his words, given that the sense from this building is that we need information, not hot rhetoric of any sort, before moving ahead?

MS. NULAND: I’m not going to join in any of that from this podium.

Please.

QUESTION: When Mr. Hale is going to meet with any Palestinian officials? Anything planned?

MS. NULAND: Well, he’s home at the moment.* He’s been working phones to his contacts. I don’t know what his plans are for traveling back out to the region. I think he’s thinking about that now in light of some of these things.

*Special Envoy Hale is currently participating in meetings in the region.

QUESTION: I’m just surprised that you won’t say peace is still possible; even though you don’t know all the details, you’re still hopeful that a peace deal is possible. Is that going out on a ledge?

MS. NULAND: We remain committed to trying to maintain this nascent process that has started under the Jordanian auspices. We think that poses the best opportunity for these parties to get to a real negotiation, which is the next step. And we want to make sure that we can maintain the momentum for that.

QUESTION: But would you counsel both sides in the process to leave the door of peace open, to not rule out the possibility of a peace deal occurring, especially since now they’re talking?

MS. NULAND: Well, obviously, we maintain that both of these parties ought to stay committed to this process.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS. NULAND: In the back? Please.

QUESTION: Yeah. A bill has been tabled last Friday in Congress to grant U.S. citizenship to Dr. Shakeel Afridi, who remains under arrest in Pakistan for helping the United States reach Usama bin Ladin. What role State Department has in it? Does this require the State Department approval? Are you supporting it? What’s the position?

MS. NULAND: My understanding of this – and if this is not correct, we’ll correct the record – but this is a sense of the Congress resolution which is moving through the Congress now. It is not finalized yet. But generally, these kinds of moves on behalf of individuals are – when it’s a sense of the Congress, in that sense it doesn’t have force of law. It’s a recommendation, if you will.

QUESTION: Iran?

MS. NULAND: Yes.

QUESTION: There is one more on Pakistan.

MS. NULAND: Yeah. Okay.

QUESTION: The Pakistani lobbyist here in Washington has written a letter to the U.S. officials in which he has sought apology on behalf of Pakistan on the NATO airstrikes. Can you confirm if such a letter has been received by State Department? Are you responding to it?

MS. NULAND: Well, I don’t have any knowledge of the letter one way or the other, but I will tell you that we don’t do our business with Pakistan through its lobbyists. We don’t need to do that. We do our business with Pakistan through our representatives in Islamabad and throughout the country as well as through the Pakistani Embassy here. I think you know where we are with Pakistan, which is that we are trying to be respectful of the time that Pakistan is – has asked for to complete its internal review, and then we look forward to talking to the government about where it wants to go on those aspects of its – of our relationship that have been put on hold for the period.

QUESTION: So essentially there is no communication unless and until those recommendations are forwarded to the United States?

MS. NULAND: No. That’s absolutely not true. As you know, the Secretary saw Pakistani Ambassador Rehman not too long ago. Ambassador Munter and Foreign Minister Khar have met a couple of times over the last month or so. So we maintain a very strong communication on other issues. All of our civilian programs are going forward. So it is simply this issue of where we go on some of our security and counterterrorism issues that are pending the internal review on the Pakistani side.

QUESTION: So the White House has issued an executive order affecting the Central Bank of Iran. What led to this decision?

MS. NULAND: This is an executive order this morning, Ros?

QUESTION: Well, it was actually released yesterday, but they put the paper out this morning.

MS. NULAND: I’m going to take that one, Ros, because I’m not exactly sure what it is that we’re talking about and how it compares to the --

QUESTION: About the executive order on the sanctioning of the Central Bank of Iran.

MS. NULAND: I’m going to take it because I need to look at exactly what the implications are.

Okay.

QUESTION: Can we talk about Egypt?

MS. NULAND: I’m amazed that it’s taken us half an hour to get to Egypt.

QUESTION: Save the good stuff for the middle of the briefing. Do you have a reaction to the charges against several American citizens, including the son of the Transportation secretary?

MS. NULAND: Well, obviously, we are deeply concerned by the crackdown against nongovernmental organizations in Egypt, including the recommendation now that charges be filed against U.S. citizens. Our view, as you know, is that groups like the National Democratic Institute, the International Republican Institute, Freedom House, the other foreign NGOs, and the Egyptian NGOs that support democracy in Egypt play a very valuable role in this transition process, and have done nothing wrong. These groups and the individuals associated with them do not fund political parties or individual candidates. Many of these groups have worked in Egypt for many years, supported by the U.S. Government, in order to promote democracy and free elections. There’s nothing new in their activities. In fact, they also served as witnesses in the recent parliamentary elections with the authorization of the Government of Egypt.

So we have communicated for weeks now, at all levels of the Egyptian Government, our grave concerns regarding this crackdown. We’ve underscored how serious these actions are. And we’ve clearly said, as the Secretary did again in Munich, that these actions can have consequences for our relationship, including with regard to our assistance program. That is not what we want. We need to resolve this issue now.

QUESTION: Who can you speak to in Egypt about this? You tried with the justice minister; he turned you down. It doesn’t seem like anybody you’ve spoken to so far has really been able to influence the process in a positive way, from your perspective. Where do you go now in trying to somehow alleviate or kind of fix the situation?

MS. NULAND: Well, we’re continuing to talk to everybody that we can, from the justice ministry to the – all members of the executive who might have authority here, whether it’s the SCAF, whether it’s the civilian government. As you know, the President has spoken to General Tantawi on this issue over the past number of weeks. The Secretary has seen Foreign Minister Amr repeatedly, including again in Munich. Our Embassy and our Ambassador Anne Patterson has been working tirelessly with the Justice Department, with the NGOs, with all the authorities in Egypt who ought to be able to manage this situation.

So we are very concerned, but we’re just going to continue to try to find a way forward on this that gets us back to a normal situation that – where we can all support the democratic transition in Egypt. And I would say that this is not just about American NGOs. This is also about our concerns about Egyptian NGOs who play a very vital role.

QUESTION: Are you insulted that all of these efforts, these entreaties, have been kind of brushed aside so far?

MS. NULAND: We are concerned. It is not a good situation and it’s not a good situation, as the Secretary said in Munich, with regard to the work that we want to do together because it could have implications. We have worked very hard with the U.S. Congress, with individuals in the Egyptian Government. We just had Bill Taylor, our special advisor for economic transitions in the broader Middle East, in Cairo talking to Egyptians about how we might be able to support the reform effort. But all of these initiatives could be affected if we can’t solve this problem.

QUESTION: I understand. This is my last one. They could be affected, but where’s the redline for you? At what point do you say it’s no longer about threatening to withhold aid, you’re withholding aid; it’s no longer about threatening to withdraw some cooperation, you’re withdrawing that cooperation?

MS. NULAND: Well, as the Secretary made clear in Munich, this situation has already seriously affected the atmosphere. We are – we have – we are continuing to try to resolve it, and the quicker we resolve it, the quicker we’ll be able to get back to situation normal.

QUESTION: But there’s no cutoff point?

MS. NULAND: That’s not the way these things work, that I’m going to declare you a redline date and time. We’re going to try to fix this.

QUESTION: These consequences that you’re mentioning as possible, is one of them withholding U.S. support for a new IMF funding for Egypt, which they’ve requested? Could the U.S. support a new IMF loan program for Egypt if these issues are bilateral issues that remain outstanding?

MS. NULAND: Andy, I’m not going to get into speculating what may or may not be possible in this relationship if we can’t move forward. But the Secretary has made very clear, and we – and everybody who has talked to the Egyptians privately has made clear, that this is a very, very difficult situation in terms of the support that we want to provide to Egypt.

QUESTION: Beyond the case of those who are now being brought up on charges, does this give the U.S. pause about SCAF’s intentions to actually step aside and let the civilian government take full and free control of the Egyptian Government? I mean, it seems as if they are basically doing what Mubarak had wanted to do all his years in power, which is eradicate the effectiveness and the establishment of these NGOs.

MS. NULAND: Well, the SCAF has made a public commitment to the Egyptian people --

QUESTION: But they seem to be --

MS. NULAND: -- that it will --

QUESTION: But they seem to be --

MS. NULAND: Ros --

QUESTION: They seem to be contradicting their own words.

MS. NULAND: They’ve made a public commitment to the Egyptian people that they will step down in June when there is an elected government in place. The Egyptian people are expecting them to meet that commitment and so is the international community.

Please, Nadia.

QUESTION: In Egypt again. There was a time when another country will call you to mediate on their behalf, and that was the case with Embassy – with Israel and the Embassy in Egypt. Now you are unable to take your citizen out of Egypt. Does that mean that the U.S. is losing its leverage, or does that mean that the military is hardening their position and they don’t really care anymore about international support?

MS. NULAND: Well, I’m not going to speculate as to the various motives behind the Egyptian actions here, except to say that this is a situation that is not only negatively affecting the American NGO community, it’s affecting international NGOs, and it’s affecting Egyptian NGOs. So we are – in our efforts to try to work our way through this and get to the end of it so we can go back to a place where we can support this transition, we are working with countries – European countries, Arab countries whose citizens have also been affected, and maintaining our ties to Egyptian NGO representatives who are also facing court proceedings.

QUESTION: But does this affect SCAF’s credibility?

MS. NULAND: Ros, I think you’ve already asked that question.

Please.

QUESTION: Are there still a handful of Americans at the Embassy and have their number – have the numbers grown? And I think they were there at the invitation of the ambassador or of the mission. Have you now extended that invitation and broadened it to this new group?

MS. NULAND: There are a number of Americans at the Embassy. The number has grown slightly. I’m not going to get into the numbers because they are changing. I will say that at the current moment, we are – we have not seen or been given from the Egyptian Government in a formal way a full list of who’s affected. What we do have from our Embassy’s work with the organizations and with individual American citizens – we have a list of about 17 who we believe have been affected by this, and about half of those are Americans who are still in Egypt. Some of them are not in Egypt. And the Embassy has made clear that its invitation is open to those who are affected to give them some time to consider their options with their lawyers.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) we have a number now. That’s more than a handful, obviously. Has that – did that increase occur overnight or in the last two days since this --

MS. NULAND: In the last couple of days we’ve had some Americans coming and going.

QUESTION: Toria, just a technical question. If you have these American citizens on the Embassy grounds, does that remove them from the Egyptian courts’ jurisdiction? I mean, they’re technically on American soil, right?

MS. NULAND: Well, just as a factual matter, the soil of an embassy under the Vienna Convention anywhere in the world is inviolable territory. But let me just say with regard to this case, this is, as we’ve said before, a very unique and unusual situation. This is a situation that is – as we’ve made absolutely clear – gaining the attention at the highest levels of both of our governments. So I don't want to speculate on what might happen going forward. We have a report that formal charges will be filed. In the interim, our ambassador has invited those who are affected, who are still in country, to use the Embassy grounds to give them a little bit of space to work with their lawyers so that they are prepared for what could be coming.

QUESTION: You said people came and went or were coming and going?

MS. NULAND: We had – we have a couple of – there are some folks who are not affected by the travel ban who have been able to go. But the invitation of Ambassador Patterson is particularly for those Americans who are affected by this action, who are still in country, and are not able to leave.

QUESTION: So these who left presumably were family members or people who had –

MS. NULAND: I can’t speak --

QUESTION: -- or under lesser – that face lesser charges possibly?

MS. NULAND: I can’t speak to the individual folks. We don’t have Privacy Act waivers on these individuals. But some of them were able to leave in the last couple of days who weren’t on the travel ban.

Please, Andy. No?

QUESTION: I have a new topic.

MS. NULAND: Are we still on Egypt?

QUESTION: Egypt.

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: Yes, please. Still it is not clear for me. I mean, they are saying – Egyptians are saying that it’s a legal issue, and it seems it’s not, I mean. And always you are saying that this has to be solved from American side when they meet Egyptians. They said they have to – it has – this issue has to be solved. And still we don’t know what they are telling you. They are telling you it’s a legal issue? I mean, I’m trying to figure out it’s a political issue or it’s a legal issue. What’s your perspective, I mean, what’s your understanding?

MS. NULAND: Well, obviously what the Egyptians are saying at the moment is that this is a judicial issue. Just to make absolutely clear, for the Americans involved, these Americans have been cooperating and their organizations have been cooperating with Egyptian authorities on these issues for months and months. They have submitted to hours and hours and hours of interviews. They have been completely transparent about their records. They want to be registered. They want to be able to operate under Egyptian law. But the process has not been clear, and frankly, the process – this judicial process has not been clear either.

Please.

QUESTION: But I mean, I’m just – I understand that. I already following this – that part of the thing. But the whole idea is that – are they giving you, beside publicly what they are saying it’s a legal issue or a judicial --

MS. NULAND: I think you’re asking me to answer a question that is better addressed to the Egyptians. I’ve told you how we understand what’s happening.

QUESTION: Because if it’s a – the whole idea, if it’s they are – let’s say they are bargaining something, which is at the end of the discussion of the newspapers, that is okay, if you are not getting it, we’ll cut the American aid or cut the IMF loan, whatever.

MS. NULAND: I think you’re asking me to speculate on the motivations of the Egyptians involved in this, and I’m not going to do that.

Please.

QUESTION: I have a general question towards Egypt, which is – you mentioned earlier about reaching to different parties in the country. To what extent does the U.S. also reach out to the youth groups in Egypt, some of the main provocateurs of the revolution? Is it – do you have contacts with Egypt’s youth movement on U.S. policy?

MS. NULAND: Absolutely. We talk to Egyptians of all ages and stages of life, all political parties. We have been very open about that. And we’ve been doing a lot of work to make clear in Egypt – as I said from this podium many times, as the Secretary has said, as the President has said – that these organizations are designed to support the democratic transition that Egyptians themselves have fought so hard to have, that they have counterparts that are Egyptian that are doing the same thing, that they’ve already played a valuable role in shining a light and ensuring the relatively good and clean elections that have gone forward, and that they play a very important role in any kind of a democracy, and they’re part of the warp and woof of what needs to happen if the Egyptian revolution is going to fulfill its promise of a really open and democratic state.

QUESTION: Just a quick follow-up, which is the SCAF meetings – and obviously this is a judicial issue – to what extent do you either agree with that sentiment, or are you concerned that this trial might somehow divert attention to possible anti-American sentiments in the region, that the country is currently going through so many issues? To what extent are you concerned about that?

MS. NULAND: Well, I think I’ve said that we’re gravely concerned about the impact of this on the relationship and about the fact that this is being used by some for propaganda purposes, which diverts attention away from what’s most important in Egypt, which is for the democracy process to continue and for the transition to continue and for all of us in the international community to be able to support the aspirations of the Egyptian people, including their youth, as you so importantly pointed out. The next generation deserves to live in a more democratic, more open, more prosperous Egypt, and that’s what we all want.

Please.

QUESTION: The other aspect of relation, whether it’s education and other contacts between the Embassy and different ministers, are regularly done, normally done, or is affected by this thing?

MS. NULAND: Yeah. No. All the rest of our civilian efforts are going forward at the moment. When the Secretary talks about concerns about the future, she’s talking about FY 2012 issues.

QUESTION: Japan, please?

QUESTION: New topic?

MS. NULAND: Please, Andy.

QUESTION: It’s also Japan. Maybe it’s the same question. There are reports in the Japanese press that there are talks today and tomorrow here and at the Pentagon on the Futenma relocation issue. I’m just wondering if you can tell us who’s talking to who and what about.

MS. NULAND: We do have a Japanese delegation coming in today to see Kurt Campbell’s deputy, Deputy Assistant Secretary Zumwalt, and he’s joined by his Defense Department counterpart, DASD Schiffer, to continue our discussions about bilateral issues, including the Futenma issue today. This is in the wake of the decisions that the Pentagon had to make more broadly with regard to U.S. force posture, so that – this conversation will go forward in that context. Just to underscore that the U.S. and Japan are both strongly committed to maintaining and enhancing our robust security alliance, which is dedicated not only to the security of Japan but also to the security of the region. And at the same time, we want to mitigate the impact on Okinawa and we remain – both the U.S. and Japan – fully committed to implementation of the Futenma replacement facility and the relocation of the air base to Camp Schwab.

QUESTION: I have several on Japan to follow up on that.

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: So the U.S. and Japan, they have reexamined the 2006 roadmap for the realignment of U.S. forces in Japan, and now the two governments have agreed to separate the issues of the Futenma Air Base relocation from the issue of transferring the Marines out of Okinawa into Guam. And the most recent agreement I’ve heard is that U.S. and Japan say they will go ahead with moving 4,700 Marines from Okinawa to Guam. Has anything changed in recent days to this new agreement?

MS. NULAND: That sounds like you’re asking me to predict the outcome of this discussion before we’ve had this discussion. So let me from this podium simply, at the moment, say we continue to support all the principles of the 2006 realignment roadmap and to pursue a military presence in Japan and in the Asia-Pacific that’s operationally resilient, that’s geographically distributed, and that’s politically sustainable. But I’m not going to get into numbers and timing and all that kind of thing.

QUESTION: So is it inaccurate to say that this agreement has already been made to move 4,700 Marines to Guam?

MS. NULAND: I am not in a position here to speculate or to comment on that. And I think, first and foremost, I’m going to refer you to the Pentagon on exactly where we are in these things. But to the degree that anything is going to be discussed in these talks, then we need to let the talks go forward.

Okay?

QUESTION: One more?

MS. NULAND: Yes.

QUESTION: The status of the Bagram prison – has that transfer been conducted?

MS. NULAND: Are you talking about the full transfer of Bagram to Afghan authorities?

QUESTION: Right, right. There was some thought that it might have taken place over the weekend, but apparently all the details haven’t been worked out. Do you have an update?

MS. NULAND: To my knowledge, we are continuing to work on those details. We have a number of things still to work through.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) I have one more.

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: The original roadmap called for 8,000 Marines to be moved from Okinawa to Guam.

MS. NULAND: I have nothing more on the roadmap. I don’t have any details on people and things. I’m going to send you to the Pentagon. Okay?

Please.

QUESTION: Victoria, I would like to have any comment about the 50^th anniversary of the embargo to Cuba that is tomorrow. Is there any possibility to make any change to this embargo?

MS. NULAND: I think our policy towards Cuba is unchanged. If we have anything to say on the anniversary, we will do so on the anniversary.

Thanks, everybody.

(The briefing was concluded at 1:50 p.m.)

DPB # 2

Mark C. Toner

Deputy Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC

• EGYPT
  • Kidnapping, Release of U.S. Citizens
  • Readout of Assistant Secretary Feltman's Meetings with Egyptian Military Delegation / NGO Issue
  • U.S. Assistance to Egypt
  • Security Situation in Egypt
• INDIA
  • Indian and USG Officials' Meeting on Indian Labor Laws
  • U.S. Relationship with India
  • Visit of Foreign Secretary Mathai
• RUSSIA/SYRIA
  • Secretary's Conversation with Foreign Minister Lavrov
  • Status of UN Resolution on Syria
• SYRIA
  • Arab League's Leadership in Addressing Situation in Syria
  • Support for Arab League Plan
• ISRAEL/IRAN
  • Iranian Threat to Israel, Broader Region and International Community
  • Israeli Concerns about Iranian Nuclear Threat
  • U.S. Commitment to Two-track Approach in dealing with Iran
• PAKISTAN
  • Internal Court Case / Hope to See Resolution within Pakistani Law and Court System
  • U.S. Commitment to Relationship with Pakistan
• KUWAIT
  • National Parliamentary Elections
• JAPAN
  • Okinawa Relocation / Commitment to Security Alliance with Japan
• ISRAEL/PALESTINIANS
  • Urgent Need to Address Issues at the Negotiating Table
  • David Hale's Meetings
• SWITZERLAND
  • U.S. and Switzerland have Long and Outstanding Partnership, Strong Bilateral Relationship
  • Allegations of Criminal Wrongdoing by Institution under Investigation by Department of Justice
• IRAN
  • CBI / Commitment to Implementing Law in a way that does not put Undue Pressure on Partners

1:01 p.m. EST

MR. TONER: Happy Friday, before a Super Bowl weekend. And in honor of that, I called an audible on the two-minute warning. I hope you all appreciated that. (Laughter.) De-dum-pum. Anyway, welcome to the State Department.

Look, I don’t have much detail to add, but I know many of you are following this morning the kidnapping of two American citizens on the Sinai Peninsula that took place earlier today. I can confirm that kidnapping and also, more happily, the release of these two U.S. citizens. Obviously, due to privacy considerations, we can’t provide any additional information as to their names, but they’ll obviously – we’ll be working closely with them to provide any consular assistance that we can. And we certainly do appreciate the efforts of the Egyptian authorities in securing their release. And for any further questions involving the ongoing – or the investigation into this incident, I’d just refer you to the Egyptian authorities.

That’s all I really have on that issue. I just wanted to update you guys. Anything else? Brad? Andy?

QUESTION: On Egypt, you – Toria said you would have a readout for us on Secretary – Assistant Secretary Feltman’s meeting with the Egyptians yesterday, and potentially on Mr. Shapiro’s meeting this morning.

MR. TONER: I do. As you noted, a delegation of several senior members of the Egyptian military are concluding their meetings with U.S. Government officials today, and they’re in Washington more broadly as part of a regular dialogue between the United States and Egypt on our security assistance. I believe they visited just as recently as October, and previously last summer. The delegation did meet with, as you mentioned, Assistant Secretary Jeff Feltman yesterday. They obviously discussed a wide range of issues related to our security relationship. But to get to the meat of the issues you’re probably interested in, I did confirm that they raised the NGO issue, and they also certainly had discussions about the assistance certification process. So --

QUESTION: But I’m --

MR. TONER: Yeah. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Go ahead, Andy.

QUESTION: Well, I mean, you said they raised the NGO issue. Who – did the Egyptians raise the NGO issue or --

MR. TONER: No. We – I understand we -- I don’t --

QUESTION: And what specific --

MR. TONER: Frankly, Andy, I don’t know who raised it first, but we – it was raised. I would imagine that we raised it.

QUESTION: And can you tell us in what context you raised them? Did you – did Assistant Secretary Feltman demand that the Americans be allowed to leave the country or --

MR. TONER: Well, look. These have been our consistent points all along. We want to see the travel restrictions on these American citizens raised, but in addition, more broadly, we think that the Egyptian Government needs to address the status of these nongovernmental organizations and address some of our concerns about not only American and international NGOs, but as – the Egyptian ones as well.

QUESTION: The – frequently, from here and also on Capitol Hill, various speakers on the U.S. side have underscored that they see the U.S. – future of U.S. aid to the Egyptian military is intimately tied up with this issue. Was that point raised to them directly, do you know?

MR. TONER: I did say that they did talk about the assistance certification process, but it’s premature, obviously, to – it’s premature to make any kind of assessment of our assistance at this time. But it was raised, certainly.

QUESTION: Would it be fair to call that a warning?

MR. TONER: I think – we consult regularly with Congress, and we also, when we’re talking with the Egyptians, make very clear what Congress is asking us to do in terms of assistance. So I wouldn’t call it a warning. I would just – it’s part of our regular consultations.

QUESTION: Wouldn’t it be fair, though, to say that you were just reemphasizing the message? Because this particular delegation – my understanding, anyway – doesn’t really have any decision-making capability or things like that. You were just there to reinforce the points of what --

MR. TONER: Yeah. I’m not trying to oversell this in any way. What I – I think that’s accurate.

QUESTION: Right. But I mean, would you consider – I mean, did they offer an explanation of how they see the --

MR. TONER: I didn’t get that intense a readout from the meeting. The one with Jeff Feltman took place yesterday, obviously, but they’re meeting with Assistant Secretary Shapiro today, this afternoon. But I think it’s consistent with what we’ve been saying, which is that we are seeking every avenue, both – from the President on down to our regular consultations, to press the points that we want to see the travel restrictions lifted and we want to see the NGO issue more broadly addressed.

QUESTION: But do you have any readout of the response from the Egyptian interlocutors?

MR. TONER: I don’t. And frankly, it’s not really our place to do so. I mean, I’d point you to them.

QUESTION: Well, the last time this came up, with the letter, they kind of threw it right back at you. So I’m wondering if there was an improved signaling of cooperation in this case.

MR. TONER: Oh, I think these were good consultations that touched on, as I said, a broad range of issues, the NGO one being among them. But the – getting back to the letter, the – that was, as I said at the time, the prerogative of, I think it was, the minister of justice, who said that. And we’re not trying to interfere in any way into the legal process, but we are trying to get our concerns addressed.

QUESTION: Mark, one more on --

MR. TONER: Yeah, Jill.

QUESTION: -- the Americans. This happened – they were kidnapped and then freed rather quickly this morning. Some people have raised questions about the ability of the Egyptian authorities right now to ensure security throughout the country, in light of political problems, et cetera. Can you tell us what you, the United States Government, thinks about that issue? Did this encourage you that they’re in charge of the country or what?

MR. TONER: Well, look. I think we – as I just said, we’re very appreciative of the quick response by the Egyptian authorities in securing their release. It’s a very fortunate outcome, and a very quick one, as you noted. More broadly, there are issues of security that the Egyptian authorities are attempting to address. We’ve been very clear at appropriate times in expressing our concerns about some of the ways they’re handling these security situations or security incidents as they come up, and we’re going to continue to do so. We’ve – we’re always clearly going to express our human rights concerns when applicable, when appropriate.

QUESTION: Mark --

MR. TONER: Go ahead, Said.

QUESTION: -- overall, do you have confidence in the military council to maintain security in Egypt?

MR. TONER: Again, the military council has been very clear in laying out a timeline towards political transition. They’ve laid that out publicly and, we believe, in a transparent manner. It is playing out. There is progress, as we noted. There are issues as well – hiccups, if you will – as we move forward, the NGO one being among them. But we believe that there is a timeline there and the Egyptian people, as I said many times, are navigating a difficult period. But there is a process in play here, and we do believe there’s been progress.

QUESTION: Are you able to --

MR. TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: Just on the talks with the Egyptian military delegation, are you able to say whether or not Assistant Secretary Feltman came away from the talks with any kind of confidence that this is going to be resolved in the near future, as has been repeatedly demanded?

MR. TONER: I think – I, frankly, haven’t spoken to Jeff following his meetings, but I just think that we’re trying to be as consistent as possible in conveying our serious concerns about the situation. And we certainly want to see it resolved as soon as possible, and by that I mean the status of these individuals. But as I said, more broadly, there is the issue of the nongovernmental organizations that needs to be addressed in some fashion soon.

QUESTION: But --

MR. TONER: So there is a – I would say there is a sense of urgency here, but I can’t tell you whether we’re any more optimistic than we were a day or so ago.

QUESTION: But the problem is that the answer you’re getting is also consistent, in that nothing is being done. These meetings have not taken this one step closer to resolution, have they?

MR. TONER: Well, again, that’s not the goal – and I don’t want to characterize it. As Elise pointed out, this was – these are regular consultations that have taken place in October and last summer, so this wasn’t like we sought these – or brought these folks over to – simply to address the NGO issue.

QUESTION: Well, this – wait.

MR. TONER: Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: This wasn’t a regularly scheduled visit, was it?

MR. TONER: Yeah, I believe so.

QUESTION: Yeah, it was.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. TONER: Yeah, it was. I mean, as I said, they’ve done this before, in October and last summer. So these are --

QUESTION: Regardless, any time you engage in diplomacy --

MR. TONER: Absolutely, Brad.

QUESTION: -- it’s to get results; it’s not to --

MR. TONER: And Brad, I was going to say, so we just – we certainly – in talking about them, all issues are on the table, and we certainly raise the – our concerns about these American citizens.

QUESTION: Do you happen to know if the issue of Egypt’s request for a large loan from the World Bank came up in these discussions?

MR. TONER: I don’t know. I’ll have to take the question.

QUESTION: Okay. And secondly, you said that they wrapped up their meetings with U.S. officials. Does that mean that --

MR. TONER: They’re wrapping up their meetings. My understanding is that they’re still meeting this afternoon with Assistant Secretary for Political-Military Affairs Shapiro.

QUESTION: Is that just for this building or does that include officials at the Pentagon, or do you – I mean, because they’re supposed to be staying through next week.

MR. TONER: Yeah, that’s a good question. You may be right.

QUESTION: Okay. Can we get – I mean --

MR. TONER: I’ll try to get clarity.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: Another --

QUESTION: Going back to the kidnapping of the U.S. nationals, do you have anything about the kidnappers or their motivations --

MR. TONER: I really don’t, and that’s something, frankly, the Egyptian authorities would have more readily. I mean, I’ve seen press reports. I just can’t confirm those details, though.

QUESTION: Another subject?

MR. TONER: We’re just happy they’re out.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Mark, another subject?

QUESTION: Another subject?

MR. TONER: Are we done with Egypt?

Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you, Mark. Yesterday, U.S. and India labor ministers met at the Labor Department and they signed the MOU, a memorandum of understanding, to discuss the labor issues in India. Is the State Department playing any role in these discussions, ongoing labor issues?

MR. TONER: I’m sorry, where did they meet to sign it?

QUESTION: At the Labor Department.

MR. TONER: At the Labor Department, okay. I thought you said State Department.

QUESTION: No, no, Labor Department. Is State Department playing any role?

MR. TONER: Well, again, I think in the – when you look at our relationship and the Strategic Dialogue that we have with India, there’s many baskets of issues that fall under that rubric, and certainly labor laws are one of those. So certainly, it’s part of – an essential part of our bilateral relationship, but I think the Department of Labor is probably more knowledgeable about what transpired yesterday.

QUESTION: And just to follow, one more quick.

MR. TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: Is State Department playing direct role? I mean, are they meeting with the Indian labor minister, or State Department is discussing anything directly?

MR. TONER: I don’t know if he’s had – if they’re having any meetings here, so I’ll have to check on that. I’ll take the question.

QUESTION: Staying on India?

MR. TONER: Sure, we’ll stay on India.

QUESTION: Okay. I have two subjects. Do you agree with the – today’s assessment that India is strategically important to the U.S. for containing China?

MR. TONER: I’m sorry. What are you referring to?

QUESTION: It’s about the – Secretary Burns’s assessment in The Boston Globe today.

MR. TONER: Okay. Yeah, I’m aware that he had an opinion piece in The Boston Globe and --

QUESTION: So do you --

MR. TONER: -- best wishes, of course, to Ambassador Burns, who’s an old friend. But what was your question specifically?

QUESTION: Do you agree that India is strategically important to the U.S. for containing China?

MR. TONER: Well, while we’re on India, first of all, I do want to provide a bit of news. I am pleased to note that the Indian Foreign Secretary Mathai will be visiting Washington next week, and that we’re looking forward to welcoming him to the State Department on February 7^th. While here, he will meet with Deputy Secretary Burns and Under Secretary for Political Affairs Wendy Sherman, as well as Assistant Secretary for South and Central Asia Robert Blake. And they’re, of course, going to discuss all of the issues that fall under our strong bilateral relationship as well as many global issues.

As you know, we’ve repeatedly from this podium talked about the indispensible partnership with India, and President Obama noted this in his trip in 2010. I’m not sure what you’re specifically talking about in the opinion piece.

QUESTION: He says that the present Administration is not doing enough when it comes to U.S. relations with India, and the other – and the former question was that – earlier question was that – is U.S. here going to use India to contain China?

MR. TONER: Well, look, I haven’t actually read the entire piece, so it’s hard for me to comment on it. I would just say that, as I noted, we have a strong bilateral relationship with India. The United States is in the midst of our Asia pivot, as we’ve talked about many times, and we’re strengthening – in the process of – in strengthening our interactions with Asian nations, especially with emerging powers like India and China. And these are the kinds of ties that are going to set the framework for our engagement with Asia throughout the next century.

This is not a zero-sum game. We need strong relations with both countries, and we need all of us working together. These are – there are always going to be matters on which we disagree, but we also have significant areas of common interest.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) on that subject is about what is the diplomatic perspective on these remarks that have come from the intelligence chief Clapper about India and China engaging in a limited edition war?

MR. TONER: I would refer you to him for a response.

QUESTION: No, but what is the diplomatic perspective from this building? Because – what is the U.S. interest fanning this Indo-China limited war?

MR. TONER: Well, look, you’re talking about Director of National Intelligence Clapper’s testimony to Congress. He was providing analysis to Congress that he was asked to provide. But more broadly, I’d just reiterate what I just said, which is that – and the Secretary, in fact, articulated when she was in Chennai last July – we have a – we were committed to strong, constructive relationships with India and with China both. And we need to work together, as I just said, if we’re going to solve all the common threats and address all the common challenges that we face.

QUESTION: Can I just quickly --

QUESTION: A follow-up, Mark. Are you concerned about China’s rising military power in the region? Because many smaller countries are worried, and that’s what they are relying on – the U.S.

MR. TONER: Yeah. Sure. Look, Goyal, we’ve talked about these issues a lot from here, and I know that they keep coming up again and again. You know what we’ve called on from China is transparency in the military, in our military relationship with them. We want stronger and –stronger military to military ties in our relationship with China. And again, we’ve often said China shouldn’t view the U.S. as a threat in any way. We need a stronger bilateral relationship; we need stronger regional relationships to promote greater stability.

QUESTION: Can we go on to Syria?

MR. TONER: Yeah. Sure. Thank you.

QUESTION: Has the Secretary had her long awaited conversation with Minister Lavrov yet?

MR. TONER: She did. She did speak – I can confirm she spoke with her Russian counterpart, Foreign Minister Lavrov, earlier this morning. They did agree that their teams in New York would continue to consult on this draft resolution.

QUESTION: This is – okay. Sorry.

MR. TONER: Go ahead. No, I just wanted to say, and that’s in fact where – speaking more broadly about the status of the resolution on Syria, the center of gravity remains in New York and Ambassador Rice and her team remain fully engaged there.

QUESTION: Did you get a – did she get a sense that the Russians were now willing to join and support this somewhat lighter, watered down resolution that’s now being negotiated?

MR. TONER: I don’t know if I’d agree entirely with your characterization of the new --

QUESTION: The reworded --

MR. TONER: Okay. Thank you. Look, this is still being discussed in New York, so I don’t want to get ahead of those ongoing consultations and negotiations. They’re still talking about this, they’re working hard, and you know where our position is on this. You know we want to see the Security Council speak in a unified and strong fashion in support of the Syrian people, but also to the Syrian Government that the violence needs to end and that political transition needs to take place.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) back to Russia’s fine diplomatic staff in New York, they’re taking their cues from their boss. And the Secretary had a chance to speak directly with him today.

MR. TONER: Right.

QUESTION: What sense did she get from him that Russia is now willing – wants to play a more constructive role in this process?

MR. TONER: Well, look, it’s – again, I’m not going to get into the substance of their discussions. We never do that.

QUESTION: Its tone.

MR. TONER: Its tone. Okay. I think that we are working hard to get a unified response from the Security Council, and frankly, because those discussions are ongoing, I’m going to be very circumspect in what I say from the podium.

QUESTION: Do you know how long that conversation lasted?

MR. TONER: Well, sure. I’m sorry, I don’t.

QUESTION: You don’t know how long? And was that before she departed for Munich?

MR. TONER: No. I think it was from the plane.

QUESTION: From the plane?

QUESTION: Is it your – you just said that you wanted the United Nations Security Council to speak with one voice about the need for the violence to stop. Over the last few days --

MR. TONER: And for political transition per the Arab League’s plan. Yeah.

QUESTION: -- and for political – well, the new draft that’s floating around talks about welcoming the Arab League plan. But it specifically does not call or full – call for full implementation of it or even say that the Council fully supports it. So I’m wondering, is an endorsement of the Arab plan in all of its aspects a prerequisite for you to sign on to a resolution? Or is it just important for you to have a statement that condemns the violence and calls for political transition? There’s a difference.

MR. TONER: No, I understand that Elise, and it’s a good question and it’s a fair question. But I can’t, in an essence, show our card from this podium when we’re still negotiating the text in New York and we’re still there.

Go ahead, Said.

QUESTION: Do you feel that you are closer today to getting the Russians consent than you were yesterday at this time?

MR. TONER: Another fair question. I think that these consultations, these discussions, these negotiations are still ongoing and that, in and of itself, is encouraging. Folks are working hard and they’re trying to reach consensus.

QUESTION: Okay. Arab League diplomats are claiming that the Russians, to begin with, were the ones that floated around a resolution akin to that of Yemen, where he would sign on on giving the authorities to the vice president, but then that the Russians backed away from that. Are you, one, proposing that this same model would be used, like Yemen? And second, would that be something that you would expect the Russians to agree to?

MR. TONER: Well again, I don’t want to – and you’re just trying in a different fashion to ask the same question Elise did – but I think – what we’ve said all along is that we’re supportive of the Arab League plan for this political transition. We believe that that’s a way forward that would end the violence, and as we’ve all along said, lead to a transition in power there. But let’s let these negotiations play out.

Yeah. Go ahead, Brad.

QUESTION: Aside from the substance --

QUESTION: (Inaudible) draft is the only – it is the only plan that it being floated around. So it’s the only game in town. So you do expect the Russians to sign on today, right?

MR. TONER: We certainly, as the Secretary noted the other day, this is – the Arab League has shown tremendous leadership in addressing the problem or the situation in Syria, and we want to support them.

QUESTION: Aside from the nitty-gritty, the substance, you didn’t characterize the discussion between the Secretary and Foreign Minister Lavrov in any way.

MR. TONER: I think it was constructive, and – but, again it’s --

QUESTION: It was productive, or was it --

MR. TONER: I’m going to say constructive --

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. TONER: -- because I didn’t get a full readout of the conversation. So it’s hard for me to characterize the tone of it. But I think the fact that, as I said, that they agreed that their teams would continue to work hard on this draft resolution in New York, I think, obviously, says that it was a constructive conversation.

Yeah. Lalit.

QUESTION: Did they agree to meet at all in person at Munich, do you know?

MR. TONER: I believe that’s still set. I think so.

QUESTION: So they are going meet in Munich?

MR. TONER: I believe so.

QUESTION: Change topics?

MR. TONER: Yeah. Go ahead. No, I’m sorry, Lalit. And then – I’m sorry.

QUESTION: The Deputy Foreign Minister Gatilov is quoted by wire agencies as saying that the new draft in its current form is not something they’re going to support.

MR. TONER: I’ve seen those press reports. Yeah.

QUESTION: Now is this something that Lavrov communicated directly --

MR. TONER: I don’t know that they – I don’t know that this – that specific report – his comments are – they were raised in the phone conversation, I don’t know.

Yeah. Sure. Elise, you got a question?

QUESTION: I have a new topic, so go ahead, Said.

MR. TONER: Okay, are we finished with Syria? And Elise. Then I’ll get back to you guys. Sorry.

QUESTION: Yes. It’s on Israel.

MR. TONER: Okay.

QUESTION: There are all these comments swirling around about how, particularly the Secretary of Defense, but other officials in the Administration are concerned that Israel is going to launch a military strike in the not-too-distant future. Today, the Deputy Foreign Minister Ayalon said in Munich that, if you continue to pose sanctions – it might not impose rapid sanctions, it may not be necessary but they’re not taking anything off the table. What are you doing to coordinate with the Israelis and make sure that they don’t take action that (a) you don’t know about, (b) you may not agree with, maybe you do, and (c) that this doesn’t launch into an even greater regional conflict?

MR. TONER: Well, thanks for the question. Look, first of all, we’re certainly under no illusions about the threat that Iran poses both to our ally Israel but as well to the broader region and our allies and partners there, as well to the international community writ large. So we certainly understand and share the serious concerns that Israel has regarding Iran’s nuclear program.

And in answer to your – in response to your question, we’re consulting closely with all of our partners internationally but certainly including Israel to address the threat. That’s why --

QUESTION: I’m not talking about addressing the threat. That’s – is that what you consider addressing the threat --

MR. TONER: Well, let me just finish.

QUESTION: -- Israel going after them?

MR. TONER: What I was going to say was – what I was going to say next was that that’s why we believe and have placed unprecedented pressure on Iran, because we believe there’s still time and space to pursue diplomacy and to allow the sanctions that are in place – and again, these are unprecedented sanctions that I think everyone agrees are having a chilling effect on the Iranian economy that allow them to take hold. So I guess, in answer to your question, we still believe that there’s, as I said, time and space here for diplomacy to work, our two-track approach of diplomacy and pressure to work.

QUESTION: So just specifically, are you at very senior levels telling the Israelis that you believe that there’s still time and space and asking them not to take precipitous military action until there’s an international consensus that the time and space is no longer?

MR. TONER: Well, our public position is our private position, which is that we continue to be committed to this two-track approach. We still believe, as I said, there’s time and space for that to work.

QUESTION: So you’re telling Israel not to bomb as well*?

MR. TONER: That’s our message. Our message is consistent publicly and privately on this. But also the fact that we’re absolutely committed to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

QUESTION: But, Mark, this image of time and space really does not juxtapose quite well with, apparently, a planning that is well underway. I mean, they are talking about five days of bombardment and a call by the Security Council thereafter for an immediate ceasefire. I mean, that is a well-developed plan. So how do you reconcile --

MR. TONER: Again, you’re – I’m not going to confirm these plans. These are press reports. I’d refer you to the Israeli Government for their comment on that.

QUESTION: So do you think that --

MR. TONER: I’m just saying what our position is.

QUESTION: -- the statements made by Secretary of Defense Panetta and others and the Israelis are really intended to sort of exact a great deal of pressure on the mullahs’ regime in Tehran? Would you say that’s the intent?

MR. TONER: Again, I think that this – they’re expressing their concern about Iran’s nuclear program and the fact that it has failed to really address the international community’s concerns. I’m just saying the United States, our partners and allies remain committed to the two-track approach and that we believe sanctions are having an effect.

In the back.

QUESTION: Are you following the situation in Pakistan? Supreme Court has said that it was going to convict the prime minister on 13^th, the government seems to be on its way out. Are you concerned about it?

MR. TONER: I mean, look, of course, we’re following closely events in Pakistan. We’re the State Department. No. But just to be clear, as I think we’ve said all along, these are internal political processes. Specifically, you’re talking about the current court case. This case is not new. And what we’ve said all along is that we expect Pakistan to resolve any of its internal issues in a way that’s consistent with Pakistani laws and its constitution.

QUESTION: But does it limit your ability, because there is sort of impasse at the moment between Pakistan and the United States?

MR. TONER: Well --

QUESTION: They were supposed to review, the U.S. was supposed to wait for the recommendations. Is there any communication --

MR. TONER: We are, in fact, still waiting for those recommendations and that review.

QUESTION: But does the internal situation limit your ability to engage with Pakistan?

MR. TONER: I don’t think so. We remain in very close consultation through our ambassador in Islamabad, Cameron Munter, and his counterparts on the ground in Islamabad, but at a variety of levels with the Pakistani Government. So I think where we are with the broader bilateral relationship is exactly what you said, which is that we understand there’s this parliamentary review underway. Once that’s completed, we can sit down with Pakistan and try to address some of these issues.

Yeah, sure. Samir.

QUESTION: What’s the U.S. reaction to the parliamentary elections in --

QUESTION: Another on Pakistan?

MR. TONER: Let’s finish with Pakistan. I apologize. I didn’t realize it. Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: Well, there were two interesting developments last week – or rather this week: President Obama saying that the drone that attacked targets in FATA are American drones, and the Pakistani foreign minister saying that yes, we can bring the Taliban to talks with the Afghan Government. Previously, both sides refused to acknowledge these things, so does it reflect a new resolve to addressing difficult issues rather than sweeping them under the carpet?

MR. TONER: Well, it’s – that’s a good question. Look, I think we want to – as we’ve said many, many times since the very tragic events of November 26, we are committed to this relationship with Pakistan. It’s absolutely essential. It’s in our national security interests and it’s in Pakistan’s national security interests. I think in the context of the two things you cited in your question, those are – I think we’re trying to bring greater focus to bear on the broader threats that we both face, which are these extremists operating who are an existential threat to Pakistan as well as a threat to the United States as well as a threat to Afghanistan and the region as a whole. So as much as we can honestly work together to address those threats, that’s a good thing.

Yeah. Let’s go to Samir. He had a question.

QUESTION: Was the U.S. --

MR. TONER: Kuwait, you asked?

QUESTION: Parliamentary election yesterday in Kuwait.

MR. TONER: I do have something. Hold on just one moment as I look for it.

QUESTION: Of course, you do. You’re the State Department.

MR. TONER: That’s right. We do follow events in Kuwait. (Laughter.) Thanks, Brad.

We do congratulate the Kuwaiti people and the government for continuing to uphold Kuwait’s democratic traditions and institutions, including through their national parliamentary elections which took place yesterday, as you noted. Transparency and due process are essential to protecting the integrity of the electoral process and preserving the confidence of the Kuwaiti people and their democratic system. So we’re encouraged that the government invited citizens and international observers to monitor and report on the elections and of course, some of the initial reports indicate that these elections were, in fact, free and fair. So, again, we congratulate the Kuwaiti people on a job well done.

QUESTION: Although 60 percent of the parliamentarians – parliament seats are apparently Islamist or from the Muslim Brotherhood, people that may want to see Sharia law imposed and less and less freedoms?

MR. TONER: Well, again, your question contains the kernel of my response, which is that it’s not about labels, what these parties may call themselves. It’s going to be how they govern and do they govern in a democratic fashion that’s consistent with the aspirations of the Kuwaiti people. That’s how we’re going to judge going forward.

QUESTION: Did you experience – is it your experience that the Islamists governing – actually they govern in accordance with rule of law rather than Sharia law?

MR. TONER: I apologize. I didn’t --

QUESTION: Okay. Let me rephrase it then. From your experience thus far, do you have confidence that these Islamic parties will rule according to their constitutions or --

MR. TONER: I think it’s something we’re watching closely, whether it’s Egypt or Kuwait, and we’re going to be monitoring closely going forward -- excuse me. But I would say the jury’s out. But again, we’re going to judge them by how they actually govern.

Yeah. Go ahead.

QUESTION: On a new subject, on Okinawa, there are reports out there that the Administration has given up its plan to shift the Marines out to Guam and instead is looking at rotating them through Australia, Philippines, other places. Can you tell us what’s the status of this?

MR. TONER: Sure. I am aware of those reports. I can say that we’re obviously strongly committed to maintaining and enhancing our security alliance with Japan. At the same time, as we’ve noted before, we’re looking to mitigate the impact on Okinawa and the United States and Japan remain fully committed to the implementation of the Futenma replacement facility and the relocation of the Futenma airbase to Camp Schwab. So there’s no change there.

QUESTION: New topic?

QUESTION: Same topic?

MR. TONER: Sure. Go ahead. Yeah.

QUESTION: The Japanese Foreign Minister Gemba said that the U.S., Japan are rethinking the Futenma relocation in the roadmap, so which mean – it implies maybe they are – they going to make a change about this plan. So would you please explain this? And also, would you please tell me what kind of impact do you think it has on the relocation of Futenma to Henoko.

MR. TONER: Well, again, I think we’ve said all along that we’re in discussion with Japan. We’re looking to, as I just said, to mitigate the impact of the – on Okinawa of these changes. But I don’t have anything to announce or anything new to say about it.

QUESTION: I have a new --

QUESTION: But it’s inaccurate to say that you’re relooking at the roadmap? I mean, you’re committed to the current plan for now, but you’re also looking at other options. Is that correct?

MR. TONER: We’re committed to – I think we’re committed to the roadmap. I’d stop there.

QUESTION: I have a new topic.

QUESTION: So there is no change right now you --

MR. TONER: Not that I’m aware of. No.

QUESTION: This is on Spain.

MR. TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: The Spanish foreign minister announced --

MR. TONER: Are we done – sorry. Are we done with Futenma? Yeah. Sorry.

QUESTION: So your understanding for this moment is that it’s within agreement U.S., Japan (inaudible) --

MR. TONER: That’s my understanding, yes.

QUESTION: So it’s not like a renegotiating for other agreement.

MR. TONER: Right.

QUESTION: On Spain, the Spanish foreign minister announced today that the U.S. has agreed to retrieve some soil contaminated with radioactivity from this incident in the ’60s where a U.S. plane with an atomic – dropped an atomic bomb. And there’s a quote in the Spanish papers by Kathleen Doherty, deputy assistant secretary. Is this a done deal from the U.S. point of view, and is the U.S. agreeing with the public comments by the Spanish foreign minister that you’ve agreed to --

MR. TONER: That we’ve reached agreement on a settlement, if you will, for this?

QUESTION: Yeah. Yes.

MR. TONER: You know what, Elise? I’m going to take the question. I apologize. I am well aware of the case. I just don’t know --

QUESTION: If you could take the question --

MR. TONER: I absolutely will take the question.

QUESTION: -- because the Spanish foreign minister said it today, and the Secretary’s scheduled to meet with her tomorrow, so --

MR. TONER: No, absolutely. And, as I said, I’m very – you’re absolutely right, and I’m very much aware of the – of this. It’s a very tragic story, but we’ll check on it.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR. TONER: Yep.

Sure, Said.

QUESTION: New topic?

MR. TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: Palestinian issue. Did you follow closely the visit of Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to the West Bank and Gaza?

MR. TONER: We’re the State Department.

QUESTION: (Laughter.) Okay. Great.

MR. TONER: No --

QUESTION: Did you – do you agree with what he said at the tail end of his visit, that the window on the two-state solution is closing?

MR. TONER: Well, look, we would agree that there’s an urgency here, yes, and that – and we’ve talked about this many times before, that the status quo is not sustainable, so that it’s in both sides’ interests to get back and to address these issues at the negotiating table.

QUESTION: Sorry. He also called on the Palestinians to return to the negotiating table, but he also called on the Israelis to be serious about giving up the land. Do you agree with him?

MR. TONER: Well, again, these are all issues for – to be addressed in direct negotiations. So we would call on both sides to come to the negotiating table with serious proposals.

QUESTION: And lastly, he also called on Israel to lift the siege on Gaza. Would you also agree with that?

MR. TONER: Again, all of these matters are best left to the negotiating table for discussions there. David Hale is in the region now. He was, I believe, in Ramallah yesterday, where he did meet with Abbas, and he’s in Israel today. I’ll try to get a readout of his meetings there. But that remains our focus right now, is we’ve got this pause in the talks that began in Jordan. We want to see them get back to the negotiating table, as I said, with real, concrete proposals on how to bridge some of these differences.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR. TONER: Let’s go to the back. Swiss – you’re the Swiss. I remember you, see.

QUESTION: Exactly. No, yesterday the Department of Justice indicted, for the first time in history, a Swiss bank on conspiracy and tax fraud, and it’s the first time that a foreign bank is indicted on these counts. So I was wondering what impact this has on the ongoing negotiations and on the --

MR. TONER: You’re talking about the – and forgive me if I mispronounce it --

QUESTION: Wegelin.

MR. TONER: Wegelin. Yeah. Thank you.

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR. TONER: I know Brad’s watching closely for my pronunciation.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) your pronunciation. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: (Inaudible) remediate it. (Laughter.)

MR. TONER: That’s a perfectly valid word, by the way. In any case, let me assure you that we obviously enjoy a very strong and long-lasting partnership with Switzerland. That goes without saying. This particular matter does involve allegations of criminal wrongdoing by a particular institution and its employees, so I have to refer you to the Department of Justice, as it’s an ongoing investigation.

Yeah. Go ahead.

QUESTION: But some people back in Switzerland are characterizing this as a unfriendly move from the U.S. What’s your reply?

MR. TONER: Not at all. As I said, the broader bilateral relationship remains very strong, but this is a matter – an investigation that’s being conducted by the Department of Justice, so I’m limited in what I can, frankly, say about it.

QUESTION: So you didn’t hear back from the Swiss Government yet?

MR. TONER: I don’t believe so, but I can – I’ll check on that.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR. TONER: Yeah, Goyal. One last question, quickly.

QUESTION: Just a quick – back to Iran quickly, please. Thank you.

MR. TONER: Who do you think is going to win the Super Bowl, Goyal?

QUESTION: As far as sanctions are concerned against Iran, many countries and many companies are still doing business with Iran. Are you going to sanction those countries and companies who are helping Iran?

MR. TONER: You’re talking about the CBI legislation, the – about the Central Bank of Iran?

QUESTION: Yes, sir.

MR. TONER: Well, I think we’ve also said – and very quickly – we’re – we’ve sent teams out. We’re talking to allies and partners throughout the world. We’re committed to implementing this law and this legislation, but we’re also trying to do it in a fashion that doesn’t put undue pressure on our partners in this process.

So thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 1:40 p.m.)

DPB # 23

Victoria Nuland

Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC

February 2, 2012

• SYRIA
  • UN Security Council Resolution / Ambassador Rice
  • Embassy Security / Ambassador Ford
• AFGHANISTAN
  • Military Transfer to Afghan Lead / NATO
  • Reconciliation
  • Afghanistan-Pakistan Relations
• PAKISTAN
  • Travel Warning
  • Haqqani Network
• IRAQ
  • U.S.-Iraq Relations
• GEORGIA
  • Support for Georgia's Sovereignty / Bilateral Defense and Security Cooperation
• EGYPT
  • Egyptian Military Delegation in Washington / Meetings with Assistant Secretary's Feltman and Shapiro
  • U.S. Citizens on Embassy Compound
• ANGOLA
  • Case of U.S. Citizen
• DEPARTMENT
  • Change in Consular Fees

12:50 p.m. EST

MS. NULAND: Happy Groundhog Day everybody. I understand he saw his shadow, so six more weeks of winter, huh? Winter like this we can handle though. We haven’t really had much winter, right? But for those of us going off to Bulgaria, I think we are about to get some winter.

QUESTION: Yeah. Doesn’t bode well for the summer though.

MS. NULAND: Okay, I have nothing at the top. Let’s go to what’s on your minds.

QUESTION: Are you guys okay with this new draft Syria resolution that removes the explicit call for Assad to turn over power to his vice president?

MS. NULAND: Well, as we said yesterday, we are not going to be litigating the UN Security council resolution here at the podium. That’s the work of our team up in New York, under the able leadership of Ambassador Rice. I do want to push back on your characterization though, a little bit. Our understanding is that consultations on the updated draft pick up at three o’clock today. As the Secretary said when she was in New York, as we have been saying all along, we are looking for a resolution that strongly supports the Arab League plan. Our understanding is that the draft that we’ll see later today is very much in that vein. I think you saw Ambassador Rice’s comments after the session yesterday, where she was cautiously optimistic and, in general, said that everybody had their sleeves rolled up and was working hard to get us to a resolution.

QUESTION: Well, I’m not asking you to litigate or negotiate the resolution here. I’m just asking if that’s okay with the U.S. I mean, the draft is -- the new draft -- is out there.

MS. NULAND: Again, Ambassador Rice will, in a closed-door session, be working with their colleagues again at three. When --

QUESTION: Well, it’s a bit disingenuous this closed door session when everyone is – everyone who has an interest in --

MS. NULAND: Matt, can I finish my point? I’d like you to let me finish my point, okay?

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. NULAND: All right. So these consultations on the new draft will start at three. They are not an open session, they’re a closed session. Ambassador Rice will give our views on that draft in the session and we’ll negotiate from there with our colleagues, but we are not going to negotiate here at the podium. Okay?

QUESTION: Again, can I just ask you – I’m not asking you to negotiate it on the podium. I’m just asking you if you’re okay with that. The draft is out there.

MS. NULAND: Again, I’m not going to predict where our negotiator is going to be at the session, before the session starts.

QUESTION: Okay. Has the Secretary managed to get in touch with Foreign Minister Lavrov yet, or is he still conducting urgent business in the South Pacific. I think he was in Fiji yesterday. The Russians made a big show about how he was there extolling and expanding upon the great Russian-Fijian partnership. Presumably this is the important business which has kept him from the phone. Has she talked with him?

MS. NULAND: She has not spoken to him yet. She’s expecting to soon, but as I said, Ambassador Rice is working well with the Russian perm rep in New York on the resolution, and most of the action’s in New York at the moment.

Kirit?

QUESTION: Does she plan to see Lavrov this weekend when she’s on the road?

MS. NULAND: Our understanding is that he will be at the Munich security conference, so I don’t have any particular meetings to announce at the moment, but there is a good opportunity there.

QUESTION: What caused the Ambassador Rice’s cautious optimism?

MS. NULAND: Say again?

QUESTION: What caused her to be cautiously optimistic? You said, she was cautiously optimistic. Is there anything in particular?

MS. NULAND: Again, I think if you look at her comments yesterday she was speaking about the workman-like spirit in the Council, that everybody, as she put it, had their sleeves rolled up and were really committed to trying to get a resolution. But she did also make clear that the hard textual work continues today.

QUESTION: But it is not the reflection of, let’s say, the softening of positions by the Russians, is it?

MS. NULAND: Again, I’m not going to take you into that negotiating room from this podium.

QUESTION: Some people are suggesting that there are hopes there that they may be able to put it to a vote, maybe tomorrow or over the weekend at some point. Do you have any sense of the potential timing here on any vote?

MS. NULAND: I don’t, and I don’t think we will until we see how today’s session goes.

QUESTION: Just on the Lavrov thing again. And has it been suggested by anyone or to anyone in the Russian foreign ministry that a meeting in Munich might be desirable? And if it has, have they gotten back to you? Have they said, “Well, Munich is a big city. We might not be in the same place, be able to be at the same place, at the same time”?

MS. NULAND: Again, when we have her bilateral schedule in Munich to announce, we will announce it.

QUESTION: Well, I mean, would she like to see him there?

MS. NULAND: Again, when we have a bilateral schedule to announce in Munich we’ll announce it.

QUESTION: Vitaly Churkin, the Russian Ambassador to the UN, his statement yesterday was a bit confusing. On the one hand, he was talking about perhaps some flexibility. On the other, he was accusing the Arab League of being biased against the regime and all these things and they will stand by Syria, come what may. So what is your interpretation of that?

MS. NULAND: Again, I’m not going to be parsing the work in New York from here. Okay.

Jill?

QUESTION: I just want to try one more. It’s not to get you to parse it, but just so we may understand. Do you take the Russians at their word, that they believe that this really ultimately is an attempt to pull a Libya, to, under the guise of doing something else, to really overthrow Assad?

MS. NULAND: We -- I think the Secretary, other members of the Council who supported the original Moroccan draft, who are continuing to want to keep it as strong as possible, did our utmost in that session on Wednesday and are continuing to do so in sessions today to make it clear, as the Secretary said unequivocally, “This is not Libya. The situation is different.” What we are looking to do is to support the plan of the Arab League, which is quite clear on how a peaceful Syrian-led transition could go forward.

Said?

QUESTION: He also, the Russian ambassador, also made the claim that their position was almost identical to the Chinese position, to the Indian position, to the Brazilian position, and other members, non permanent members, on the Council. Is it your understanding that they do have similar positions?

MS. NULAND: Again, I am not in that negotiating room. We’re not, all of us, in that negotiating room. We’re not, all of us, in that negotiating room. We do have nine, ten countries strongly supporting the Moroccan draft. Other countries are looking at it, we’re working from it, and we just need to see where this goes.

QUESTION: Okay. And lastly – now, since you already said that the situation is different than Libya, why couldn’t the resolution include language that actually speaks very clearly and unequivocally about, let’s say, rejecting any kind of military interference for now and for the future in Syria?

MS. NULAND: Well, I think as a general matter, whether you’re talking about the United States or whether you’re talking about many of the other countries around that table, while we have said extremely clearly that adding foreign military forces to this situation is not the direction to go, that we want the violence to end, we want a peaceful solution, we never take any option off the table. And it’s simply not the way one does business because you do not know where events are going to take us. And the fundamental issue here is to stop the violence.

Ros.

QUESTION: Given the Secretary’s comments yesterday that each member of the Security Council will have to decide where it stands, either with the Syrian people or with the regime, is the goal right now of the U.S. and others who support the Moroccan draft to try to get Russia and China to abstain on whatever the final draft is?

MS. NULAND: Ros, we are trying to get today to a resolution that as many council members as possible can support because that is the best way to send a message to the Assad regime about its behavior, about how the international community feels about this, and to stand with the Syrian people.

QUESTION: So – but again, given the Russians in particular, given their strong concerns so far that this is, in essence, an establishment of another slippery slope, why won’t you say that the U.S. is trying to get Moscow and Beijing to not cast vetoes on this?

MS. NULAND: Well, obviously, we’re looking for something that can get through, so we wouldn’t be doing all of this if we weren’t looking for something that can get through. We obviously would like to see as many countries as possible on as strong a draft as possible. But again, this is live diplomacy – negotiations going on today – so I can’t predict, sitting here, where this is going to go.

QUESTION: Just one more on Syria.

MS. NULAND: Andy, did you have something?

Yeah.

QUESTION: Have you had any update on the security of the Embassy?

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

QUESTION: Oh, sorry – the security of the Embassy?

MS. NULAND: The situation has not changed. We continue to be dissatisfied with the security situation around the Embassy. We continue to try to work with the Syrian Government to remediate the problem, but we have not settled it yet.

QUESTION: Is there a fish-or-cut-bait moment where you simply say this is not going anyplace and --

MS. NULAND: Well, obviously, there will be at some point a fish-or-cut-bait moment. I’m not prepared to predict when that will be, but our discussions continue.

QUESTION: Are you able --

QUESTION: Is Ambassador Ford still able to conduct any sort of normal business there, given the security concerns?

MS. NULAND: Well, he’s had constraints for quite some time. We’ve talked about the fact that he hasn’t been able to travel out of Damascus in many months. But he does maintain broad contacts with a lot of folks, whether he’s doing it in person, whether he’s doing it on the phone, whether he’s doing it through some of these new media techniques, and he will continue to do that.

QUESTION: And any with senior government officials?

MS. NULAND: He has been in and out of the foreign ministry trying to work on the security situation in particular. That’s been his top issue with the government in the short term.

QUESTION: What is happening physically in the neighborhood around the Embassy? Are they burning bonfires? Are they blocking entrances around the Embassy? What exactly is going on that is giving DS a lot of concern here?

MS. NULAND: Well, again, I’m not going to get into the specifics of our concerns except to say that if you look at the physical placement of the Embassy, it’s in a very, very busy section of Damascus. Canadians had some of the same concerns before they decided to suspend their operations. So as we see the city become more and more violent, we are concerned.

QUESTION: Victoria, some Syrian sources claim that one of your requirements is to close off some major thoroughfares around the Embassy, including al-Maliki Square, which is really like Dupont Circle kind of a thing. Is that one of the stuff that you guys are asking?

MS. NULAND: Again, I’m not going to get into the details of what we’re asking for. It’s not appropriate.

Dima.

QUESTION: Can I ask you, what was the U.S. Government’s rationale for not endorsing the idea of discussing the Arab observers report at the UN Security Council?

MS. NULAND: We did --

QUESTION: I mean the Syrian --

MS. NULAND: We all talked about the Arab observers report. Every person’s comment at that table made direct reference to the report.

QUESTION: Well, the document, as far as I understand, was not the official part of the – part and parcel of the agenda. Was it?

MS. NULAND: I mean, I can’t speak to the agenda that was set for that session, but every single member of the council spoke about the contents of the report and welcomed the very full review that was given by both the Qatari prime minister and Mr. Elaraby.

QUESTION: Just back on the security – well, first of all, is “remediate” even a word? Is it? Well, okay. I assume you mean --

MS. NULAND: Was there a question there, Matt?

QUESTION: Well, yeah. Is “remediate” a word is one. But the second one is: On the security – actual security measures that you don’t want to talk about, is that because you’re negotiating with the Syrians about this?

MS. NULAND: Well, there are two --

QUESTION: Because if you – if one of the things you want, and they eventually agree to it, is closing down a road, it ain’t going to be a secret.

MS. NULAND: First of all --

QUESTION: And so the argument that we don’t talk about security measures, I mean, it doesn’t work then. If there’s going to be a physical closure of road, it’s – that’s not going to be a secret. So is it a question of the negotiating, you don’t want to say publicly what you’re asking the Syrians to do?

MS. NULAND: There are two things here. As a general matter, we don’t talk about our specific concerns, and as you said, we are trying to negotiate our way through this. If we have a resolution with the Syrian Government that allows us to keep the Embassy open, we’ll obviously be in a position, as will the Syrians, to discuss what we agreed to. But right now, it would be inappropriate.

Jill.

QUESTION: Another subject?

MS. NULAND: Yes.

QUESTION: Afghanistan?

MS. NULAND: Yes.

QUESTION: Secretary Panetta gave kind of a different timeline, an earlier timeline of transition over to the Afghans. Could you, from the State Department’s perspective, just kind of clarify where we stand and when this transition begins?

MS. NULAND: Well, let me say, first and foremost, that our colleagues at the Pentagon – Captain John Kirby, who speaks for the Secretary of Defense, just had an extensive press gaggle this morning expanding on the Secretary of Defense’s remarks. The Secretary himself, I believe, is going to have more to say when he completes his consultations with NATO allies in Brussels later today. So I’m going to leave military things to military folks, because I think they have expanded quite a bit on the Secretary’s remarks.

Let me just say in general terms that we all remain, from President Obama all the way down, committed to the Lisbon agreement, that our goal is to complete this transition to Afghan lead by the end of 2014. It is obviously the Secretary of Defense’s responsibility, working with NATO-ISAF colleagues, working with the Government of Afghanistan, to figure out how we execute that transition between now and the end of 2014 - based on conditions on the ground, based on security requirements, based on capability of Afghan National Security Forces, based on contributions of other international contributors.

And he will, with his defense colleagues, all of them together as defense ministers, will be making recommendations to the heads of state as we head towards the NATO summit in Chicago. You’ve heard the President say that the Chicago summit, we expect, will further elaborate the timetable between now and 2014. So that’s what the Secretary of Defense is out there working on with his NATO colleagues, and I’m going to let them speak to the details of that.

QUESTION: Can you talk about any communication you may have had with the Afghan Government prior to this or subsequent to this, these comments from Secretary Panetta? Have there been any communications between this building and the Karzai government about trying to parse out what exactly the Secretary meant and what the policy is? There’s been, we’re reporting, quite a bit of mystification there in Kabul over this, what appears to be a new --

MS. NULAND: My understanding is that Ambassador Crocker has been talking to the Afghans today. He’s also been talking to our team in Brussels to give them a sense of what’s going on. Frankly, it’s often the case that the Afghans participate in NATO meetings, so I actually don’t know whether there are some Afghan representatives in Brussels. There may be.

QUESTION: And just as a follow-up on this one, there was some – concern might be too strong a word, but when President Sarkozy made a similar announcement, this was addressed in this room by this podium that you were looking at it as a national decision and that would work within the sort of broader NATO timeline. But is this – are we to read this as the U.S. falling in step with the Sarkozy view of how the operation should continue?

MS. NULAND: There were two pieces to what was said in Paris a week ago or so. The first had to do with France’s own decisions about when its own combat role would end in the context of the larger NATO plan to transfer to Afghan lead by the end of 2014. From that perspective, we are working with the French; NATO is working with the French. It is a national decision.

The second piece was a musing, a question, put up by President Sarkozy about whether the end of 2014 calendar for NATO as a whole could be accelerated if the Afghans are ready for that and if conditions allow. And it was pitched as a question that he would raise with others. My understanding of the events in Brussels today and other consultations that we’ve had with Afghans and others is that our expectation is that what was agreed at Lisbon, that the Afghan lead will be – the transfer to Afghan lead will be completed by the end of 2014 stands. That is our expectation. That said, we are going to have to work through what happens between now and then, because this is obviously not an on/off switch; it’s a process.

QUESTION: Given the --

QUESTION: I’ll have to go back and check, but I think that what President Sarkozy said, the second part, was that NATO and Afghanistan would ask for this by 2013.

MS. NULAND: Our understanding of what he was talking about was whether, in the context of Chicago, one could talk about accelerating the Lisbon timetable, and it was posed as a question.

Please.

QUESTION: But does that mean that you’re willing to talk about that?

MS. NULAND: As I just answered to Andy, our view remains – and I think it’s the conclusion of defense ministers from what I’m understanding, but again, let’s let the Secretary of Defense speak after his consultations – is that the conclusion, after looking at that, is that the Lisbon timetable continues to make sense, which is a different matter about what the benchmarks might be between now and then in this transition process.

QUESTION: Toria, in this context, what does “ready” mean? The Afghans are ready; what does it mean?

MS. NULAND: Well, we already have about 50 percent of the Afghan population living in places where Afghan security forces are in the lead combat role and NATO-ISAF is in a supporting role. So that process of Afghans leading the operations is continuing, and that’s what we’re talking about.

QUESTION: So it’s strictly from a security point of view?

MS. NULAND: It has to do with all kinds of factors – the security conditions, the readiness of the Afghans, et cetera.

Ros.

QUESTION: I take your point that between now and the end of 2014, things have to be figured out, but this is the first time that we can all point to that Secretary Panetta has actually said here’s a point on the calendar where we’re going to look to making this legal transition to making it an active transition, keeping in mind that we’re still going to keep a lot of our people and equipment there because the Afghans will need it.

Is this a discussion that has been going on in consultation with the State Department, or did he simply get ahead of the process and essentially put the U.S. in a position where now it’s having to try to dial back, in essence, some of what he said overnight?

MS. NULAND: No. We’ve been talking for some time in the – I think it’s fair to say we’ve been talking since Lisbon, since the target date was set, about how you get to the target. How – all of the elements that go into that, whether you’re talking about strengthening and supporting the Afghans as they transition, whether you’re talking about the training that goes into that, whether you’re talking about the rotation of allies and how they contribute, so – and we had always said that we expected that the Chicago summit in May would put more benchmarks on the calendar.

So it makes sense that in preparation for a summit, when ministers of defense are meeting three months ahead of a summit, that they would begin that conversation about what recommendations they might be able to make to heads, but decisions will be made at Chicago.

QUESTION: But also consider that here in the U.S., it is a political year, the President’s up for reelection, there’s a lot of antipathy toward the war in Afghanistan, and there are also financial considerations. Is there a thought that perhaps announcing an earlier transition from a U.S. lead or a NATO lead might actually be politically advantageous?

MS. NULAND: Ros, we do not do politics from this platform. If you want to talk politics, talk to the White House.

Please.

QUESTION: Not domestic politics, but I was just wondering, I mean, given that you are in these sort of preliminary stages of whatever contact may be undergoing with the Taliban – the Karzai government is doing that.

MS. NULAND: Right.

QUESTION: Is there any concern in this building that the takeaway that many people seem to be taking from Secretary Panetta’s comments that the U.S. is ready to think about transitioning sooner than it had earlier, that that’s going to undercut or complicate the Karzai government’s approach to the Taliban, that the Taliban will think, well, look, a year – we’re getting another year, we’ve got a year extra now?

MS. NULAND: As I’ve said, there is no implication here of a year extra, and the Taliban would misread what all of us have been saying – and starting first and foremost with the President – if they thought that our expectation was that this process will be completed before the end of 2014.

Dima.

QUESTION: New subject?

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: Still on --

MS. NULAND: Still on this? Okay. Keep going.

QUESTION: Will this transition that you are talking about to Afghan – transition to Afghan security forces that you are talking about, will this take place irrespective of the success or failure of the reconciliation effort? Or if you’re not successful with the reconciliation, or the Afghans are not successful, that would change the equation?

MS. NULAND: The security situation speaks to whether and when the Afghans can manage their own security, leading their own security with NATO and ISAF playing an increasingly supporting role rather than a lead role. So nobody is talking about abandoning the security of Afghanistan. It’s more a question of strengthening Afghan security forces so that they can manage security.

So to the degree that we still have insurgents fighting a democratic Afghanistan and taking up arms against the Afghan people, we all share the goal of ensuring that they are met on the battlefield and met in strongest terms. That’s a different matter than the fact that this pressure that all of us – Afghans, the NATO-ISAF coalition – have been putting on the Taliban is causing them to make some decisions about whether they want to come for talks. So as our boss likes to say in any of these conflicts, at the beginning you just fight, you move into a state where you, one hopes, can fight and talk, but as long as people are fighting, you have to keep fighting.

Please.

QUESTION: In the context of Defense Secretary’s statement yesterday, and your own remarks today, the transition depends upon the ground situation, and progress towards 2014 goals also depends. What – at political level, what kind of message are you giving to regional countries about the United States commitment to the region, to Afghanistan, Pakistan, in the long term?

MS. NULAND: Well, as we said at Lisbon, as we said at Bonn, as we said again in Istanbul, all of us are committed to staying with Afghanistan for the long term. We’re committed to staying with Afghanistan in supporting her security, in supporting her economic prosperity, in supporting an increasingly democratic, tolerant society that can live in peace with its neighbors. The precise role we play in that is going to change over time as the Afghan state gets stronger. That’s the point here.

QUESTION: And --

MS. NULAND: Please.

QUESTION: Sorry. Second part of my question: Can you, at this point, tell us the civilian presence, the State Department role, when the U.S. military presence is – scales down – is scaled down? What do you envision at this point of time?

MS. NULAND: We are not to the point of talking about those issues yet.

Please.

QUESTION: Yesterday, before Secretary Panetta’s statement, Ambassador Sherry Rehman said that Pakistan will be the first casualty of an irresponsible troops withdrawal from Afghanistan. Do you have a comment on that?

MS. NULAND: Well, I think this simply speaks to the fact that we really have to, all of us – Afghanistan, Pakistan, the NATO-ISAF family – concert our efforts and go after terrorists wherever they are.

QUESTION: Does it bother you at all that a Pakistani official would make such a comment, that they might be the ones to be hurt by withdrawals, considering the fact that they’re making it so difficult for you to get supplies in and out of Afghanistan and have not proven to be such a reliable ally in this case?

MS. NULAND: I think it speaks to a Pakistani understanding that this region is interconnected and we all have to work together.

QUESTION: And are you following FM Hina Rabbani Khar’s visit to Afghanistan and the meetings? If Pakistan and Afghanistan come up with a joint plan as far as reconciliation is concerned and the region is concerned, that may be a bit different than what United States is thinking. Will that be acceptable to you?

MS. NULAND: Well, first of all, we look forward to a debrief from both Afghans and Pakistanis on the visit, but from what we can tell so far, it seems to have been a very good and well-timed visit. As you know, we have always supported good neighborly relations and dialogue and collaboration on the security side, on the political side, on the economic side between Afghanistan and Pakistan. There have been very positive statements from the visit about Pakistan’s support for an Afghan-owned process of reconciliation. That’s something that the Afghans have wanted to hear, that we think will be helpful to the process. So we need to see where that goes.

QUESTION: And just lastly, you have issued a new Travel Warning to Pakistan this morning. Have you seen any worsening of situation that have prompted this decision?

MS. NULAND: No. I think you know that on any country where we have a Travel Warning, we update those on a regular basis every six months. So every six months, any Travel Warning is updated. So if you go and you look at the changes, essentially what you will see there are an updating of some of the incidents that we’ve seen in Pakistan or with Americans in the last six months which were not in our previous warning. But the general thrust remains the same with regard to our warnings to American travelers, et cetera.

QUESTION: But the situation six months remains the same now, or you think it has worsened?

MS. NULAND: Well, what you’ll see there is you’ll see references to the November 26^th incident, which obviously raised tensions. You’ll see references to some of the kidnappings that we’ve seen since the last warning. So this is not a report card. It’s designed to be a factual report of some of the incidences that guide our continued warning to Americans. The fundamental warning hasn’t changed.

QUESTION: Can I follow up on Khar’s visit – you must mentioned it – to Afghanistan? When she came back to Pakistan and asked if Pakistan will be willing to bring the Haqqani Network to the table, she said Pakistan will do whatever Afghanistan needs and asks. But the U.S. has been asking for the same thing for a while now, so do you see a different level of cooperation between Pakistan and Afghanistan at this point than what Pakistan offered to the U.S. until now?

MS. NULAND: Look, as you know, when the Secretary was in Pakistan and with the interagency delegation, one of our main asks at that time was that we do more with regard to the Haqqani Network. So positive statements of commitment in that regard, whether they’re made to us, whether they’re made to Afghanistan, that’s a good thing.

Please. Yeah.

QUESTION: One more --

MS. NULAND: One more, yeah.

QUESTION: Was this early – was this decision for early withdrawal was designed in part to impact – positively impact the negotiation taking place in Qatar?

MS. NULAND: I think I --

QUESTION: Specifically in Qatar.

MS. NULAND: I think I have already made clear nobody has changed the Lisbon timetable here, and that this – the fighting aspect of this is separate from the talking aspect.

QUESTION: Iraq?

MS. NULAND: Please. Yeah.

QUESTION: Yes. The drone controversy, the drone controversy in Iraq?

MS. NULAND: Was there a question there, Said?

QUESTION: Yes. I – about the drone controversy, that’s my question. The fiery cleric Muqtada al-Sadr is saying that this is a breach of Iraqi sovereignty, that the U.S. Embassy is, by doing this spy drone thing, is breaching Iraqi sovereignty, and he’s calling on Iraqis to resist and he’s calling on the Iraqi Government to stop the U.S. Embassy from doing that, and in fact given you – gave you a timetable, a deadline timetable. Do you have any comment on that?

MS. NULAND: I don’t have any comment on that, no.

Please, Dima.

QUESTION: Do you know – actually, do you know – has the Iraqi Government actually complained about this to you?

MS. NULAND: I – given the fact that we are continuing discussion about a whole host of issues having to do with how we manage our very large Embassy presence in Iraq, including aspects of security, I don’t think it’s so much a matter of complaint, as you would say, as an ongoing dialogue about what’s appropriate going forward.

QUESTION: No, but the – when this was first reported on Monday or Tuesday, or sometime earlier this week --

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- or maybe it was last week, I don’t even remember now, but it had been presented that the Iraqis were furious – the Iraqi Government, not a cleric here or there, but that the actual Iraqi Government was upset, was angry and demanding that this not happen. You’re not aware that that’s actually the case though, correct?

MS. NULAND: I am not. But let me take the question. Okay?

Dima. Thanks.

QUESTION: President Saakashvili of Georgia is in town, he was – President Saakashvili of Georgia is in town, he was in the building yesterday, he met President Obama on Monday. It was widely reported couple of months ago that Mr. Saakashvili is going to stay in power after presidential elections of 12 – of the next year in Georgia as a prime minister with broader powers. The process of those reforms are being carried in Georgia right now. I wanted to ask you, how does this possibility sit with the U.S. Government, whether you discussed this idea, that those reports – this possibility with Mr. Saakashvili either here at the State Department or at White House? And I have a follow-up.

MS. NULAND: Well Dima, let me just refer you back to the remarks made by President Obama with President Saakashvili during that Oval Office visit, I think it was Monday, where he made clear that in addition to our strong support for Georgia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, our desire to continue to work together to support their economic development, et cetera, we strongly support their continued political development, including as they head into an election season next year – or this year.

QUESTION: But did you discuss this specific case with him?

MS. NULAND: I think the White House made clear that we did. Yes.

QUESTION: Okay. And a follow-up if I may.

MS. NULAND: Yes.

QUESTION: President Saakashvili referred in his remarks yesterday to some kind of new level of military cooperation between Georgia and the United States. I wanted to know, what does it entail? For instance, are you now planning to ship heavy weaponry to Georgia?

MS. NULAND: Well, first of all, I would also refer you back to the President’s comments. The President spoke about this when he was – when he had President Saakashvili into the Oval Office. The United States and Georgia have agreed to continue to develop our bilateral defense and security cooperation. This cooperation is built on the successful programs that we already have to help the Georgian military in its reform effort, something that we do with many militaries around the world, including many of Georgia’s neighbors, and their defense modernization effort to support their self-defense – so we’re talking about defense. And also to sustain the work that Georgian forces do in ISAF in Afghanistan and to help them remain interoperable with NATO. Georgia is one of the largest non-NATO contributors to the ISAF mission.

QUESTION: Do you recall if the United States weighed in all when President Putin decided that he was going to become Prime Minister Putin? I’m wondering why you would weigh in on this case in Georgia if you didn’t --

MS. NULAND: I think we have weighed in regularly on the Russian side in terms of our support for democracy and transparency. I can’t speak --

QUESTION: Well, I think that – I know, but I think that the way the question was phrased was that there might be some specific concern about Saakashvili doing what Putin did. And I don’t recall that there was any expression other than just we would like to see a democratic process --

MS. NULAND: And I think that was --

QUESTION: -- in Russia with the Putin situation. I’m trying to figure out if there’s something more or something related to Saakashvili himself that would be a concern or of more concern with him taking over the prime ministership than it would with Putin taking over the Russian prime ministership.

MS. NULAND: Again, I’m going to refer you to the White House on the specific conversation, but my understanding from the readout that we all saw was that the conversation focused, as it has with Russia in the past, on the importance of democratic institutions and democratic processes.

Andy.

QUESTION: On Egypt, if you have anything new to report on the folks in the Embassy. Have there been any more letters sent, any phone calls received, what’s going on with them?

MS. NULAND: I don’t Andy. I wish I did. I wish I did.

QUESTION: This Egyptian military delegation apparently is in town. Do you have any information on who they might meet in the State Department?

MS. NULAND: We talked about his yesterday. They see Jeff Feltman, Assistant Secretary Feltman today. They see Assistant Secretary Shapiro tomorrow. I think Mark will be on the podium tomorrow, he’ll have a readout at least on the Feltman meeting for you tomorrow.

QUESTION: And has the NGO issue already been raised in the meeting yesterday?

MS. NULAND: They haven’t seen us yet. They see us today. I have no doubt that Assistant Secretary Feltman will raise it.

QUESTION: Victoria, some North African papers have reported that Hillary Clinton will be visiting the region in February. Is this true?

MS. NULAND: I have nothing to announce at the moment. We’ll let you know if and when we do.

QUESTION: Just out of – this is somewhat related to Egypt and it revolves around the Embassy refuge again, and then the situation in Angola, which we talked about yesterday. Is it your understanding – I talked to CA this morning – is it your understanding that these people in Angola were not actually abducted at gun point?

MS. NULAND: I don’t know the circumstances --

QUESTION: Because --

MS. NULAND: -- and, frankly, my understanding is that whatever circumstances led them to make this refuge request, they explicitly asked us not to talk about the incident. So even if I knew the details, I couldn’t talk about it.

QUESTION: Well, that’s funny because I was on the phone with a guy from his hotel this morning and he didn’t seem to have a problem talking about it. I’m just --

MS. NULAND: Well, he – it is his right to talk about it. But if he asks us not to talk about it, as an American citizen, we have to respect that, obviously. Right?

Please.

QUESTION: Can I ask you about North Korea?

MS. NULAND: Yes.

QUESTION: They sent, they call it an open questionnaire for the South Koreans, listing nine conditions to start negotiating again, among them being that U.S. and South Korea should stop doing military exercises, that the South Koreas should apologize for various things, do you have any comment on this?

MS. NULAND: I think we’ve long said no preconditions.

Okay, thanks everybody.

QUESTION: No, no. I have --

MS. NULAND: Oh, there he goes.

QUESTION: No, I have some brief ones just on the --

MS. NULAND: Matt has to do his list from all the AP bureaus around the world.

QUESTION: No, no, no, this isn’t from them. It’s about the new fees for certain passport – certain passport things. The final rule was published today and I realize that there’s been – there’s just three things about it. One is: I’d like to know – I would like to know, and you don’t have to bore us here with the details, but I would like to be bored with it later, the explanation for charging $82 instead of zero to get additional pages in your passport.

MS. NULAND: Takes a lot of trees, you know?

QUESTION: I know – well, I know that the explanation listed in this is that it’s not just the time, which I can’t imagine is very much to slap a couple pages, but also the cost of the paper which I can’t imagine is very much, endorsing the passport, which I don’t think takes very much time, and performing a quality control check on the expanded passport – a quality control check? What does that mean, it doesn’t fall apart? So anyway, if you can get CA or whoever to get me that.

Then the second thing on this is it’s now going to cost 50 to 30 – sorry, $50 to have a document notarized at an Embassy? So, $50? States put limits on the amount that their state notaries can charge and I did a look and it ranges from 50 cents to about $10 is the max. Why is a Federal notary going to cost $50 --

MS. NULAND: I think he’s planning a foreign marriage or an adoption, or something that’s going to require a lot of notarized paper overseas.

QUESTION: And then the last one –

MS. NULAND: Yes.

QUESTION: No, you’ll love the last one, which is, it’s now going to cost $450 instead of zero to renounce your citizenship. (Laughter.) Since the vast majority of American citizens don’t pay for their citizenship, they’re born into it, and – which is free except for to the parents, it’s of no cost to the infant getting the citizenship on birth, why do you have to pay $450 to get rid of it, to lose this privilege?

MS. NULAND: Well, we wouldn’t --

QUESTION: Does this mean that you put a price – is citizenship worth $450?

MS. NULAND: We wouldn’t want to lose you, Matt. You know we want to make (inaudible).

QUESTION: Well, I want to know, can I --

MS. NULAND: We’ll get you a full briefing on this issue – set of issues.

QUESTION: Because I’d like to know if you’re setting – if that means the value to the State Department that U.S. citizenship is $450. Why – and can I get it? If I get the Pat Kennedy? Can I get the $450 back?

MS. NULAND: Are you ready to renounce, right here and now?

QUESTION: No, no, no. I want to keep it, and not pay the $450.

MS. NULAND: I see, I see.

QUESTION: So I’d like to know why – I mean it doesn’t explain, it just says that the Department has determined that people should pay $450. Where, what --

MS. NULAND: We’re going to get you a full and personal briefing on all of these issues, Matt.

QUESTION: Thank. Maybe when we get back from Europe.

MS. NULAND: Yes. Good. Thank you all.

(The briefing was concluded at 1:31 p.m.)

Victoria Nuland

Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC

• MIDDLE EAST PEACE
  • David Hale's visit / Settlements
• SYRIA
  • Support of Arab League Plan in New York / Consultations
  • Foreign Minister Lavrov / Russian Support of Draft Resolution
  • Increase in Violence / Defections
  • Security Upgrades / Ambassador Ford / Status of Embassy
• EGYPT
  • U.S. Citizens Staying on U.S. Embassy Compound in Cairo / NGO's
  • Visiting Egyptian Military Delegation to Meet with Department Officials
• DEPARTMENT/EGYPT
  • Trips with U.S. Supreme Court Justices
• UZBEKISTAN
  • Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Act of 2012 / Waiver Authority
• PAKISTAN
  • NATO Classified Report
• AFGHANISTAN
  • Talks with Taliban
• IRAN
  • Undersecretary Sherman / Talks to Reduce Dependence on Iranian Crude / Japanese Visit
• DPRK
  • Talks with Ambassador Glyn Davies in Moscow
  • Talks with Assistant Secretary Kurt Campbell Visits to Seoul and Vietnam
• ANGOLA
  • Allocco Case / Consular Assistance

12:33 p.m. EST

MS. NULAND: Afternoon, everybody. Did the whole front row sleep in? Is that what we’ve got today? There he is, there’s Matt.

QUESTION: Is your alma mater in the back?

MS. NULAND: Before we start today, we will do a shout-out to the students from Choate Rosemary Hall in the back of the room. They’re making their annual trip to Washington.

Welcome, everybody. And let’s go to what’s on your minds.

QUESTION: You have nothing?

MS. NULAND: I have nothing at the top. Just been a little busy, that’s all.

QUESTION: Okay. I don’t really have much because I don’t expect really an answer to this. But yesterday Mark said that you guys were seeking clarification from the Israelis on this announcement that – excuse me – that they’re going to start giving incentives or that they’re going to give incentives to settlers moving into the West Bank housing blocks? Have you gotten any clarification from the Israelis?

MS. NULAND: To my knowledge, we have not yet. I think, as you know, David Hale has just started his round of meetings, and I don’t think that he has yet sat down with the Israelis. I think he started in Amman.

QUESTION: Do you know where he is, specifically, today?

MS. NULAND: My understanding is he is Amman today. He is talking to Foreign Minister Judeh. He is then going on to both Jerusalem and Ramallah on this trip.

QUESTION: Can you bring us up to date on where things stand on the diplomacy over the Syria resolution and, in particular, whether the Secretary’s talked --

MS. NULAND: Before we go to Syria, Said, were you --

QUESTION: I wanted to stay on the issue of the settlements for a little bit.

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: When a clarification is requested, in what form is it requested? Is it done officially through the Embassy? Or does it – is it in a statement made by, let’s say, Mark yesterday? Is that considered an official request for clarification?

MS. NULAND: No. I think in the first instance, obviously our Embassy is going in and saying, “What do you intend here, what are the implications?” So that was the first set of questions, but obviously David Hale will speak to this when he has a chance to talk to his counterparts.

QUESTION: Okay. Now the Israeli prime minister talked about 550 settlements all together, seventy of them in the West Bank. Do you ask clarifications about the ones that are on the West Bank?

MS. NULAND: Well obviously, we asked for clarification about all of it and we make clear our view that this is not helpful at this time.

QUESTION: Right. So I’ll ask you again what I asked Mark yesterday, if there is no incentive for the Palestinians to return to these talks seeing how this – the settlement activity is really proliferating, and the land is sort of shrinking and shrinking, what – why should they go back – why should they return to direct talks?

MS. NULAND: Said, we’ve talked about this many, many times, and you’ve asked the same question many, many times in this --

QUESTION: Right. And I will continue to ask it, because what disincentive should the Israelis have?

MS. NULAND: The best solution to the issue of settlements is for the Israelis and the Palestinians to sit down and negotiate a solution. Because with a solution will come permanent borders and the end of the settlement issue, because everybody will know where the borders of these two countries living side by side in peace are.

QUESTION: Okay, and one last question on this issue. Yesterday, Mark said that we were heading in the right direction with these preliminary talks in Amman. Do you feel that this announcement has sabotaged whatever chance there was with these talks?

MS. NULAND: Well, Said, as Mark said yesterday, as we say regularly about these issues, it is unhelpful. That said, we are encouraged by the preliminary rounds that have gone forward in Amman, we do believe that the parties are beginning to talk about substance. As you know they’re in a pause now, they’ve gone back to capitals, and we want to see them come back to the table as soon as possible.

QUESTION: Can we move to Syria?

MS. NULAND: Please.

QUESTION: Yeah. So can you give us an update on where things stand on talks over the Syria resolution? And in particular, has the Secretary managed to connect with Foreign Minister Lavrov yet?

MS. NULAND: Well, first on the process, as you know we had a very strong session up in New York yesterday; Secretary had the chance to participate. Very strong support around the council, as you heard, for the Moroccan draft resolution reflecting the Arab League plan and proposals. Some work still to do though.

The work now continues in New York among permanent representatives. Our understanding is that consultations begin at the perm rep level at 3 o’clock today. Ambassador Rice will be in the chair for us and that’ll begin the serious discussions about text with regard to the Secretary and Foreign Minister Lavrov. I think you heard the Secretary speak to this yesterday. She understands the difficulties of travelling in Australia. She’s been – made clear that she is open to speaking to him when he’s available.

QUESTION: So that would be a no.

MS. NULAND: They have not connected yet. No.

QUESTION: Sorry. What are the difficulties in travelling in Australia?

MS. NULAND: Secretary spoke to this yesterday that you’re involved in quite a different time zone. You’re sleeping when we’re awake. So she was empathetic to the situation of having difficulty connecting, but she’s made clear to him that when he’s available she’s ready to talk.

QUESTION: She doesn’t think that this is an issue of such importance that maybe Foreign Minister Lavrov might get up a little bit earlier or go to sleep a little bit later?

MS. NULAND: Well, it’s not as if we haven’t been having plenty of discussions with the Russians on this subject.

QUESTION: Right.

MS. NULAND: As Mark said yesterday, we’ve had consultations at the level of our Embassy. We’ve had Jeff Feltman in Moscow, we’ve had Deputy Secretary Burns talking to multiple Russian counterparts. Secretary had a chance to see the Russian permanent representative, Mr. Churkin, in New York, and Susan Rice – Ambassador Rice will certainly be working with the Russians over the next couple days.

QUESTION: And how have those consultations gone so far? Yesterday they threatened to veto a resolution. Doesn’t sound like the consultations thus far at the lower level have produced anything satisfactory for you, no?

MS. NULAND: Well, I have to say, having sat in the session yesterday – and you saw, I’m sure, it was a public session – the Russian view was that we need to support the efforts of the Syrians to find a peaceful resolution to this problem. So I think are all working together to find a way for the UN Security Council to support the aspirations of the Syrian people to end the bloodshed and to live better. We obviously got – we’ve obviously got hard work ahead of us on the resolution and that work begins in New York this afternoon.

QUESTION: How much of the Russian objection has been that this would be a slippery slope into some sort of military intervention in Syria? What sorts of assurances are the Americans and others offering to underscore what was said at the table yesterday that this is not in any way a military type of resolution?

MS. NULAND: Well, first of all, the Secretary was very clear, many other foreign ministers, including Foreign Minister Hague, Foreign Minister Juppe, were extremely clear in their statements in the Council and in their statements publicly to the press that this is not Libya, we are not seeking foreign intervention – that is not what the bulk of Syrians want – we are seeking to support the Arab League’s plan, which involves a dialogue among Syrians about a path towards a more democratic Syria.

But with regard to the precise negotiations that have to happen, Ros, as tempting as it might be to negotiate in public from this podium, we’re not going to do that.

QUESTION: So would you be agreeable to a clause in the resolution that unequivocally states that under no circumstances we’ll be going Libya’s way and allow a margin for military interference, as we did in Libya?

MS. NULAND: Again Said, I’m not going to negotiate the text of this resolution from this podium. That’s not appropriate. But we are working hard in New York to come to a text that everybody can support.

QUESTION: Does the Secretary feel snubbed by the fact that Foreign Minister Lavrov isn’t taking her calls?

MS. NULAND: I think she made clear last night in her press availability that she is quite relaxed on this subject and is available for him when he’s ready.

QUESTION: Was the Russian position what you expected, or was it more hard than you expected?

MS. NULAND: Again, I’m not going to give a grade to the Russians. We need to have these consultations on a text in New York, and we’re going to let that go forward.

QUESTION: Okay. The reason I asked this: Do you expect the Russians to show perhaps a little more flexibility in the next two weeks as the violence continues and the repression continues as well?

MS. NULAND: I think sitting in that chamber yesterday, and particularly hearing the extremely strong statements of the Arab representatives in the room – the prime minister of Qatar, the head of the Arab League, the Moroccan deputy foreign minister presenting the resolution – there was an enormous sense of concern about the violence and about, as many people said, since the council first started looking at this situation months and months ago, we now have thousands more dead. So I think you could feel a palpable sense in that room that the Security Council has got to take action. Obviously, we’ve got hard work to do on the precise text, as I said, but I think there was a strong commitment on the part of everybody, frankly, around the table for the Security Council to take its responsibility to protect peace and security.

QUESTION: Well, not everybody around the table. There was one Arab there who you didn’t mention, who didn’t seem to think it would be such a good idea. What did you make of what the Syrian Ambassador had to say?

MS. NULAND: I don’t think that the Syrian position at the table surprised us. He, like his --

QUESTION: Well, what about his historical – his reach into history with Syria head of parliament in 1919, Syria can’t understand why the Arab League is not – is bringing them to the table and not Israel for occupying Arab lands, that kind of thing?

MS. NULAND: Well, I’m not going to get into the Syrians’ head. I think what we heard --

QUESTION: No, no, no. I just want to know what you – what was the Secretary’s reaction to that? What was your – what was the Administration’s reaction to this?

MS. NULAND: I think that Foreign Minister Hague said it well when he said that there seems to be blame all around here except at the feet of those responsible for the violence. So our view remains that if the regime had been able, willing to solve this itself, as was the initial expectation, we wouldn’t be in the UN Security Council. But clearly, the regime is not proving capable or willing.

QUESTION: Right. No, I understand, but do you think his comments were appropriate given the situation?

MS. NULAND: Well, I’m not going to give his comments a grade. He spoke for where his government has been, which is not in the right place.

QUESTION: Victoria, on – the Russians spoke also of the armed element, the armed faction that were also attacking other communities and civilians, including they attacked the Russians, I think, in Damascus and so on. Do you agree or would you – would, let’s say, a common resolution include something like that?

MS. NULAND: Again, Said, I’m not going to get into the wordsmithing of the resolution from this podium. That’s the work in New York. What we have said many times from this podium and what the Secretary has said, President has said, is that the vast majority of the violence is being perpetrated by the Syrian regime. The degree to which we are seeing groups trying to defend themselves now, this is precisely the situation that the Secretary was warning about yesterday in her intervention. Violence needs to end before it begins to spiral out of control.

QUESTION: Now lastly, with the increased defection from the army, from the Syrian army, are you concerned that Syria may be sliding fast into a civil war?

MS. NULAND: This is precisely the situation that we are all trying to avoid by ending – by trying to get the regime to end the violence. We have seen an increase in defections. We’ve also seen the regime’s violence increase as it has worried about losing members of its armed forces. So this is part and parcel of the cycle of violence we’re worried about.

QUESTION: But Toria, when this ruling says that all sides need to put down their arms, and then, you say in the same breath, that the amount of violence being perpetrated by the regime is increasing, isn’t it natural for people who oppose the regime to want to try to defend themselves?

MS. NULAND: Well, again, this is the concern, that as the regime becomes more and more vicious – and the Secretary cataloged some of our concerns – you do have people trying to defend themselves. You have people who are armed trying to defend themselves. And this is the dangerous spiral that we’re worried about. This is precisely why the council needs to act, since the Assad regime has been unwilling to do what it needs to do.

QUESTION: Wouldn’t it be immoral, though, to say to those who were trying to protect themselves that they should lay down their arms? I mean, it might make things better on a moral level, but in terms of life or death, that’s how they protect themselves from the regime’s soldiers.

MS. NULAND: Ros, I think you’re putting words into our mouths. We have said all along that we want violence on all sides to stop, that this is not going to take Syria forward. But what we also make clear is that we lay the bulk of the responsibility at the feet of the regime.

QUESTION: Do you expect the council to vote on the draft resolution by Friday?

MS. NULAND: I’m not going to put a timetable on it. Obviously, as we see the violence increase, as we see the deaths increase, we want the council to act as soon as possible, but they’ve got some hard work to do in New York.

Michel.

QUESTION: Can I have a new topic?

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: On Egypt, I wonder – there were some conflicting reports overnight whether or not the Americans were taken off of the travel ban, and I wonder, are they still in the U.S. Embassy there? And have – has anyone in this building met with the Egyptian delegation that’s come to Washington?

MS. NULAND: Regrettably, we have not yet settled this situation. The American citizens that we talked about are still on the embassy compound. We are continuing to work with Egyptian authorities to try to resolve this case.

With regard to the Egyptian military delegation, as we said yesterday and the day before, this – delegations of this kind generally come from Egypt a couple of times a year. We do meet with them. Frankly, it’s another opportunity to underscore for them and for Egyptians in general our concerns about the situation with the nongovernment organizations.

They have – I think they arrived in Washington yesterday. They are scheduled to meet with Assistant Secretary for Political Military Affairs Andrew Shapiro and Assistant Secretary for Near East Jeff Feltman here at the Department. They’ll also be seeing folks at the Pentagon and they’ll be seeing folks on the Hill, as we understand it.

QUESTION: When are they meeting Feltman and Shapiro?

MS. NULAND: It’s either today or tomorrow. I’m not exactly sure, Arshad, but we’ll get that for you.

QUESTION: Can you give us a readout on that when it has happened?

MS. NULAND: We will. We will.

QUESTION: You don’t envision them having any problems leaving the country, do you? (Laughter.)

MS. NULAND: We do not.

QUESTION: No? Still on Egypt but not that subject – Justice Ginsburg was just there. I know that last week she and the Secretary had met, I presume, not to discuss any interests the Secretary might have on – in being on the Supreme Court; rather, to discuss this trip. Can you give us any detail about it, what the State Department in general thinks about visits like – of experts like these – she worked with Tunisia as well – to develop – to transitioning democracies?

MS. NULAND: Well, justices of the Supreme Court, over many years, have been very generous in participating in State Department-led programs to go see counterparts in other countries, particularly in countries where we are working together on reform of the judicial sector, particularly checks and balances on jurisprudence, writing constitutions, these kinds of things, and Justice --

QUESTION: NGO law.

MS. NULAND: NGO law as well, how the branches of government can work together. Justice Ginsburg has been a particularly active participant in those programs. She and the Secretary had a chance to talk before she went to Egypt. I don’t have the details on her schedule, but I think she was seeing senior members of the justice sector in Egypt, and I’m sure she would have had a chance to talk about how nongovernmental organizations are handled in the U.S. and in other democracies and the vital role they can play. But I don’t, I’m afraid, have a readout at the moment on her.

QUESTION: Okay. Well, then, less specifically about her trip, but – I mean, what is the value, or what have you seen is the value of trips like these to countries that are in this transition?

MS. NULAND: Well, this gives justices, folks who are writing legislation, folks who are working on court regulations a chance to talk to the most senior American justices and members of the Judicial Branch about their experiences of a lifetime of working on these kinds of issues, about various ways to solve the problems of checks and balances, et cetera, and it is a chance for some of these folks who have less experience in a democratic system to learn a little bit more about how we do things.

QUESTION: Okay. And do you know offhand – or maybe this can be gotten later – where – other places that justices, not just Justice Ginsberg but other countries – transitioning countries that they have visited, and what the actual program – what is the actual program under which they go?

MS. NULAND: Yeah. I mean, they sometimes go under ABA programs that we fund – American Bar Association programs. Sometimes they go under embassy invitation for specific justice programs that the embassies are managing under our Middle East initiatives on transition. When I was in Brussels, we had a number of justices come through to work with the European Union on some of its legislative issues, and particularly how the U.S. and the EU could cooperate to solve some of our efforts to coordinate our judicial system so that we are pulling in the same direction. So they go all over the world, not just to transitioning countries but also to some of our closest allies and partners.

QUESTION: Do you know, in this case of her, was it an invitation from the Embassy or was it another broader program, an ABA program or --

MS. NULAND: I don’t know. We’ll check on that for you, Matt. I don’t know what the specific program was.

QUESTION: Thanks.

MS. NULAND: Please.

QUESTION: A question on Uzbekistan: Are you able to comment on reports of the – reports out there today that the Administration waived a ban on nonlethal military assistance to Uzbekistan on a temporary basis? Are you able to confirm that and offer any guidance?

MS. NULAND: I am. Under the Foreign Operations and Related Programs Act of 2012, the Secretary of State has the authority to waive certain restrictions on assistance to the Government of Uzbekistan if she certifies that it is in the national security interest of the United States to do so, and also that it’s necessary to obtain access to and from Afghanistan for U.S. assistance to that country. The Secretary has issued such a waiver in this case. She made the determination on January 18^th and we put it forward to the Hill a couple of days later. It is a six-month waiver. This is the first time we have done this one. She’ll have to review again six months from now. And this is waiver authority that we have through 2013.

QUESTION: And there are some critics that will say that this sort of – this is giving the Uzbek Government a free pass on alleged abuses they committed. Is there any response to that sort of criticism for taking this action?

MS. NULAND: Well, we certainly reject the notion that anybody’s being given a free pass on human rights. As you know, the Secretary was in Uzbekistan in October, had a chance to work on the full range of our bilateral and regional issues, but also spoke very frankly to President Karimov, to members of his government, about our ongoing interest in support for human rights, reforming the system, our concern about individual cases. So this is part and parcel of our diplomacy.

She also spoke out very clearly the day before in Tajikistan about our specific concerns about the rights of minorities, the rights of children, the rights of women, about the court system, all of these kinds of things. So nobody is shying away from having the tough conversation. That said, we also have other interests and things that we need to protect in our relationship with Uzbekistan.

QUESTION: So you seem to be saying that this equipment, or whatever it is, is going to be used for the Northern Distribution Network. Would that be --

MS. NULAND: Yeah. Examples of the kinds of things that this waiver was given for – this will enhance the Uzbeks’ ability to counteract transnational terrorism and all – things like night vision goggles, personal protection equipment, global positioning systems. It’s defensive in nature, and it’s also supportive of their ability to secure the routes in and out of Afghanistan.

QUESTION: I’m sorry. I was under the impression it was weapons. This is all nonlethal stuff?

MS. NULAND: I don’t have exactly – I don’t – but beyond what I just gave you, examples of equipment – vision goggles, personal protection equipment – it’s all defensive in nature. With regard to lethal/nonlethal, let me get that for you, Matt.

QUESTION: But wasn’t the – I mean, there were restrictions in the law that --

MS. NULAND: On any.

QUESTION: Yeah, but they had already been – I guess I don’t understand, because while we were there --

MS. NULAND: Right.

QUESTION: -- this was a topic of discussion, and it was – maybe I was – a misimpression, but it was my impression that they were already getting nonlethal stuff.

MS. NULAND: I can’t speak to what --

QUESTION: There had been a decision almost a year ago on --

MS. NULAND: I think that whatever we had on the books had expired and needed to be renewed, but we can get you a brief on the precise details, yeah.

QUESTION: Okay. Yeah, please, because it came up. It was a topic of – I remember it being a topic of conversation, at least on the plane.

MS. NULAND: Well, one of the topics of conversation was that the Uzbeks were asking for more than we were giving and were concerned about their ability to protect the routes and concerned about their ability to be effective counterterrorism partners.

Please.

QUESTION: A change of subject?

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: India’s external affairs ministry today announced that India’s foreign secretary will be visiting U.S. next week. Do you know who he will be meeting in this building, and what --

MS. NULAND: I don’t. We’ll get that for you, yeah.

Anything else? In the back, please.

QUESTION: I don’t know if this has been asked earlier, but do you have a reaction to the new NATO report that has been leaked and mentions ISI links with Taliban?

MS. NULAND: Yeah. Let me just – first of all, I think NATO itself has spoken to this earlier in the day. So obviously, I’m not going to get into a classified report. NATO itself said it was not going to get into a classified report. But what I can do is sort of characterize this report in general terms because it’s one of a regular series. The context, as described by NATO, is that this is basically a summary of the views of those Taliban that we have in detention, so it’s a summary of what they think, what they believe to be true. So that’s just one source of information. And frankly, I think you may also have heard Foreign Minister Khar on this subject. She was quite eloquent about this when she was in Kabul earlier today.

QUESTION: They have dismissed the report today, but do you think such a report at this juncture, when the tension after the 26/11 attack is still lingering on, will further escalate the tension in the relationship?

MS. NULAND: Well, again, this is a classified report. It is part of a regular series. It shouldn’t have come out into the open. It was not designed for any purpose other than to help those in the field understand what Taliban detainees were saying, so it was in no way designed to impact on our ongoing efforts to get back on track with Pakistan, which continue.

QUESTION: And lastly, your counterpart at Pentagon this morning said that what has been mentioned about these links in the report is nothing new, and the U.S. has been saying this earlier as well. Do you agree with his statement that these links are still there? And do you intend to raise this with the Pakistani administration?

MS. NULAND: Well, as you know, the Secretary raised many of these issues when she was in Pakistan last fall. So from that perspective, obviously, this is not new – our concerns about safe havens, our concerns about whether together we are doing enough to go after these groups, our interest in cooperating with the Pakistanis to do more. So that’s the conversation that we’ve been having with some time – for some time, and the exact sort of – kind of cooperation we want to get back to as soon as we can.

QUESTION: Given the interest in the U.S. trying to apparently talk with the Taliban as part of an overall peace framework in Afghanistan, is the leaking of this document, one, curious? And two, does it give people pause about the efforts to win hearts and minds in Afghanistan?

MS. NULAND: Well, I think we’ve always said – and the Secretary said – that in the context of our larger strategy here, we need to fight, talk, and build at the same time. So it doesn’t change the fact that those Taliban who continue to take up arms against the state of Afghanistan, against innocents in Afghanistan, are going to be confronted – going to be confronted by Afghan security forces, they’re going to be confronted by NATO supporting those forces. So that continues.

At the same time, we support the efforts of the Afghan Government to create a real channel with those Afghans who are ready for reconciliation, and that’s what we’ve been working on.

Please, Said.

QUESTION: On Afghanistan, still?

MS. NULAND: Still on Afghanistan.

QUESTION: Can you – since Ambassador Grossman is back now --

MS. NULAND: He is.

QUESTION: -- can you give us an update on the talk portion of this strategy, where we are now?

MS. NULAND: Well, I think we’ve said a number of times as well that we are not going to get into the back and forth. Ambassador Grossman spoke about where he was when he was in Kabul at the beginning of last week. He’s made a number of trips since. But I don’t think we have anything further on that. He did do some interviews with the Pakistani press yesterday, I think, which I would call your attention to.

Please.

QUESTION: On Japan?

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: There’s a Japanese delegation coming tomorrow to speak about Iran sanctions. I’m wondering who they’re going to be meeting with here and kind of the scope of their talks.

MS. NULAND: I don't have the precise level of the delegation, but as you know, Under Secretary Sherman is leading the Department’s effort to consult with countries around the world on the new legislation, to work with allies, partners around the world, to try to reduce everybody’s dependence on Iranian crude. I don’t know whether she’s seeing this delegation herself or whether some of her team are, but we had pledged to the Japanese when Special Envoy Einhorn was there a couple of weeks ago that we would really do a roll-up-our-sleeves session with them on how we can move forward on this together. So my understanding is that’s what they’re coming to do.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Are you any closer to publishing – and I know it’s Treasury and not State, but you guys are involved in the process – in publishing the regulations on how the sanctions will be implemented?

MS. NULAND: We are working on it, Arshad. As you say, Treasury has the lead, so I would refer you to Treasury on the timeline.

QUESTION: Because you’ve got four weeks left now before it – the first set kick in.

MS. NULAND: Understood.

Please.

QUESTION: Assistant Secretary Campbell’s visit to Korea. And also you have another delegation that visit Russia. Do you have anything to share?

MS. NULAND: Well, first, with regard to Russia, our Special Envoy for North Korea Glyn Davies is in Moscow. He’s done consultations with all of the key players on the Russian side who are involved in the Six-Party Talks. Specifically, he and Ford Hart met today with Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Morgulov, with Ambassador-At-Large for Six-Party Talks Logvinov, Special Envoy for Trilateral Economic Projects Timonin, and MFA First Asia Department Mr. Kulik and their IAEA guy, Grigori Berdennikov. So very broad consultations in Moscow, obviously designed to ensure we all say on the same page with regard to our expectations of the DPRK before we could come back to the talks.

Assistant Secretary Campbell has done a full presser in Seoul, so I would refer you to that, but he saw his usual folks, both on the bilateral relationship and on DPRK issues, and he’s now on his way to Vietnam, or he just landed in Vietnam and has meetings tomorrow.

Yeah. Please.

QUESTION: Can we go back to Syria for a minute?

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: If that’s okay with everybody. I wanted to ask you about the status of the Embassy, if there’s anything new on Ambassador Ford in particular, about his activities.

MS. NULAND: Nothing new on the Embassy. As you know, we are continuing to press the Syrian Government to make the security upgrades that we think are necessary. We are not where we need to be yet. Ambassador Ford continues to maintain close contacts with a broad cross-section of Syrians and to continue to – I mean, obviously he’s been involved in recent days in making clear our view going into the Security Council and amplifying the Secretary’s messages in New York.

QUESTION: But there’s been no extraordinary measures, let’s say, in the last couple of days since the fighting has gotten closer and closer to Damascus, has there?

MS. NULAND: Well, you can be sure that I’m not going to talk about the precise security measures that we’re taking in Damascus or anywhere else, but --

QUESTION: No. I mean in terms of maintaining operations in Damascus.

MS. NULAND: The Embassy remains open. You saw that the Canadians today did announce that they were closing. Our operations are open, but our concerns remain.

QUESTION: Okay. But so we’re not likely to see the (inaudible) that was announced by the Canadians?

MS. NULAND: We’re not going to have any announcements today, if that’s what you’re asking, Said.

In the back, and then --

QUESTION: Just a clarification. When you mentioned the comments of Foreign Minister Khar and termed as – them as eloquent, which exact comment you are referring to? Because she also made a comment – I mean, these new allegations as old wine in a new bottle or something like --

MS. NULAND: Right. That was the line that I liked. She called it old wine and even older bottles, I think. She’s good with a turn of phrase.

Okay. Thank you every --

QUESTION: No, no.

MS. NULAND: Whoops. Sorry. There you go.

QUESTION: Are you aware of this case of this American concert promoter and his son who are – been detained in Angola under somewhat mysterious circumstances?

MS. NULAND: I am aware of the case. The Embassy has provided consular assistance to the Alloccos, and that continues.

QUESTION: Well, what’s the – there’s a petition calling for the State Department to get more involved in this case. Please don’t tell me there’s a Privacy Act issue.

MS. NULAND: A petition?

QUESTION: The guy has – the guy’s put out a YouTube video from his confinement, so if there’s a Privacy Act issue, then the law needs to be changed because – what exactly are you doing for them?

MS. NULAND: We have done all kinds of support for them as they move forward with the judicial process. We have seen them regularly. We have advised them on local laws and their responsibilities. We did not find, in this case, that Mr. Allocco met the criteria for refuge. However, we did bring him into the Embassy temporarily. My understanding is we gave him some clothes and some medicine, but we didn’t take him in for refuge.

QUESTION: Well, what’s your understanding of their legal situation?

MS. NULAND: Our understanding is that they have been charged with fraud in Angola, and we are obviously monitoring that case very closely. But with regard to the precise charges, I’m going to refer you to the Angolans.

QUESTION: Okay. And you said that – so they did ask – they did ask for refuge.

MS. NULAND: Correct.

QUESTION: And they were turned down.

MS. NULAND: Correct.

QUESTION: And this is different than in the – then the Egypt case how?

MS. NULAND: Because in this case – well, first of all, when we get into the Privacy Act issues, there were specific circumstances behind their request, and they have not given us a Privacy Act waiver to talk about the circumstances that led them to make this request, so I can’t get into it too much more in detail. I will refer you to them. This was their choice.

QUESTION: The – I’m sorry. You mean the – with the concert not – the rap star not showing up or something else?

MS. NULAND: There were other circumstances that led to this.

QUESTION: Is it your understanding that the money that was fronted has been repaid?

MS. NULAND: I don’t have any details on that. I would refer you to them and to the Angolans.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. NULAND: Okay. Thanks, guys.

(The briefing was concluded at 1:10 p.m.)

Mark C. Toner

Deputy Department Spokesman
Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC

• MIDDLE EAST PEACE
  • Settlements / Encourage Parties Back to the Negotiating Table / David Hale
• SYRIA/RUSSIA
  • Talks
  • Foreign Minister Lavrov / Deputy Secretary Burns' call with Deputy Foreign Minister Bogdanov
• EGYPT
  • U.S. Citizens Staying on U.S. Embassy Compound in Cairo / Letter / NGOs' Role
• AFGHANISTAN
  • Reconciliation Process / Talks

1:02 p.m. EST

MR. TONER: Hello, everybody. Greetings. Sorry I was a little late.

QUESTION: A little? (Laughter.) A little late is like five minutes. This is not a little.

MR. TONER: I apologized. All right.

QUESTION: You still (inaudible) for the record.

MR. TONER: What’s that?

QUESTION: Thank you. You still did arrive on your own record.

MR. TONER: Thank you. Thanks, Said. Matt, anything?

QUESTION: Huh? Oh, you don’t have anything to say?

MR. TONER: Nothing to say.

QUESTION: The Secretary’s not doing anything interesting today?

MR. TONER: You all know what the Secretary’s doing. She’s on her way to New York.

QUESTION: Right. Well --

MR. TONER: Now that you’ve asked --

QUESTION: No, no, no, wait. I’m assuming that you’re going to refer questions about Syria to her, yeah?

MR. TONER: Sure, but you can try.

QUESTION: No, I don’t want to try. I want to start – and I think we can make this short, so I hope not too many other people do. The Israeli Government has announced plans to actually encourage settlers to move into the West Bank and to begin – and also to begin a process that would – that could end up in legalizing what are now illegal outposts. I’m assuming that your position on both of these things hasn’t changed, so I’m wondering --

MR. TONER: You assume correctly.

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR. TONER: You know we’ve said multiple times --

QUESTION: What is it – can you maybe make it a little bit more clear, because it seems to be apparent that the Israelis, or at least Prime Minister Netanyahu’s government, don’t understand exactly what it is that you, as their prime benefactor and large – huge ally, want from them.

MR. TONER: Well, Matt, we’ve said this many times from this podium and from elsewhere that we view any move that would jeopardize getting these two parties back to the negotiating table, and indeed, we’ve obviously seen them back – face-to-face negotiations over the past couple of weeks – that we find those unconstructive and unhelpful.

QUESTION: And that would include what they have announced today?

MR. TONER: Yes, that would include that.

QUESTION: All right. So what is the consequence, then, for Israel for them continuing to defy – not only defy but really to do – not just to say no, we don’t agree with that, but then to actually actively --

MR. TONER: Well, again --

QUESTION: -- oppose or actively take active steps that fly in the face of what you say is helpful?

MR. TONER: Well, again, we’re seeking clarity on what is actually being proposed here. We did have an initial round of direct talks in Jordan. Those talks have ended, but they did show signs of progress and we certainly want to see them continue. And these kinds of actions don’t help create the kind of atmosphere that are conducive to these talks continuing.

Now, David Hale is in the region. He’s going to have meetings in Amman as well as Jerusalem and Ramallah, and he’ll be back in Washington later this week. But – obviously, he’s there in his capacity, but also I think he’ll make some of these concerns – convey them to the Israeli Government.

QUESTION: Well, these concerns have been conveyed over and over and over to the Israelis. What is the consequence for them continuing to do this?

MR. TONER: Well, again, this is about getting them back to the negotiating table. And what we make clear is that whenever these kinds of actions take place, that they hamper that process.

QUESTION: So there is no consequence at all?

MR. TONER: Well, again, it’s not about carrots and sticks. What it’s about is trying to encourage these parties to get back to the negotiating table.

QUESTION: Why not? It’s about carrots and sticks everywhere else in the world. Why isn’t it about carrots and sticks here?

MR. TONER: In this case, it’s in both their --

QUESTION: What are you doing --

MR. TONER: -- it’s in both parties’ best interests to continue negotiations towards a comprehensive settlement.

QUESTION: But the actions of at least – one could argue the actions of both parties, but in this series of questions, which is about the announcements by the Israeli Government --

MR. TONER: Right.

QUESTION: -- they are not acting in the best interests of that, according to you.

MR. TONER: Again --

QUESTION: Correct? So what is the consequence of that? The consequence is they don’t get back to talks that they apparently don’t seem to want?

MR. TONER: Well, again, you’ll have to ask the Israeli Government what their intent is here. But you’re absolutely right that this has to be something that both sides want to pursue and to do so in a meaningful and committed fashion. And again, we are very outspoken when we see actions by either side that we believe hampers the chance for these parties to get back into direct negotiations. It’s certainly – as we’ve said many times, it’s in both of their interests to be in direct negotiations.

QUESTION: All right. Two more very quick ones --

MR. TONER: Yeah. Sure.

QUESTION: -- and then I’m done. You talk about meaningful and committed fashion. Are the actions of the Israeli Government something that you would consider meaningful and committed to be – is what they’re doing, is that something that you consider to be acting in a meaningful and – now I’ve forgotten the other word --

MR. TONER: That’s okay.

QUESTION: Committed.

QUESTION: -- and committed fashion?

MR. TONER: Thanks, Andy. Again, I think I’ve been very clear that actions by either side that we view as unconstructive to the process --

QUESTION: So they are not acting in a meaningful and committed fashion?

MR. TONER: Well, again, we have had talks in Jordan over the past few weeks that we believe offered a good start. We want to see those talks continue. David Hale is in the region. He’s consulting with all sides as well as the Jordanians.

QUESTION: Mark, that’s a great answer to a question, but it’s not the question I asked. Is Israel asking in a meaningful – acting in a meaningful and committed fashion toward getting a peace – towards encouraging these talks?

MR. TONER: Again, we’ve said that these kinds of actions are not constructive.

QUESTION: I think it’s a yes-or-no question.

MR. TONER: And I’m going to answer you the way I’m answering you, which is that it’s not constructive.

QUESTION: It’s not constructive, all right. And then the last one is just Hale – he is where at the moment right now?

MR. TONER: That is a good question. I believe he’s in Amman today.

QUESTION: Okay. And was he aware – was he aware of this before he went or --

MR. TONER: I don’t know. I haven’t – I didn’t talk to him.

QUESTION: Did this come out as a complete surprise to you guys?

MR. TONER: I do not know whether he was aware of it or not.

QUESTION: What about the rest of the building?

MR. TONER: Again, I believe that we were – again, I’m not going to get into what we may or may not have known. What we’re seeing here is actions that we believe aren’t constructive.

QUESTION: Mark, just a --

MR. TONER: Yeah. Sure, Said.

QUESTION: -- quick follow-up on this. Now, you keep saying that the path to statehood is through direct negotiations. Seeing how the settlement processing increased by 20 percent in 2011 and with today’s announcement, and in fact, since the beginning of this month we are likely to see an increase if they continue at this pace – like a 40 percent increase in settlement activities. So what incentive is there for the Palestinians to go into these negotiations to sort of get a state that is viable – as you keep saying – that is viable and contiguous and independent and sovereign?

MR. TONER: Well, the motivation should be clear, and that is the sooner they sit down with Israel and work through these issues in a comprehensive fashion so that we can get a clear way forward in terms of borders, then the sooner they have that comprehensive settlement and that statehood that they so desire.

QUESTION: But isn’t there a pattern that every time there is some sort of a negotiation and, in fact, a visit by a high-level U.S. official and so on to Israel, that the Israelis always counter by announcing a new settlement and increase the settlements and so on?

MR. TONER: Again, you’re asking me to speak to the motivations behind this decision. I don’t know.

QUESTION: Okay. So you talk about incentives for the Palestinians, but do you have any kind of disincentive for the increased Israeli settlement activities?

MR. TONER: Well, we’ve always been clear that – and Israelis themselves have commented that the status quo is unsustainable. So that’s --

QUESTION: So then the expression of anger and perhaps a little pouting, there is nothing that you can do?

MR. TONER: I disagree. David Hale is right now in the region. He is consulting with our partners as well as the parties. And we’re committed to getting them back into direct negotiations.

QUESTION: Can you tell us the last time that your position that was made very clearly to the Israelis did have an impact on stemming the settlement activities?

MR. TONER: Again, we are very outspoken when we see these kinds of actions by either side. We convey those to the Israelis, but you’re asking me to --

QUESTION: But you expressed a little recollection on that --

MR. TONER: -- elaborate on some kind of actions that I can’t.

QUESTION: In the last 12 months, you have not been able to sort of dissuade the Israelis from settlement activities. Are you aware of any time that you were able to persuade them?

MR. TONER: Again, Said, it is a question better directed to the Israeli Government. What we’re trying to do without preconditions, we’re trying to get the parties back to the negotiating table, and we’ve had a good start.

Yeah. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Another subject? Syria?

MR. TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: I do have one question. Russia is saying that the Syrian Government has agreed to some type of talks. What is your understanding of exactly what they mean by that?

MR. TONER: You’re talking about these proposed talks in Moscow.

QUESTION: In Moscow.

MR. TONER: I don’t have much more detail than what, frankly, we’ve seen in the press, what Russian officials have said. What I would just say is that we’ve seen time and time again Syria play this kind of shell game with various proposals, various peace efforts, various attempts at dialogue, and frankly, there is an Arab League plan that they did agree to involving the monitors, involving pulling back their artillery and military forces from residential areas, and freeing the political prisoners, and they’ve failed to live up to those basic minimum steps that they did agree to. So we think it’s important, frankly, to hold the regime’s feet to the fire, if you will, and we’re going to also talk in New York today – the Secretary will be there, as Matt mentioned – and send a clear message, we hope, that we, the United States, stand with the Syrian people, and we’re committed to the Arab League proposal on leadership in this regard.

QUESTION: So the Russians are just being duped by Assad?

MR. TONER: Look, again, it’s not about being duped or not. What’s important now, I think, is to bring international pressure and focus to bear on Syria so that they understand very clearly the choices before them the regime has. We all know Turkey’s made an effort, others have made efforts in the past, and they pretend to engage, attempt to – or pretend to engage, and then nothing ever happens or comes of it. And most recently we saw this with the monitoring mission, frankly. And so this is par for the course, and I think it speaks to the fact of why they’re meeting at the UN today in an effort to coalesce international pressure on Assad.

QUESTION: And has the Secretary been able to get in touch with Minister Lavrov?

MR. TONER: She has not been able to reach him. However, I can say that Deputy Secretary Burns spoke to the Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Bogdanov on a range of global and bilateral issues, and they’d also discussed Syria.[i]

QUESTION: Well, why do you think she hasn’t been able to? I mean –

MR. TONER: You’ll have to ask –

QUESTION: -- modern communication being what it is –

MR. TONER: You’ll have to ask – I think he gave some comments to the press today about being fully engaged in his visit to Australia, but I’d refer you to his party.

QUESTION: Do you have a readout of Burns’s call?

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

QUESTION: Do you have a readout of Burns’s call, like what did they discuss on certain –

MR. TONER: I don’t beyond that – a range of global and bilateral issues. I did confirm that they did talk about the situation in Syria.

Andy, you had a question, and then I’ll get –

QUESTION: Well, with the Lavrov call, but from your description, it makes it sounds as though the Secretary has a standing call into him that’s not just getting returned. Is that right?

MR. TONER: Well, I mean, Toria spoke to this yesterday. We – the Secretary has tried to reach out for him, and he hasn’t called, but as I said, Deputy Secretary Burns was able to speak to his counterpart.

QUESTION: So it’s 48 hours, she hasn’t received a reply. She said 24 hours, yes.

MR. TONER: By your count, yes.

QUESTION: Is she sitting by the phone waiting?

MR. TONER: Absolutely not. She’s going to New York where she’s going to engage the Security Council on the pressing situation in Syria.

QUESTION: Right. Foreign Minister Lavrov seemed to think that this was not a call that was really necessary, that two foreign ministers didn’t really need to talk about moving commas around on a UN resolution or – is that the – was this – is this conversation supposed to be more substantial than comma movement?

MR. TONER: Well, again, there’s nothing more substantial and more pressing in international affairs right now than the situation in Syria.

QUESTION: So it’s more than just talking about the language?

MR. TONER: It’s talking about the way forward.

QUESTION: So what does the Secretary expect it to say that is different?

MR. TONER: I don’t know about the grammatical dimension.

QUESTION: Okay. What does she expect it to say or bring to the fore that is different than what she said yesterday or the day before? In other words, what kind of actions does she – will she propose?

MR. TONER: Stay tuned. The 3 o’clock session is an open session, so you’ll be able to watch it on TV and hear for yourselves.

QUESTION: So – but we should expect something totally new?

MR. TONER: Well, I – look, I mean, I think – I don’t know what you mean by totally new. I mean, she’s been quite clear about why she’s going to New York, and that is to send a clear message of solidarity to the Syrian people and to urge the Security Council to take action, that it’s been far too long that they’ve been sitting on the sidelines.

QUESTION: What kind of actions? I mean, like what?

MR. TONER: Well, again, there’s a draft resolution, and that’s something that they’re going to discuss, but again, you’re trying to ask me to preview this, and that’s –

QUESTION: The draft resolution calls for Mr. Assad to sort of turn powers or authority to his vice president much like the Yemeni --

MR. TONER: The draft resolution is supportive of what the Arab League has laid out, and we think it’s a way forward.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR. TONER: And we’ve been quite clear about what we think should happen to President Assad.

QUESTION: Yeah. But both Mr. Assad and his supporters, the Russians and the Chinese, who wield a veto power in the Security Council, have already said no to that.

MR. TONER: All good questions, but let’s let this play out.Yeah. Go ahead. Yeah, sure.

QUESTION: A follow-up on that. Since they said that the Russians that they will veto the draft resolution, will you table it and force them to do that?

MR. TONER: Again, you’re asking me to get two or three steps ahead here. Today is about talking about the situation right now, hearing from the Arab League about their assessment and their recommendations for the way forward, and she is there to send a strong signal that the U.S. is for strong Security Council action. This is going to play out in the coming days.

QUESTION: Any update on Assistant Secretary Feltman’s meetings in New York?

MR. TONER: No. I don’t have a readout. I’ll try to get one for you, though, Michel.

QUESTION: Do you know if the Secretary has any bilats scheduled around this meeting up there?

MR. TONER: She does. I’m hesitant to confirm them. I’ll try to do it right after we get done here, because they were still a bit in flux. The schedule, obviously, was a bit last minute. So –

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR. TONER: Are we done with Syria or –

QUESTION: We’re not.

MR. TONER: Okay.

QUESTION: The secretary was – the secretary general – thank you – met with secretary of Arab League and Qatari prime minister in New York?

MR. TONER: He’s talking about Feltman.

QUESTION: Feltman.

MR. TONER: Yeah. I don’t know. I’ll get you a readout. We’ll take the question.

QUESTION: Okay. Because he was supposed to be doing some preliminary meetings.

MR. TONER: No. I know. I’ll – I just don’t know – I haven’t touched base with him today, so we’ll get you a full reckoning of his whereabouts.

QUESTION: New topic? Yeah. Can you tell us, has there been any more communication between the U.S. Government and the Egyptians about these folks at the Embassy?

QUESTION: Well, there has been. I mean, there’s been ongoing communication at a variety of levels. Toria spoke yesterday about the President having called General Tantawi a week or so ago. The Secretary followed up with her counterpart, and Secretary of Defense Panetta, I believe, spoke with General Tantawi over the weekend. Again, at every one of these calls, they expressed our desire to see the travel restrictions lifted on these Americans, but also, more broadly, to see our concerns about the NGOs operating there addressed.

QUESTION: Okay. The Egyptian justice minister said today there that he – that Ambassador Patterson had sent him a letter asking for these folks to be allowed to leave, but that he essentially didn’t take receipt of the letter and sent it back, saying that it should have gone to the judges. Is that – can you confirm that she sent that letter?

MR. TONER: I believe there was a letter sent, yeah, and that – again, I just would stress that that’s just one avenue. We’re pursuing our engagement with the Egyptians through a variety of avenues.

QUESTION: And do you know if she plans to resubmit that letter to the judges?

MR. TONER: I don’t.

QUESTION: Because the speaker of the parliament is saying that this is interference in Egyptian judicial processes.

MR. TONER: The justice minister’s prerogative to send this letter back, but we’re going to continue to engage on this.

QUESTION: Yeah. Mark, could we just clarify exactly what that letter said? Because – is it asking for them actually to be released?

MR. TONER: I didn’t get a – right, I didn’t see the actual letter. I believe it expressed our concerns about these individuals and the fact that we want to see the restrictions on their travel lifted, but I’ll have to confirm that, frankly.

QUESTION: Is it possible to get some clarification on exactly --

MR. TONER: I will.

QUESTION: -- what she’s asking? Because --

MR. TONER: I will try to --

QUESTION: -- if she’s saying “Free them,” and they are still being questioned, then it might be interference.

MR. TONER: Again, there’s – we have been, over the last week or so, trying to seek clarity from the Egyptians about the travel restrictions on these individuals, and, as I said, more broadly, about the NGOs operating in Cairo – in Egypt, frankly, both international ones as well as Egyptian ones. And we’re going to continue to try to engage with the Egyptians on it.

QUESTION: Sorry, I just want to make sure of one thing.

MR. TONER: Yeah, sure.

QUESTION: You said you believe there was a letter and you believe that the letter said – that expressed the concerns that said --

MR. TONER: There was a letter.

QUESTION: There was a letter?

MR. TONER: There was a letter.

QUESTION: It’s more than just you believe. There was a letter?

MR. TONER: There was a letter.

QUESTION: And it did express, of the Ambassador’s concerns --

MR. TONER: Did I use the subjunctive? (Laughter.)

QUESTION: You said you believe, and I just want to – I mean --

MR. TONER: Yes, there is – there was a letter, and as I said --

QUESTION: And the --

MR. TONER: -- it’s one of a variety of means that we’re using to communicate.

QUESTION: And broadly, what the letter said?

MR. TONER: Now, here I am. I’m back to I believe, because I have not seen the letter word for word. But I believe it conveyed our concerns about the travel restrictions on these individuals.

QUESTION: Do you have any idea about the charges leveled against these U.S. nationals?

MR. TONER: No.

QUESTION: So you don’t know --

QUESTION: How (inaudible) – and do you know what the SCAF’s beef is with these people, I mean, and what kind of conditions have need to be met for their release?

MR. TONER: Well, I’d refer you to the Egyptian authorities. We’ve been very clear in saying that these NGOs are playing an important role, that they’re not partisan in any way, they’re not trying to give money to any individual – I mean, this is a dialogue that we have been having for some time now, dating back, frankly, before the Secretary’s speech at the National Democratic Institute about the importance of these nongovernmental organizations, the role that they play in not just Egyptian society, but around the world. They played a pivotal role in helping improve the democratic process in many countries.

QUESTION: Do you have any --

QUESTION: Do you believe that the Egyptians may be exaggerating how they’ve breached their rules and laws to make a political point?

MR. TONER: I truly don’t want to speculate about what the motivation is behind this.

QUESTION: So why are they pushing this into a confrontation with you?

MR. TONER: I don’t know. I do not know.

QUESTION: Is it – would you agree with that characterization that they’re pushing it into a confrontation with you?

MR. TONER: I simply don’t know what the motivation is.

QUESTION: Do you have any clarity on the meetings that this Egyptian military delegation may have? I believe they’re supposed to arrive in Washington tomorrow and have asked for meetings in this building or the Pentagon and then --

MR. TONER: Right, okay. They’re actually – but they’re in the United States already – in Tampa, I believe.

QUESTION: And Florida or somewhere, yeah. Do you have any – who they’re going to see here?

MR. TONER: I don’t. I’ll take the question and try to get a readout. I think it’s still being finalized.

QUESTION: Just one thing: Yesterday, Toria used the word “persecute” when she said – when she was speaking about these people who are not being allowed to leave. Is that the position of the U.S., that these people are being persecuted by the Egyptian justice system?

MR. TONER: I think that we believe that it’s important that they be allowed to travel freely, and that – what’s – the conditions that have been placed on them are unfair.

QUESTION: Are unfair, and so that would amount to persecution and --

MR. TONER: I stand by what Toria said.

QUESTION: And she used the word “persecute.” I just want to make sure, because the question never really got answered yesterday about whether she meant to use the word “persecute” or if she --

MR. TONER: I don’t have the transcript in front of me, but I stand by what she said.

QUESTION: Well, okay. So you do believe, then, that these are onerous restrictions that amount to persecution?

MR. TONER: I believe these are onerous restrictions that – and if she described it as persecution, I stand by that. Certainly, what we believe is that we need clarity on the situation of these individuals.

QUESTION: So do you think that the Egyptians may be using this as a pretext to introduce all kinds of new laws and restrictions on the operation of people like the NDI, the National Democratic Institute, and International Republican Institute?

MR. TONER: Again, Said, there – Egypt right now is – as we’ve talked about before – is navigating a difficult transition. We’ve seen some steps forward – in most recent weeks, the lifting of the emergency law. Although, as we’ve said, we do have concerns about the term “thuggery,” but that was an important step, as well as the seating of parliament and the beginning of the drafting of a constitution.

So the political process is moving forward, but this question of NGOs, nongovernmental organizations and their role within Egyptian civil society, is one that needs to be addressed by the Egyptian authorities. We’re pressing them to address that as quickly as possible, as well as we believe that, again, the travel restrictions that are placed on these individuals are unfair.

QUESTION: Back to the point on the emergency law, did you get any clarification from the Egyptians on what thuggery is?

MR. TONER: That’s a good question. I’ll check.

QUESTION: Mark, have there been any new discussions with members of Congress about the NGO situation? Have there been requests to you guys?

MR. TONER: I’m aware that – I know we’ve been engaged throughout this episode with Congress. I don’t know with whom we’ve been speaking in particular.

QUESTION: A general question on --

MR. TONER: I’ll try to get more for you on that tomorrow.

QUESTION: I wonder if you could answer directly, or perhaps later on, to see what kind of activities do we have in places like Qatar and Saudi Arabia and in Jordan by American NGOs that promote and educate people on democracy.

MR. TONER: Right, and I would refer you, frankly, to some of these non-governmental organizations – IRI or NDI – who can give you a much more thorough laydown. But the point of fact is that they’re very active throughout the world – not just in the region, but in many countries. And I know from my own experience the pivotal role that they’ve played in many of the democracies that were fledgling democracies in the ‘90s of Eastern and Central Europe.

QUESTION: Do we have any NGOs currently – U.S.-funded NGOs that operate in a place like Saudi Arabia in the promotion of democracy?

MR. TONER: I’d have to check.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: New subject?

MR. TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: Macedonia?

MR. TONER: Macedonia.

QUESTION: Can you tell us anything about religious tension in the town of Struga, where a church was burned after Christian men dressed in burkas and mocked the Qu’ran?

MR. TONER: I do not. I’ll have to look into it. I mean, certainly, we would urge restraint and urge tolerance in any situation like this, but I’ll look into it and see if we have more to say about it.

Yeah, in the back.

QUESTION: Another subject too, on Switzerland: Swiss finance minister today confirmed that Switzerland transmitted to U.S. authorities thousands of pages with information on people who are suspected to have committed tax fraud and on bank account, bank employees who had – but they say they will provide the key to decipher this data, only once the ongoing dispute concerning Swiss banks and bank secrecy is settled. I was wondering if you have any comment on that. It’s pretty unusual to handle that decrypted information and then to say, “We will give you the key later on.”

MR. TONER: You know what? You’re the first I’m hearing about this, so let me look into it and see if we have any reaction to it. I know this is an ongoing matter between Switzerland and the United States, but let me check and see if we have any – anything more to say.

Yeah. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Topic change?

MR. TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: The Japanese media is reporting that Mexico is trying to arrange a G-20 meeting of foreign ministers sometime in mid-February to discuss Iran and North Korea. I’m not sure if you’ve seen those reports.

MR. TONER: I have not. I would refer you to the Mexican Government though.

QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.

MR. TONER: Yeah. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Afghanistan? Afghanistan.

MR. TONER: Afghanistan.

QUESTION: This was reported today, as you well know, that the Karzai government intend to hold its own talk with Taliban in Saudi Arabia. And the reason as that’s been reported that they fear that they will be sidelined by United States in the negotiation in Qatar. Do you have any comment on that?

MR. TONER: I’m sorry – so – just apologize – you said that Karzai said that they’re going to pursue – President Karzai said --

QUESTION: They hold talks with Taliban in Saudi Arabia, not in Qatar.

MR. TONER: Well, as I think we said before, I’d refer you to the Afghan Government for any information about proposed meetings in Saudi Arabia. All I can say more largely is that all of our work on this issue thus far has been to promote Afghans speaking to Afghans in this reconciliation process. So we encourage that kind of dialogue.

QUESTION: But there’s an accusation here that they feel that --

MR. TONER: And I’m trying to address that accusation by saying that the United States’ role in this is to facilitate these reconciliation talks between the Taliban and the Afghan Government. We’ve been very clear all along of our redlines regarding this process and with those redlines we’re in complete agreement with the Afghan Government.

QUESTION: So you would say that the United States is actually in lockstep with the Afghani Government on these talks, whether in Qatar or Saudi Arabia?

MR. TONER: I think, again, our ultimate goal here is to see this process move forward. But it’s in direct and ongoing consultation with the Karzai government.

That it? Thanks, everybody.

QUESTION: Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 1:29 p.m.)

DPB # 20

Victoria Nuland

Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC

• DEPARTMENT
  • Deputy Secretary Burns on His Way Home from Africa
• EGYPT
  • U.S. Citizens Staying on U.S. Embassy Compound in Cairo / Egyptian Military Delegation Visit
• SYRIA
  • Secretary Clinton / UN / Russia / A/S Feltman's Meetings / Arab League / Violence / Iranians in Syria
  • Status of U.S. Embassy in Damascus / Consultations with the Chinese
  • Regime / Massive Offensives / Dialogue Needs to Begin inside Syria
• IRAQ
  • State Department Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Program
  • Iraqiya Bloc / End Boycott and Return to the Council of Representatives / Consultations Leading to National Conference
• AFGHANISTAN
  • Process of Reconciliation / Taliban Office in Qatar / Pakistan has Role in Supporting Process / Ambassador Grossman's Visit
• SENEGAL
  • Candidacy of President Wade / Senegalese Democracy Strong Enough to Move to Next Generation
• PAKISTAN
  • Gratified that Government of Pakistan has Lifted Travel Ban on Ambassador Haqqani

1:07 p.m. EST

MS. NULAND: Happy Monday, everybody. Busy week ahead. One small thing at the top, which is to say that Deputy Secretary Burns is on his way home from his three-stop trip to Africa. We will, in a little bit, have a long Media Note outlining all of the meetings that he had while he was there. I was going to read it, but it was three pages, so you’ll get it in a Media Note a little bit later. Let’s go to what’s on your minds.

QUESTION: Three pages, really?

MS. NULAND: It was at least two and a half.

QUESTION: Single-spaced?

MS. NULAND: Yeah. And I was afraid I’d –

QUESTION: Impressive. I’m going to defer to Elise.

QUESTION: Could you talk about the three American citizens working for NGOs – I believe it’s IRI – that are currently in the U.S. Embassy in Egypt and under what criteria have you allowed them to stay?

MS. NULAND: Well, I can make some limited comments on this. We can confirm that a handful of U.S. citizens have opted to stay on the Embassy compound in Cairo while awaiting permission to depart Egypt, as many of you reported. We did have some difficulty with some U.S. citizens last week associated with these NGOs who were unable to leave the country. So a handful of these folks are now staying on the Embassy compound. Let me just say that to protect their privacy and in keeping with their wishes, I’m not going to go any further with regard to who they are or the actual affiliations from this podium.

QUESTION: Okay. Now, do you believe they’re in physical – were they in physical danger?

MS. NULAND: We don’t believe that they were in physical danger, but they had concerns, and therefore they were invited by the Embassy –

QUESTION: They were invited by the Embassy?

MS. NULAND: They were invited. This was a unique situation. The decision was made by the mission to allow them to stay.

QUESTION: Now, can you say why they were invited and why this is a unique situation? Because I’m looking at the Foreign Service manual, consular section, and it says the government will not approve requests for temporary refuge if the requesting U.S. citizen would not be in danger of serious harm or only in narrow circumstances – which I guess you’re saying this is a narrow circumstance – the Department will not grant requests for temporary refuge apparently intended to prevent or avoid execution of laws of the host country, even when the application of those laws may appear adverse to the interests of that national. So I’m – what are the criteria that you invited them to stay there?

MS. NULAND: Well, again, it is within the purview of Embassy management to invite guests to stay if they so wish. In this case, there is no expectation that any of these individuals are seeking to avoid any kind of judicial process. In fact, with regard to the larger question of NGO issues in Egypt, as we’ve said many times, these organizations have been endeavoring to cooperate with the judicial process. They have been making themselves available for interviews, as you know their offices were also raided, so the government has all of their information as well. So there’s no effort to circumvent any laws here, but there is, in this unique situation, there is the opportunity – in any situation, frankly - for the Embassy management to make a decision like this, and indeed, in this case.

QUESTION: I’m just confused, though. If you’re saying that they’re not in danger, and they’re not there to avoid execution of any of the laws, then why are they in the Embassy?

MS. NULAND: They’re in the Embassy because they feel that they are more comfortable there, in this circumstance where they had sought to leave the country, and they are unable to do so. So.

QUESTION: But they’re not under arrest and under house arrest. They’re free to roam the country as they like; they’re just not allowed to leave the country. Is –

MS. NULAND: Correct. They’re not allowed the leave the country. Again, this is a unique situation, and this decision was made on that basis.

QUESTION: It’s – one more, one more. It’s our understanding that the decision was made by one of the organizations – if you don’t want to name them, that’s fine – but our understanding is that the decision was made by IRI to ask that these individuals be afforded – I mean, I can’t see of another word other than refuge, but you can use whatever word you like – in the Embassy, because they were afraid that an arrest warrant was coming down for them.

MS. NULAND: Again, I’m not going to speak for these organizations, I’m not going to get into the individuals and who they are, simply to say that they approached the Embassy staff, and the decision was made to invite them as guests. That’s the term under which they are there, and we are continuing to work through these issues and try to get this issue resolved as quickly as possible. But frankly, these are individuals who we believe ought to be allowed to leave the country. This situation wouldn’t have arisen if they were allowed to leave the country, and that’s the case that we’re making.

QUESTION: Same topic.

MS. NULAND: Please.

QUESTION: This Egyptian – as I understand it – military delegation that is in town, who are they meeting? Are they meeting anybody at the State Department? Is, from your point of view, part of the discussion going to be about this very situation?

MS. NULAND: Well, I would first say that we do receive Egyptian military delegations to Washington a couple of times a year; that’s pretty routine. My understanding is that this particular visit was planned before we ended up in this particular situation with the NGOs in Cairo. However, you can be assured that in every meeting they have with the Administration, and I would venture to guess in every meeting that they’re going to have with Congress, that this situation will come up. I don’t have – I think we’re still working on the schedule. They will meet people here in the State Department. They’ll also meet people in the Pentagon, and our understanding is that they are seeking meetings with members of Congress.

QUESTION: And can you give us – when you know who they’re meeting in this building, can you please let us know in a timely manner?

MS. NULAND: We will.

QUESTION: Toria, the Egyptian media are reporting that this investigation is nearing its end and that the decision to refer to court those involved is a prelude to putting them on trial. Is that your understanding of where we are legally?

MS. NULAND: I’m not going to comment on stray media reports out of Egypt. We continue to work with the Egyptian Government. Our view is that these people ought to be able to travel freely, that we need to expedite the process of whatever kind of formal registration is ultimately going to be allowed for them, that their property needs to be returned, and that it is in the interest of Egypt’s democratic transition not only for international democracy NGOs to be able to operate but for Egyptian democracy NGOs to be able to operate, and that they have already played a strong role in supporting the good elections that have already taken place, and there are more elections coming up.

QUESTION: But is the government giving you any indication of where they are, where the situation stands legally?

MS. NULAND: Suffice to say we are not where we want to be in terms of resolving this situation, and the conversations continue with the Egyptian Government.

QUESTION: I’m not disputing your premise of what you just said about the investigation and whether they should leave the country, but I am wondering what is so special about these individuals that they’re allowed to take refuge in the U.S. Embassy. Is it because they’re U.S. funded organizations? Is it because there’s a cabinet-level member’s son involved? Did Secretary LaHood ask the Embassy to provide refuge to his son? I just don’t understand what’s different about these individuals and other individuals that are not permitted to leave the country. Are you going to do that for every NGO around the world that’s not allowed to leave the country under investigation?

MS. NULAND: Again, as I’ve said, I don't think we have anything more to add on this particular situation than that we are trying to resolve it in – on an urgent basis so that these folks can travel freely.

Said.

QUESTION: Toria, still on that same subject.

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: Are we – following Elise, what she’s asking, are we right to assume that they would be safe from arrest or prosecution while in the Embassy? Is that a given?

MS. NULAND: I think you all are jumping to all kinds of conclusions that we’re not at at the moment. These --

QUESTION: No. I’m not jumping anywhere. I’m asking the question. I don’t think it’s a jump to say the Egyptians might seek out their arrest. I don’t think that’s a jump. So would they be safe in the Embassy? That’s a given, right?

MS. NULAND: Our goal is to ensure that we can resolve this situation as quickly as possible so we don’t come to some of these hypothetical scenarios that you guys are pitching.

QUESTION: Victoria, we believe – aren’t they on U.S. grounds, on U.S. soil, so to speak, when they are in the Embassy?

MS. NULAND: They are. But you’re taking me into all kinds of futures that we are, frankly, seeking to avoid with our diplomacy.

QUESTION: But you’re not explaining why you’ve given them – or invited them, after they asked you to – why you’re giving them special, preferential treatment in the Embassy.

MS. NULAND: Because they had some concerns, given the fact that they wanted to leave the country and were disallowed, and the fact that it’s not terribly transparent exactly what the circumstances of this case is at the moment. And they, therefore, asked to come in, and the Embassy was within its rights to invite them, and that’s what’s happened. So, again, we’re hoping that this is --

QUESTION: So even if you don’t agree with the laws that are taking place of the country, it’s fair to assume that you are helping them skirt Egyptian law.

MS. NULAND: Elise, as I have said, these individuals and the organizations that they work for have been cooperating at every stage over weeks and weeks and weeks with the Egyptian judicial authorities in trying to give them the information that they need --

QUESTION: So you think it’s enough?

MS. NULAND: -- and trying to move this to a normalized situation. That’s the point that we are making, and it ought to be able to be resolved.

QUESTION: Have you requested or received exact wording of the charges levied against them?

MS. NULAND: Again, you all are jumping to all kinds of conclusions, and we are not at that place yet, and it is what we are seeking to avoid.

QUESTION: But you have not received – what are the Egyptians exactly charging them with?

MS. NULAND: Again, to my knowledge, we don’t – we are not at the stage that you are assuming, Said.

QUESTION: Just to be clear, under the Vienna Conventions, U.S. citizens who happen to be at the U.S. Embassy are not – do not have any kind of diplomatic privileges, correct?

MS. NULAND: Correct.

QUESTION: Okay. So a U.S. Embassy, as a general rule, has to turn over a U.S. citizen who is accused of a crime, correct?

MS. NULAND: Well --

QUESTION: You can’t assert a privilege for them, can you? I mean, they’re not diplomats; they don’t have immunities.

MS. NULAND: You cannot assert diplomatic privilege, no, you cannot. However, as Elise read out, in the case of security and safety, one can give refuge, et cetera. But again, you guys are getting me into all kinds of hypotheticals that we’re not in at the moment.

QUESTION: But you said that there’s no – you said that you’re not aware that they’re in any danger.

MS. NULAND: I said that we do not feel that they are in physical danger at the moment. That is a different matter than whether they are being persecuted in the Egyptian judicial system.

QUESTION: Do you think they are being persecuted?

MS. NULAND: Okay.

QUESTION: In theory, Victoria, if the Egyptian Government requested--

QUESTION: Do you feel they are being persecuted?

MS. NULAND: We have --

QUESTION: You used the word.

MS. NULAND: We have concerns about the fact that we have not been able to resolve this situation, and that is the message that we are giving the Egyptian Government in strongest terms.

Please.

QUESTION: So you said that they don’t have immunity. If the Egyptian Government requested that they – the Embassy surrenders them, will they do that?

MS. NULAND: Again, Said, I am not going to get into hypotheticals from this podium.

Please.

QUESTION: This handful that is at the Embassy now, are they the only ones who this privilege has been extended to? Has anybody else been extended this privilege and said no to it?

MS. NULAND: To my knowledge, we have not encountered a situation where we’ve had to say no to American citizens.

QUESTION: So on that one response, can one opt out of this guest status if one is uncomfortable at an embassy compound? Because if one can, I’d like to request the next time we’re in Pakistan that I get to stay at the Marriott instead of in the trailer. (Laughter.) Is that possible?

MS. NULAND: You don’t like our facilities in Islamabad?

QUESTION: Well, I think I would be more comfortable at the Marriott.

MS. NULAND: Most ungracious of you.

QUESTION: And if it’s more comfort that’s involved here, I would think that that would be the case.

MS. NULAND: He’s seeking more comfort. Let’s move on, guys. What else is on your minds?

QUESTION: The Serena is actually much better than the Marriott.

QUESTION: No, it doesn’t have a bar.

QUESTION: Yes. I agree.

QUESTION: But it has a much longer setback. (Laughter.)

MS. NULAND: The priorities of the bullpen are evident.

Okay. Let’s move on, guys. What else is up?

QUESTION: Change of subject?

QUESTION: Syria.

MS. NULAND: Yes.

QUESTION: The Secretary – what’s the Secretary’s goal in going to the United Nations tomorrow?

MS. NULAND: Well, I think if you look at the statement that she has just released, she is very clear that she is going to send a very clear message that we support the Syrian people; we stand with you, we stand with you in your hope and aspiration for a better, more democratic future and, first and foremost, that the violence is going to end.

QUESTION: And what is the UN mission or the Secretary herself doing to get on board those reluctant members of the Security Council?

MS. NULAND: Well, she has been burning up the phone lines, talking to all kinds of counterparts. As you know, a number of foreign ministers have committed already publicly to joining this session. We’re also seeking participation of others. Her – she has been talking to Arab League leaders. She’s had Assistant Secretary Jeff Feltman out in the region, on the phones, Deputy Secretary Burns as well, preparing for the resolution that you have now seen the Moroccan delegation put forward with the support of the Arab League, which we have now co-sponsored, many of our allies have co-sponsored.

So our hope and expectation is that tomorrow will be a very strong opening conversation on this draft resolution after hearing the report of the Arab League. And as you’ll see tomorrow, the resolution very much supports the goals that the Arab League has been pushing for some time.

QUESTION: How about the Russians? Has she been in touch with the Russians?

MS. NULAND: We have been in touch with the Russians. As you know, Assistant Secretary Feltman was in Moscow not too long ago. We had Deputy Foreign Minister Riabkov here. He met with Bill Burns. He also met with Ellen Tauscher. The Secretary, frankly, has been trying to get Foreign Minister Lavrov on the phone for about 24 hours. That’s proven difficult. He’s in Australia and apparently unavailable, but she will continue to try to reach out to him in advance of this session.

QUESTION: Australian telecommunications aren’t what they used to be, huh?

MS. NULAND: Refer you to the Russian foreign ministry on that one.

QUESTION: It would sound – well, it sounds as though he’s avoiding her.

MS. NULAND: Can’t speak to that. She’s going to try to reach him between now and the session.

QUESTION: Well, he’s not --

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

QUESTION: Sorry, he’s not – I guess you don’t know his travel plans, but, I mean, he’s not coming to – he’s not going to New York like she and her European counterparts are.

MS. NULAND: Again, I would refer you to him, but my understanding was, this morning, he was in Australia.

QUESTION: Assistant Secretary Feltman was supposed to meet with the head of the Arab League. Is that still on or is that now being preempted or superseded by the Secretary of State herself?

MS. NULAND: No. He will have some preparatory meetings tonight in New York. I think he’s on his way there now. The Secretary will also have some bilateral meetings tomorrow. We’re in the process of working through that schedule. And then she will sit the U.S. chair at the session in New York tomorrow.

QUESTION: Toria, will the resolution include, let’s say, a large contingent of monitors, like maybe a thousand or 1,200?

MS. NULAND: Again, I’m not going to get into the details of the resolution. I think it’ll probably be out, if it’s not out already, tomorrow. It focuses, frankly, on the UN Security Council’s insistence that the regime meet the same four conditions that were in the Arab League’s agreement with the regime of November 22^nd that it never fulfilled, and just to reiterate what those were: that the violence needs to end, that the heavy weaponry needs to be pulled back, that monitors need to be allowed to operate. As you know, the Arab League’s now given up and shuttered its own mission because of the violence and because it isn’t able to operate – and finally, that the political prisoners be released and that press be allowed in.

QUESTION: A quick follow-up: When the Arab monitors were in Homs, for instance, and there was a call for the Syrian regime to pull out its mechanized units and whatever they’re calling them – militant appearances like half-tracks or whatever – they pulled out. There were actually some militants that attacked very old Christian communities that are in Homs for centuries, and now they are forced to flee because they feel that the government forces are not there to protect them.

Will this – issues like this be raised or discussed?

MS. NULAND: Absolutely, and this is the kind of thing – I mean, the session, as I understand it, will begin with a report from senior Arab League representatives on what the mission showed and their view of the situation in Syria and their strong support for the resolution under the – on the table under Moroccan sponsorship, and then there will be a discussion among ministers.

But as you said, Said, and as the Secretary makes clear in the statement that she issued about half an hour ago, we are gravely concerned that as these Arab League monitors have pulled out, the Syrian regime has taken this as an excuse to just let loose in horrific ways against innocents. I mean, we’ve seen a sharp increase in violence, just in recent days. There have been disgusting statements like that of the interior minister announcing plans to cleanse the country. Local coordinating committees and our other contacts report that some 2,000 Syrian military troops carried out operations throughout the Damascus suburbs beginning on Friday, and at least 66 people have died at the hands of the regime yesterday, and estimated a hundred over the weekend in total.

We’re also hearing reports, interestingly, of large-scale defections of Syrian military officers over the weekend, and it is these Syrian – including taking some of their equipment and their heavy equipment – and it’s these defections that are most rattling the government.

QUESTION: Well, my concern is – or everybody’s concerns is that these minority groups – in particular, Christian communities that’s probably the oldest anywhere in the world – is being actually dislodged from Homs that it has occupied for a millennium or longer. So what kind of provision will it have to protect minorities?

MS. NULAND: Well, again, this is of grave concern, that this is a regime composed of a small minority that is now attacking the majority of Syrians, and they are attacking Christians, they’re attacking Druze, they’re attacking Sunnis, they’re even attacking Allawi communities. And --

QUESTION: But (inaudible) Victoria, it’s regime opponents that are attacking these Christian communities.

MS. NULAND: Said, it is the regime that bears responsibility for the violence. There have been efforts by some Syrians to defend themselves from these attacks, but it is Assad and his cronies who started this, and it is Assad and his cronies who are responsible for the vast majority of the violence.

And the blood is on their hands fundamentally. But you are absolutely right – the goal of the Arab League – the goal, frankly, of the Syrian opposition, whether you’re talking about the SNC outside of the country, whether you’re talking about the local coordinating committees, in all of their statements, in all of the work they’ve been doing, is to try to create a chance to have a Syria for all Syrians. And we have been gratified and encouraging that in the opposition statements, they talk explicitly about protecting the rights of all Syrians, including all minorities. And you’ll hear the Secretary speak about this tomorrow as well. It’s been a reoccurring theme of hers in all of her meetings on this subject, that it has become very, very dangerous.

One more point – or two more points on the side – on this subject with regard to the concerns that we have: We are also seeing increasing reports of Iran playing a nefarious role inside Syria. You may have seen some video that circulated of the Free Syrian Army having captured five senior Iranian nationals who admitted that they were firing on Syrian civilians. We are also seeing that the international sanctions that some of the nations – United States, European Union, Jordan, other countries – have begun to put on Syria are having an effect. They’re beginning to pinch. So you now see an Assad regime that increasingly cannot sell its petroleum. It can’t – its banks can’t access the international financial system. Its currency is in freefall.

So what is Assad doing now? He is funding his violence and paying his military off of the nation’s reserves, using the reserves of the Syrian people to fuel the violence against them. So the Security Council has got to act, and that’s the message that the Secretary will take in strongest terms tomorrow.

QUESTION: Have you seen reports that the Syrian opposition prevented Assad’s wife, the first lady, from leaving Damascus?

MS. NULAND: I’ve seen those reports. We don’t have any way to confirm that, Justin.

QUESTION: Can I ask why you bring up a propaganda video shot by – are you confirming the authenticity of what these people say? It seems very easy in situations like this – Qadhafi’s people were doing it themselves in Libya – for them to get some video of some people that they say have been captured, that they have captured, claiming to be al-Qaida. In this case, you say they’re Iranians. Are you confirming the accuracy of this video that you talk about?

MS. NULAND: We are not in a position to confirm --

QUESTION: Why raise it?

MS. NULAND: -- confirm the accuracy. Because it tracks with some of our own reporting about the presence of Iranians in Syria, the efforts that they are making to help the regime in it – with its military tactics, including with equipment.

QUESTION: It doesn’t strike you as at all unusual that five people would admit to being Iranians and say yes, we’re Iranians and we were told to come here and fire on Syrian civilians? That doesn’t strike you at all as suspicious?

MS. NULAND: Suffice it to say that we have our own concerns about Iranian behavior in Syria.

QUESTION: Can you talk about your own concerns and your own evidence and not some propaganda that’s put out by a group that I don’t think that you’ve – you’re not even really supporting them (inaudible)?

MS. NULAND: Our concerns include support for training and equipping of Syrian forces. Our concerns include the fact that some of the tactics being used by the Syrian regime mirror tactics used in Iran against their own population and about increasing evidence of numbers of Iranians in and around Syria.

QUESTION: Well, can you talk about what that evidence is?

MS. NULAND: I think I will not go any further than I’ve already gone. Thanks.

QUESTION: Well, then – okay, so Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, too. We all believed that one. I don’t understand how you can just – what’s the evidence, other than a Free Syrian Army propaganda video which you have no way of knowing whether it’s accurate or not or whether these people were tortured or whatever into saying that they were Iranian-sent?

MS. NULAND: We have --

QUESTION: What’s the evidence?

MS. NULAND: Evidence includes reporting from a number of our Syrian contacts, plus our own information from a variety of sources that I will not get into here.

Justin.

QUESTION: Can I move to Iraq?

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MS. NULAND: No, whoa, whoa. Syria? Okay. Still Syria?

QUESTION: Can I ask, what’s the status of the U.S. Embassy in Damascus? I mean, is it closed or open?

MS. NULAND: It remains open with limited staff. Ambassador Ford and his staff remain active and we are continuing to press the Syrian regime to provide the kind of security that we need to keep it open.

QUESTION: Are they still talking to you? And – I mean there was a --

MS. NULAND: They are, but we’re not where we need to be.

QUESTION: And --

QUESTION: One more question: Has the Secretary spoken to her Chinese counterparts today, or is she going to meet with them tomorrow?

MS. NULAND: She has not spoken to Foreign Minister Yang in recent days. We have been in consultations with the Chinese. I think Under Secretary Sherman was the last one to speak with the Chinese on this subject. And obviously, our mission in New York is very active. Ambassador Rice is very active with them.

QUESTION: Yeah. Toria, you mentioned that the regime is trying to finance its activities through tapping into reserves or whatever. Are you aware that last week, or the week before, there were some Iranian ships that would take Syrian oil and sell it on the open market? Do you have any information on that?

MS. NULAND: Well, we’ve seen these reports. I frankly don’t have anything further to --

QUESTION: You have no way to confirm or refute?

MS. NULAND: I don’t. I don’t.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. NULAND: Michel. Still Syria?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: How do you view the press reports coming from Syria saying that the Free Syrian Army is gaining grounds in Syria, and especially in the Damascus suburbs?

MS. NULAND: Again, it is the regime that is doing these massive offensives in the Damascus suburbs now. Why are they so aggressive? Because they’re concerned about defections from their army. They’re concerned about their own who no longer want to obey his bloody orders. So this is a dynamic that the regime started. It’s a dynamic that the regime bears fundamental responsibility for.

QUESTION: Do you expect any coup?

MS. NULAND: Again?

QUESTION: Any military coup?

MS. NULAND: Again, you’re asking me to predict such things. What – the message that we are sending, the message that the Secretary will send tomorrow when she goes to New York, is that the Security Council now needs to act because the spiral of violence is dangerous not only for Damascus, not only for Syria and all Syrians, but it’s also dangerous in the region because, obviously, we’ve now got a cycle of violence that is quite worrying.

QUESTION: Do you feel that a military coup might stem the violence?

MS. NULAND: Again, Said, you’re taking me into hypotheticals. What we need is for the violence to end. What we need is for the Syrians themselves to be able to begin a process of dialogue leading to a democratic transition. This is what the Arab League plan calls for. They had a very clear plan laid out last week about how this could work, bringing together all strands of Syrian society. And there was a path out. There still is a path out.

QUESTION: You think there is still a path out?

MS. NULAND: Well --

QUESTION: For the regime.

MS. NULAND: -- that’s obviously still on the table. It requires Assad to step aside.

Scott. Still on Syria?

QUESTION: Yes. What are your thoughts on Russia saying it will organize talks in Moscow and that Damascus has agreed to send a delegation? Would you support that process?

MS. NULAND: Again, what we think needs to happen first and foremost is that the violence needs to end and a process of dialogue needs to begin inside Syria. There needs to be peace and security there so that the country can move forward.

QUESTION: So talks outside Syria – not something you support?

MS. NULAND: Again, there have been plenty of talks outside Syria over the last few months. It’s very difficult to see how you address the real dangers and the real concerns unless and until the violence comes to an end.

Michel.

QUESTION: Is the U.S. ready to receive President Assad as it did with President Saleh?

MS. NULAND: (Laughter.) Again, you’re taking me into places where we are not yet.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MS. NULAND: He has not so requested, to my knowledge.

Please.

QUESTION: Had medical care --

QUESTION: Can we move on to --

MS. NULAND: Yeah. Is there anything else on Syria in the back? No? Okay.

QUESTION: Different subject.

QUESTION: Great. I have that different subject. It was Iraq drones? What can you tell us about that fleet of surveillance drones, small surveillance drones reportedly hovering over Baghdad and in control of the State Department?

MS. NULAND: The State Department run by drones?

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MS. NULAND: Is that what you’re getting? (Laughter.) Is there one directing our briefing here?

QUESTION: State Department finally catching on, I think is how you report it. I mean, it’s a good option, so are you using it?

MS. NULAND: I think you are probably picking up on some reporting that The New York Times had over the weekend. Am I right?

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

QUESTION: Well, but there’s also a report from 2010 that said that you’ve kind of approved or said that you’re going to have these drones operational in 2011, so --

MS. NULAND: Okay. Let me tell you what I can on this situation. First of all, let me say that the State Department has always used a wide variety of security tools and techniques and procedures to ensure the safety of our personnel and our facilities. We do have an unmanned aerial vehicle program used by the State Department. These are tiny little things. They are not armed. They are not capable of being armed. And what they are designed to do is help give us pictures over our facilities to help in their protection.

The operation of this program is extremely limited in scope. It is only going to even be considered in critical threat environments. I’m not going to get into the where for obvious reasons. We don’t get into our precise security posture anywhere around the world. So I’m not going to divulge details. But just to repeat, we are talking about very limited use in critical threat areas of tiny, little, unarmed, unmanned aircraft which cannot shoot anything. They only take pictures to help us with embassy personnel and facility security.

QUESTION: How big is a tiny, little thing?

MS. NULAND: I haven’t seen them, but I’ve seen pictures of people holding them.

QUESTION: Are we talking about, like, mosquitoes?

MS. NULAND: No, we’re talking about like the size of --

QUESTION: That’s not tiny.

MS. NULAND: -- my podium. Yeah, like that. Like that.

QUESTION: But when you said they are used to give us pictures over our facilities, is that – is it the case that they are only used over U.S. facilities? Or do they also get used, for example, when U.S. officials may travel?

MS. NULAND: They can be used to protect facilities and personnel, personnel who are moving.

QUESTION: So not just over U.S. facilities?

MS. NULAND: They can be used over the facilities or to track personnel who are moving, yes.

QUESTION: Not in the facilities, though, right, who are moving?

MS. NULAND: They can’t see inside walls. No, they cannot. No, they don’t have --

QUESTION: No. But I – it goes to my next – no, but my next question is sort of directly relevant. Either countries that are sovereign – and some of us remember the sort of great enthusiasm with which a former administration talked about how Iraq had regained its sovereignty after the U.S. invasion – either a country that is sovereign has control of its airspace or it doesn’t. And so if you are letting these things not fly just over your embassy or your facilities, as you suggested, but in fact, they can roam elsewhere in the country, do you have any agreement or authorization from the Iraqi or from any government in the world to do that, to essentially give you access to their airspace?

MS. NULAND: Well, let me just make a general statement in response to that, Arshad, and I think you will understand that, again, to protect operational security I’m not going to get into details. But we, the State Department, always work closely with host governments on the physical protection of our facilities and our personnel, and this was part and parcel of that.

QUESTION: But you can work closely with somebody and still not have their explicit agreement for you to use their airspace, correct?

MS. NULAND: Suffice to say that this is part and parcel of a larger security program where it is necessary and we do work closely with host governments.

QUESTION: Well, in each instance, and I’m not asking you where these are used and I understand you don’t want to talk about exactly where they’re used, but in each instance when they are used, do you obtain the agreement of the host country for use of their airspace?

MS. NULAND: In the context of our larger security posture, we always work with host governments.

QUESTION: That’s not a yes. I mean, you can work with them. It doesn’t mean you’ve gotten their permission.

MS. NULAND: We are talking about something that started as a pilot program, something that is now being bid out and looked at for broader use. So some of the questions that you are probing for are premature; but in the context of our general consultations with governments on security, those are ongoing and we always consult with hosts.

QUESTION: Does the – consultation is a very different thing from obtaining their permission.

MS. NULAND: I understand. I don’t have anything further on your precise question.

QUESTION: Last one on this for me, if I may.

MS. NULAND: Yes.

QUESTION: What – does the U.S. Government permit any foreign country to use unmanned aerial vehicles over – in its airspace?

MS. NULAND: To my knowledge, Arshad, we have never received such a request from a foreign country.

Please.

QUESTION: Victoria, operationally, are they under the control of the State Department or some other entity like the Pentagon?

MS. NULAND: No, these are – this is a State Department program that Diplomatic Security executes and manages.

QUESTION: And in Baghdad or elsewhere?

MS. NULAND: Excuse me?

QUESTION: Is it from the Embassy in Baghdad or elsewhere?

MS. NULAND: You mean where are the physical operators?

QUESTION: No, I mean – yeah, the physical operation. Yeah, because they could be operating it from Virginia, I mean, so --

MS. NULAND: I do not know the answer to that, Said, nor do I think we would discuss the operational aspects of this.

QUESTION: Can I – no, no – stay on this for just one second? Back on the whole issue of size. I mean, it would seem to me if these things would be held in one’s hand, it’s not much different than a kid’s radio-controlled – size-wise – radio-controlled airplane, right?

MS. NULAND: Big kid, big toy.

QUESTION: Right. I know. But I mean, it’s not like a – it’s not like one of these CIA drones that’s enormous. And I’m thinking – I’m trying to figure out – I mean, there’s no restriction on an Iranian diplomat at the UN going to Central Park and flying one of these things, is there? I mean, it doesn’t require – going to Arshad’s last question, to fly something of this size that may or may not have a camera in it doesn’t require any kind of license in the States, does it, other than what you might get for a child’s or a model airplane enthusiast’s radio-controlled device?

MS. NULAND: I am so, so not competent to speak to the question of licensing in the U.S. of something like this. I just – I’m going to send you to the --

QUESTION: I guess I’m trying to figure out – I’m trying to figure out what the Iraqis’ problem with this is.

MS. NULAND: And again --

QUESTION: And --

MS. NULAND: I don’t think we’re implying any problem.

QUESTION: Oh, okay. So the story is wrong when it says that the Iraqis are not happy about this?

QUESTION: Have they registered any complaints with you?

MS. NULAND: I think a lot of these questions are premature. We are, as I – as we have said before, there was a pilot program. The story is based on a request for bids for this program, which, as you know, is generally preparatory to actually implementing the program in a serious way.

QUESTION: So you’re not aware that the Iraqis have actually complained about this?

MS. NULAND: I cannot speak to that. I don’t have any information to that effect at the moment.

QUESTION: Okay. And then – and is one to presume that since it was a pilot program that was boasted about in this glossy magazine that DS put out – which, in retrospect, I wonder if they would have done that again – that the pilot program was successful and that’s why it’s being bid out to become a full-bore program?

MS. NULAND: Again, I think if we have a lot of detailed questions about the history of this, I’m going to get you guys a special briefing.

QUESTION: Well, if it were a pilot program and it was not successful – well, I don’t know, maybe this government does a lot of things that mystify people. But I mean, if it had not been – if the pilot program had not been successful, wouldn’t we – shouldn’t we assume that this would not be being bid out for a larger --

MS. NULAND: I think we can presume that we have judged this to be useful.

QUESTION: Stay on Iraq?

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: Can I ask on --

QUESTION: Yes. Victoria, Iraqi parliamentarian --

MS. NULAND: Before we leave the small unarmed whatever – Scott?

QUESTION: Iraqi --

QUESTION: You kept – you keep talking about the pilot program in the past tense. Is that safe to assume then that this was conducted before the full transition last December?

MS. NULAND: Again, in the interest of the discretion with which we approach worldwide our security arrangements for our facilities and personnel, I’m not going to confirm the where or the when of the pilot program or of the future program.

QUESTION: These are ongoing, though?

MS. NULAND: The pilot, I think, is completed, is my understanding.

QUESTION: But it – you might not want to confirm it from the podium, but it’s in that glossy DS year-end review.

MS. NULAND: Fabulous. Then you know where to find it.

QUESTION: It says exactly where it was.

MS. NULAND: Fabulous. Okay.

QUESTION: So why – so is that – was that a mistake? That shouldn’t have been printed?

MS. NULAND: I can’t speak to that. I can only say that at the current moment, we are not interested in discussing the locations.

QUESTION: But you don’t believe that that hindered or hurt operational security – the publication of that?

MS. NULAND: I actually haven’t seen this glossy. I’m going to go find it after we finish here.

QUESTION: Victoria, on Iraq still?

MS. NULAND: Yes.

QUESTION: The Sunni parliamentarians returned after – to the parliament after suspending their activities there for a long time. At the same time, all reconciliation talks seem to be collapsing. Could you tell us about the role of the U.S., or the U.S. Embassy in this case, in convincing these Sunni parliamentarians to go back and be a part of the political process?

MS. NULAND: Well, first of all, we are encouraged by the decision of the Iraqiya bloc to end their boycott and to return to work at the Council of Representatives and also by the statements of other key blocs inside Iraq welcoming that decision. We’re also encouraged that President Talabani has pledged to lead a process that’s going to prepare a national conference that’s going to focus on a political solution that protects the interests of all Iraqis within their constitution.

Our understanding is that the consultations leading to that conference are still ongoing. I think we’ve said here and elsewhere that we have been active, whether it’s at the level of Vice President Biden, Secretary Clinton, Ambassador Jeffrey, in encouraging all of the Iraqi leaders to participate in this dialogue. We’ve been talking to all of them about their interest in preserving a unified Iraq and protecting their hard-fought constitution.

QUESTION: There’s been a horrendous spike in violence in Iraq in the last few days. Does that bring Iraq back into sort the domain of urgency, perhaps to Vice President Biden, who assumed the Iraqi file for a while, where he would have to focus his energies on Iraq again?

MS. NULAND: Well, I think that Vice President Biden has been focused on Iraq throughout the term. I would refer you to his office for what he’s been doing most recently. But obviously we’re concerned, but this is – Iraq has been through these cycles, and we do have confidence in Iraqi security forces to manage these issues.

QUESTION: And lastly, are you aware that the Iraqis are aiding the Syrian regime with a tremendous amount of money on a monthly basis?

MS. NULAND: I think I don’t have anything in particular to say with regard to Iraq and Syria, except that Iraq has participated actively in the Arab League discussions about the way forward on Syria.

In the back.

QUESTION: Didn’t they vote against --

MS. NULAND: In the back.

QUESTION: Didn’t Iraq vote against the Arab League draft?

MS. NULAND: I think it was a little more complicated than that.

Please.

QUESTION: Afghanistan and Pakistan.

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: Well, over the weekend, there have been reports coming out of both Kabul and Islamabad that they want to have, as part of reconciliation process, a Taliban office in Saudi Arabia, and there have been reports that --

MS. NULAND: That the Pakistanis do?

QUESTION: Kabul – both Afghans and Pakistanis. There have been media reports suggesting that they are seeking a Taliban office in Saudi Arabia, and they – primarily, they have even said that they were not taken on board, about the negotiations that went on in Qatar. So do you have any reaction? There will be two parallel talks with the Taliban going on now? What’s the way forward?

MS. NULAND: Well, I’m not going to speak to ideas that may or may not have come up, been rejected by one party or another or host country or whatever. But I think you do know that the focus of the conversation now is on whether it would make sense in the context of a larger Afghan-Afghan process of reconciliation for the Taliban to have an office in Qatar. This is an issue that has not been decided, and the consultations continue on it.

QUESTION: But are you going to take both Pakistan and Afghanistan along in these talks with the Taliban as part of reconciliation process?

MS. NULAND: Well, first of all, our goal is to work ourselves out of a job here. Our goal is to get Afghans talking to Afghans to get a process of reconciliation that is among Afghans. We have said that we believe that Pakistan has a role to play in supporting this process, as we do. Secretary spoke to the Pakistanis about that when she was in Pakistan in October. Pakistan itself has committed to supporting reconciliation and joined in the statements – positive statements made in Istanbul and Bonn in that regard.

QUESTION: So would you follow up --

QUESTION: I thought they weren’t in Bonn.

MS. NULAND: Sorry. In Istanbul. Right. Thank you. Arshad, always keeping me sharp.

QUESTION: And will you follow up Ambassador Grossman’s visit with another conversation with both Kabul and Islamabad on the subject?

MS. NULAND: Well, as you know, Ambassador Grossman was in Kabul, and then he went and saw President Karzai in Rome at the end of his trip. With regard to our consultations with Pakistan, we had offered to send Ambassador Grossman. It wasn’t good timing for them. But the Secretary did see Pakistani Ambassador Rehman, and Ambassador Munter has been in to see Foreign Minister Khar to give an appropriate readout on Ambassador Grossman’s consultations and the next steps. So we are trying to be transparent in terms of our role in trying to get Afghans together.

Please.

QUESTION: Just during Ambassador Grossman’s visit, there were reports that Taliban have shared the draft of the negotiations that are going to be held with Pakistan. Because they --

MS. NULAND: Sounds like a question for the Taliban or for Pakistan, not a question for me.

QUESTION: -- want to take Taliban on board. Does this concern United States that it might affect the secrecy of peace talks?

MS. NULAND: Again, as I said, our goal is to work ourselves out of a job, so it’s Afghans taking care of this issue together with themselves. So I’m not going to speak to what Taliban may or may not be doing with Pakistan. I think that’s a question for them.

QUESTION: Okay. And just this morning there were a couple of reports saying that this round of negotiation with Taliban has fallen through because there is a deadlock on the release of prisoners from Guantanamo. Can you confirm or deny that?

MS. NULAND: We talked about this a number of times in that last week. We are not going to get into the back and forth about how this is going. We’re not going to be giving full details. We need to provide some space to work through these issues.

QUESTION: I thought you just said about two minutes ago that you were going to be transparent about this.

MS. NULAND: With the Pakistani Government, not with you guys. Sorry.

QUESTION: Oh, I see. (Laughter.)

MS. NULAND: Sorry.

QUESTION: So you – right now, the Pakistan trust – the Pakistan Government is more trustworthy then the press corps? Is that the idea? That’s a pretty – that’s --

MS. NULAND: We need to give this --

QUESTION: We’re the American public.

QUESTION: That’s pretty impressive.

MS. NULAND: We need to give this some time and space to work.

QUESTION: Do you really – how would you rate the Pakistani Government on its trustworthiness right now?

MS. NULAND: I am not going to be giving a grade of trustworthiness to any government, including my own.

Okay. Anything else, guys?

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS. NULAND: One more on Pakistan, in the back.

QUESTION: A Guardian story is saying that United States is trying to secure the release of the doctor in Pakistan who is held by the military and is accused of helping United States.

MS. NULAND: I don't have anything for you on that one way or the other. I have nothing for you.

Please.

QUESTION: Can you confirm –

QUESTION: Do you have any reaction about the Senegal situation, about Wade running for a third bid for presidential?

MS. NULAND: Well, as you know, the Senegalese constitutional court has now confirmed the validity of 14 candidates running for president, including President Wade. Our own view, while we respect the process, the political and legal process in Senegal, the fact that he’s now been cleared to run, our message to him remains the same: that the statesmanly-like thing to do would be to cede to the next generation, and we think that would be better.

And with regard to the reference to Museveni last week, Matt, I am reliably told that we did also suggest to him that he allow the next generation to --

QUESTION: Yes. And he didn’t, and now he’s your best friend.

MS. NULAND: Well, we work --

QUESTION: So what’s wrong with – now what’s wrong with it in Senegal?

MS. NULAND: We work with the government the people elect. But again, our view is that Senegalese democracy is strong enough to move to the next generation.

QUESTION: Can you --

MS. NULAND: Please.

QUESTION: It’s not about the details or – this is: Can you confirm if U.S. diplomats were present at talks with Taliban?

MS. NULAND: I’m not going to confirm affirmatively or not. We’re going to allow some space for this to go.

QUESTION: Any comments on Pakistan allowing former Ambassador Haqqani to travel abroad and he’s coming to U.S.?

MS. NULAND: Yeah. We are gratified that the Government of Pakistan has lifted the travel ban on Ambassador Haqqani, specifically the supreme court of Pakistan, and that he’s free to travel as he chooses. And we continue to expect that Pakistan will resolve this situation and other internal issues in a transparent manner and upholding Pakistani laws and constitution.

QUESTION: And he’s welcome here?

MS. NULAND: I’m not sure that there is a visa application at the moment, but if there were, it would be a matter of visa confidentiality.

QUESTION: Did United States play a role through some backchannel to get his release?

MS. NULAND: I don’t think that we necessarily needed a backchannel. I’ve been pretty clear here, as has the Secretary, that we want to see him treated fairly and that we were watching the situation.

Okay. Thanks very much, everybody.

(The briefing was concluded at 1:53 p.m.)

DPB # 19