Bosnia and Herzegovina Government Formation

Victoria Nuland
Department Spokesperson, Office of the Spokesperson

Washington, DC

February 13, 2012

The United States welcomes the appointment of a new Council of Ministers of Bosnia and Herzegovina. We congratulate Chairman Bevanda and the entire government as they take up the important responsibility of leading Bosnia and Herzegovina forward on behalf of its citizens. With the new Council in place, we are confident that the Bosnian Government will be able to build on its recent passage of EU-related legislation to open the door for a Bosnian application for EU candidacy.

We also expect that the government will address as top priorities an agreement on a 2012 budget and the registration of defense property to meet NATO’s condition for full participation in the Membership Action Plan. We look forward to continuing to support Bosnia and Herzegovina’s European and Euro-Atlantic integration aspirations, alongside our European and other international partners.

U.S. - Russia Civil Society Working Group Meets in Washington

Washington, DC

February 10, 2012

2011/199

 

MEDIA NOTE

 

 

 

The new co-chairs of the Civil Society Working Group of the U.S. – Russia Bilateral Presidential Commission Deputy Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights & Labor Thomas O. Melia and his Russian counterpart, Commissioner for Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law Ambassador Konstantin Dolgov, met in Washington on February 10.  The co-chairs reviewed the existing bilateral engagement and discussed new approaches and topics regarding the role of civil society groups.

 

In keeping with the mandate established by Presidents Obama and Medvedev, the Civil Society Working Group is intended to strengthen the peer-to-peer ties between civic groups in the United States and the Russian Federation and to facilitate a dialogue on civil society development.

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

Updated

Washington, DC

February 7, 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

International Day of Zero Tolerance to Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State

Washington, DC

February 6, 2012

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

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

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

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

FY 2012 Funding Opportunity Announcement for NGO Programs Benefiting Burmese Refugees in Thailand, Bangladesh and Malaysia

February 3, 2012

Funding Opportunity Number: PRM-ANE-12-CA-EA-02032012-TH-BGD-MYA

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number: 19.511- Overseas Refugee Assistance Programs for East Asia

Announcement issuance date: Friday, February 3, 2012

Proposal submission deadline: Tuesday, March 6, 2012 at 12:00 p.m. noon (EST). Proposals submitted after this deadline will not be considered.

ADVISORY: PRM strongly recommends submitting your proposal early to allow time to address any difficulties that may arise.

Proposed Program Start Dates: March 15 – September 28, 2012

Duration of Activity:

Program plans for Thailand from 12 to 24 months will be considered. Applicants may submit multi-year proposals with activities and budgets that do not exceed 24 months from the proposed start date. Actual awards will not exceed 12 months in duration. Multi-year proposals selected for funding by PRM will be funded in 12-month increments and must include results-based indictors within the first 12 months. Agreements may be renewable for an additional 12-month period contingent upon available funding, strong performance, and continuing need. Continued funding after the initial 12-month award requires the submission of a noncompeting continuation application as detailed in the “Application Requirements for Proposals for Multi-Year Funding” section below. Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) receiving awards under these terms will be required to submit continuation applications at least three months in advance of the end of the 12-month period of activities. Please see the “Proposal Content, Formatting, and Templates” section for additional guidance.

Program plans for Bangladesh and Malaysia should be no more than 12 months. Applicants must re-compete for PRM funding each year.

For all programs, in funding a project one year, PRM makes no representations that it will continue to fund the project in successive years and encourages applicants to seek a wide array of donors to ensure long-term and diverse funding sources. PRM will prioritize project proposals that demonstrate strong coordination and integration of services with other NGO partners on the Thailand-Burma border.

Current Funding Priorities for Assistance to Burmese Refugees in Thailand:

PRM will prioritize funding for proposed NGO activities that best meet the Bureau’s priorities in Thailand for Burmese refugees in camps along the Thai-Burma border as identified below.

Health (including curative, preventative, reproductive health, mental health and psychosocial care), HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment, Water and Sanitation, and Gender-Based Violence:

PRM will accept proposals from NGOs for activities that focus on the following priorities in Mae La, Umpiem, Nu Po, and Ban Don Yang camps:

a. Improved access to quality health care services, including reproductive healthcare, with a particular emphasis on the health and nutritional needs of children under five and pregnant and lactating women and improved access to services for persons with disabilities and their families;

b. Improved camp water and sanitation and other environmental infrastructure, including protection and development of the water resource in Mae La and in the host villages in Tak Province;

c. Improved quality of life of refugee populations by addressing their psychosocial needs and developing income-generating activities, with an emphasis on the development of skills and vocational training to achieve a measure of self-sufficiency and a reasonable livelihood; and

d. Strengthened community capacity to prevent Gender-Based Violence (GBV) and better respond to the health, psychosocial, safety, and justice needs of GBV survivors.

Current Funding Priorities for Assistance to Burmese Rohingya in Bangladesh:

Priority will be given to proposals that promote a holistic, district-wide approach to both registered Rohingya refugees living inside the two official refugee camps, Kutupalong and Nayapara, and unregistered Rohingya and local Bangladeshi host population living outside of the camps.

(1) Proposed activities in the two official refugee camps, Kutupalong and Nayapara, should support the following priorities:

a. Expanded skills training to include income generating activities, with an emphasis on the development of skills and vocational training to achieve a measure of self-sufficiency and a reasonable livelihood;

b. Strengthened ongoing healthcare (including reproductive health), education services, and psychosocial programming, particularly through integrating and expanding support to the disabled;

c. Expanded community mobilization programs, especially in support of the existing community-based counseling system for conflict resolution;

d. Improved physical infrastructure in the camps, including shelter and interior roads; and

e. Improved knowledge of and enhanced capacity to identify and respond to GBV, and increased capacity of service providers to incorporate GBV prevention and response into their activities.

(2) Proposals that incorporate unregistered Rohingya living outside of the two official camps, Kutupalong and Nayapara, should link the above priority sectors with the following activities:

a. Expanded access to justice by strengthening law and order in the sub-districts where the camps are located, specifically to combat GBV and support survivors; and

b. Expanded access to education for refugee children that would serve both Rohingya and Bangladeshi students, where Rohingya make up 50% of the targeted beneficiaries.

Current Funding Priorities for Assistance to Burmese Refugees in Malaysia:

(1) Healthcare:

PRM will accept proposals from NGOs to provide primary healthcare, medical services, mental health and psychosocial support to the urban Burmese refugee population in Kuala Lumpur and Klang Valley, including the implementation of mobile health clinics to immigration detention centers.

(2) Education:

PRM will accept proposals from NGOs to provide quality educational opportunities for school-aged refugee children. Proposed activities should focus on strengthening refugee community capacity to provide education to children and youth and improving the quality of Refugee Community Schools, including through building the capacity of refugee teachers.

(3) Gender-Based Violence (GBV):

PRM will accept proposals from NGOs to provide humanitarian assistance to address the following priorities:

a. Improved knowledge of GBV within refugee and host communities;

b. Improved capacity of target communities to identify and effectively respond to GBV through healthcare (including reproductive health), psychosocial, safety, justice and other services that involve refugee and host community members in their design and implementation; and

c. Improved capacity of service providers to incorporate GBV prevention and response activities, including multi-sectoral referral services.

PRM will accept proposals from any NGO working in the above mentioned sectors although, given budgetary constraints, priority will be given to proposals from organizations that can demonstrate:

· A working relationship with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), current UNHCR funding, and/or a letter of support from UNHCR for the proposed activities and/or overall country program (this letter should highlight the gap in services the proposed program is designed to address);

· A proven track record in providing proposed assistance both in the sector and specified location;

· Evidence of coordination with international organizations (IOs) and other NGOs working in the same area or sector as well as – where possible – local authorities;

· A concrete implementation plan with well-conceived objectives and indicators that are specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and reliable, time-bound and trackable (SMART), have established baselines, and include at least one outcome or impact indicator per objective; objectives should be clearly linked to the sectors in the RFP;

· A budget that is appropriate for meeting the objectives and demonstrates co-funding by non-US government sources;

· Appropriate targeting of beneficiaries in coordination with UNHCR and other relevant organizations. Because of PRM's mandate to provide protection, assistance, and sustainable solutions for refugees and victims of conflict, PRM considers funding only those projects that include a target beneficiary base of at least 50% refugees.

· Adherence to relevant international standards for humanitarian assistance. See PRM’s General NGO Guidelines for a complete list of sector-specific standards.

International Organizations (IOs) that are engaged in programs relevant to the assistance addressed by this PRM funding announcement should ensure that these programs are made known to PRM on or before the closing date of this funding announcement so that PRM can evaluate all IO and NGO programs for funding consideration.

As stated in the General NGO Guidelines, PRM looks favorably on cost-sharing efforts and seeks to support projects with a diverse donor base and/or resources from the submitting organization.

Proposal Submission Requirements:

See “How to Apply” (http://www.grants.gov/applicants/applicant_faqs.jsp#applying) on Grants.gov for complete details on requirements, and note the following highlights:

· Proposals must be submitted via Grants.gov. Organizations not registered with Grants.gov should register well in advance of the March 6, 2012 deadline as it can take up to two weeks to finalize registration (sometimes longer for non-U.S. based NGOs to get the required registration numbers). To register with Grants.gov, organizations must first receive a DUNS number and register with the Central Contract Registry (CCR) which can take weeks and sometimes months. See “Applicant FAQs” section on Grants.gov (http://www.grants.gov/help/applicant_faqs.jsp#applying) for complete details on registering.

· If you encounter technical difficulties with Grants.gov, please contact the Grants.gov Help Desk at support@grants.gov or by calling 1-800-518-4726. Applicants who are unable to submit applications via Grants.gov due to Grants.gov technical difficulties and who have reported the problem(s) to the Grants.gov help desk and received a case number and had a service request opened to research the problem(s), should contact PRM Program Officer Hoa Tran at (202) 453-9289 or TranHT3@state.gov to determine whether an alternative method of submission is appropriate.

· Do not wait until the last minute to submit your application on Grants.gov. Applicants who have done so in the past and experienced technical difficulties were not able to meet the deadline. PRM strongly recommends submitting your proposal early to avoid submission delays. We recommend that organizations, particularly first-time applicants, submit applications via Grants.gov no later than one week before the deadline to avoid last-minute technical difficulties that could result in an application not being considered.

· Applications must be submitted under the authority of the Authorized Organization Representative (AOR) at the applicant organization. Having proposals submitted by agency headquarters helps to avoid possible technical problems.

· Pursuant to U.S. Code, Title 218, Section 1001, stated on OMB Standard Form 424 (SF-424), Department of State is authorized to consolidate the certifications and assurances required by Federal law or regulations for its federal assistance programs. The list of certifications and assurances can be found at: http://fa.statebuy.state.gov/content.asp?content_id=161&menu_id=68 )

· NGOs that have not received PRM funding prior to the U.S. Government fiscal year ending September 30, 2004 must be prepared to demonstrate that they meet the financial and accounting requirements of the U.S. Government by submitting copies of 1) the most recent external financial audit, 2) non-profit tax status under IRS 501 (c)(3), 3) a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number, and 4) an Employer ID (EIN)/Federal Tax Identification number.

Proposal Content, Formatting and Template:

Please refer to the “Proposal Submission and Review Process” section in the General NGO Guidelines. PRM strongly encourages organizations applying for PRM funding to use the PRM recommended proposal and budget templates. Templates can be requested by sending an email to PRM's NGO Coordinator. You must type “PRM NGO Templates” in the subject line to receive an automated reply containing the templates.

In addition to referencing the General NGO Guidelines, applicants for Thailand proposing multi-year programs should adhere to the following guidance:

Applicants may submit proposals that include multi-year strategies presented in 12-month cycles for a period not to exceed 24 months from the proposed start date. Fully developed programs with detailed budgets, objectives and indicators are required for all years of activities. These can be updated yearly upon submission of continuation applications. Applicants should note that they may use PRM’s recommended multi-year proposal template, which is different from the single year template. Multi-year funding applicants may also use PRM’s standard budget template and should submit a separate budget sheet for each project year. Multi-year proposals using PRM’s templates must be no more than 30 pages in length. If the applicant does not use PRM’s recommended templates, proposals must not exceed 25 pages in length. Organizations may choose to attach work plans, activity calendars, and/or logical frameworks as addendums/appendices to the proposal. These attachments do not count toward the page limit total.

PLEASE TAKE SPECIAL NOTE OF THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS OUTLINED IN PRM’s NGO GUIDELINES:

This announcement is designed to accompany PRM’s General NGO Guidelines, which contain additional administrative information and explain in detail PRM’s NGO funding strategy and priorities. Please use both the General NGO Guidelines and this announcement to ensure that the proposed activities are in line with PRM’s priorities and that your proposal submission is in full compliance with PRM requirements. Proposal submissions that do not meet all of the requirements outlined in these guidelines will not be considered. PRM recommends using the proposal and budget templates that are available upon email request from PRM's NGO Coordinator. Please send an email, with the phrase “PRM NGO templates” in the subject line, to PRM’s NGO Coordinator.

· Proposals should outline how the NGO will acknowledge PRM funding. If an organization believes that publicly acknowledging the receipt of USG funding for a particular PRM-funded project could potentially endanger the lives of the beneficiaries and/or the organization staff, invite suspicion about the organization’s motives, or alienate the organization from the population it is trying to help, it must provide a brief explanation in its proposal as to why it should be exempted from this requirement.

· Focus on outcome or impact indicators as much as possible. At a minimum, each objective should have one outcome or impact indicator. Wherever possible, baselines should be established before the start of the project.

· To increase PRM’s ability to track the impact of PRM funding, include specific information on locations of projects and beneficiaries. Any project involving the building or maintenance of physical infrastructure must include coordinates of site locations (place name, P-Code, latitude and longitude coordinates).

· Budget must include a specific breakdown of funds being provided by UNHCR, other USG agencies, other donors, and your own organization. PRM strongly encourages multi-lateral support for humanitarian programs.

· Organizations that received PRM funding in FY 2011 for activities that are being proposed for funding under this announcement must include the most recent quarterly progress report against indicators outlined in the cooperative agreement. If an organization’s last quarterly report was submitted more than six weeks prior to the submission of a proposal in response to this funding announcement, the organization must include, with its most recent quarterly report, updates that show any significant progress made on objectives since the last report.

Application Requirements for Proposals for Multi-Year Funding

Multi-year applications selected for funding by PRM will be funded in 12 month increments based on the proposals submitted in the competing application and as approved by PRM. Continued funding after the initial 12 month award requires the submission of a noncompeting continuation application as follows:

· Continuation applications must be submitted not later than 90 days before the proposed start date of the award (e.g., if funding the next budget period is to begin on September 1, submit your application by June 1). Late applications will jeopardize continued funding.

· Applications must be signed by the Authorized Organization Representative (AOR) at the applicant organization on the submitted SF-424.

· Pursuant to U.S. Code, Title 218, Section 1001, stated on OMB Standard Form 424 (SF-424), Department of State is authorized to consolidate the certifications and assurances required by Federal law or regulations for its federal assistance programs. The list of certifications and assurances can be found at: http://fa.statebuy.state.gov/content.asp?content_id=161&menu_id=68 )

· Proposal Content, Formatting and Templates: Please refer to the guidance contained in PRM’s General NGO Guidelines. The total budget should not exceed the amount which is listed on the current Federal Assistance Award. You must submit a complete application including:

• Signed completed SF-424.
• Proposal reflecting objectives and indicators for the continuation period.
• Budget for the continuation period.
• Budget narrative.
• Most recent Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreement (NICRA), if applicable.

 Information on the amount of unexpended funds to include a statement of the estimated cumulative total dollar amount taking into consideration the actual expenditures shown on the Financial Status Report. Note that funds are available for expenditure only during the period in which they are awarded.

Reports and Reporting Requirements:

Program reporting: PRM requires quarterly and final program reports describing and analyzing the results of activities undertaken during the validity period of the agreement. It is highly suggested that NGOs receiving PRM funding use the PRM recommended program report template. To request this template, send an email with the phrase “PRM NGO templates” in the subject line to PRM's NGO Coordinator.

Financial Reports: Financial reports are required within thirty (30) days following the end of each calendar year quarter during the validity period of the agreement; a final financial report covering the entire period of the agreement is required within ninety (90) days after the expiration date of the agreement.

For more details regarding PRM’s reporting requirements, please see General NGO Guidelines.

Proposal Review Process:

PRM will conduct a formal competitive review of all proposals submitted in response to this funding announcement. A review panel will evaluate submissions based on the above-referenced proposal evaluation criteria and PRM priorities in the context of available funding.

PRM may request revised proposals and/or budgets based on feedback from the panel. PRM will provide formal notifications to NGOs of final decisions taken by Bureau management.

PRM Points of Contact:

Should NGOs have technical questions related to this announcement, they should contact the PRM staff listed below prior to proposal submission. (Note: Responses to technical questions from PRM do not indicate a commitment to fund the program discussed.):

PRM Program Officer Hoa Tran, TranHT3@state.gov, 202-453-9289, Washington, D.C.

Bangkok Regional Refugee Coordinator Andrea Doyle, DoyleAL@state.gov, U.S. Embassy, Refugee and Migration Affairs, Bangkok, Thailand.

Bangkok Deputy Regional Refugee Coordinator Anjalina Sen, SenAM@state.gov, U.S. Embassy, Refugee and Migration Affairs, Bangkok, Thailand.

Burma at the Turning Point

Michael H. Posner
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor

National Endowment for Democracy

Washington, DC

February 2, 2012

Thank you. It’s terrific to be invited by an organization I admire greatly, the National Endowment for Democracy, to speak about an issue that I care about deeply: Burma and its future.

I must say, though, that it’s a bit hard to come to the NED on the heels of the Secretary of State’s speech at the NDI annual dinner in December what I consider to be one of her finest speeches, on the future of democracy. If any of you missed that speech, I commend it to you.

I also want to thank the NED team that has played a leading role in promoting democracy and civil society in Burma for more than 20 years.

And I’d like to recognize the many other friends and colleagues here who have stood with the Burmese people for decades, both through their programs to promote democracy and their humanitarian work — the folks from the Open Society Institute, the Norwegian Burma Committee, DANIDA, the International Rescue Committee, and in fact every group here at the Burma Donor’s Forum and many, many more. I salute you all for your continued dedication to this important work.

Most of all, I want to honor the Burmese activists who have sacrificed so much to bring about the changes that we are here today to discuss.

Hindsight being 20-20, we can look back over the year 2011 and see that governments around the world have made choices that have profound effects on their people.

In Egypt, President Hosni Mubarak could not stand in the way of the winds of change that swept through Tahir Square, and the transition to democracy continues to move forward. And although we must expect many difficulties and even setbacks in every democratic transition, the Egyptian people are now charting their own future and seeking to build the kind of durable, inclusive democracy they deserve.

In Syria, Bashar al-Assad and his government made a different choice, attempting to cling to power. Since that decision more than 5,400 people, mostly peaceful demonstrators, have been killed by government security forces. This week we are continuing to work with the Arab League to shape an appropriate and effective international response at the UN Security Council, part of our effort to end this tragic chapter in Syrian history.

The news out of Burma has been much more hopeful, as the government has taken a series of actions to change course after years of isolation and human rights abuses. When I travelled there in December with Secretary Clinton, we saw the possibility of real democratic change that could eventually lead to a much brighter future for Burma.

The statements from Nawpidaw are certainly encouraging. At a dinner in Singapore on Monday night, President Thein Sein said, according to press reports, quote: "We want our people to take part in the democratic reform process and we want democracy to thrive in Myanmar. I wish to assure you that I shall endeavor to establish a healthy democracy in Myanmar."

If the leaders continue on this path of democracy and openness, they will free all remaining political prisoners. They will hold fair elections on April 1, allow their people a genuine say in how they are to be governed, end restrictions on the media and the Internet, end the divisive ethnic conflicts, and begin to build a more integrated and peaceful society.

If they continue to pursue this path, they will end their international economic and political isolation, attract aid and investment, and be in a position to build a strong and inclusive economy that shares prosperity widely. Of course that won’t transform Burma overnight. But it will begin to build the kind of government Burma’s people deserve.

I come to speak with you today with great humility, because I am not a Burma expert, and I know that many of you have worked on Burma for years or decades.

I had not visited the country until last fall, when I went first with Special Envoy Derek Mitchell in November, and then again with Secretary Clinton in December. What I do bring to this discussion is experience with countries that are beginning down the long hard road towards democracy. And based on that experience I feel it is a rare privilege to be able to offer help to a country at such an important time.

But our engagement starts from a clear-eyed assessment of where there has been progress and what remains to be done. Let’s start with the progress. We have seen movement on at least three important fronts. First is the release of political prisoners. Since October, the government has released more than 500 political prisoners. That includes most of the highest-profile prisoners. Some of these people had spent decades in jail for nonviolent expression of their political views.

Min Ko Naing, for example, was an 88 Generation student leader who spent most of the last 15 years in jail. He was re-arrested for organizing peaceful walking demonstrations in Rangoon in 2007 and sentenced to 65 years. Sixty-five years. Last week he and four other freed 88 Generation leaders held a press conference in and promised to “support those who want to build justice, freedom and equality” in Myanmar.

There is U Kyaw Min, a Rohingya rights activist who was elected as a Minister of Parliament in 1990 but then sentenced to 47 years in 2005 after he met with an international delegation investigating forced labor in Burma. His wife, two daughters and son were also rounded up and sentenced to 17 years simply for being his family members. Today he is free. His wife and two daughters were also freed with him. His son, however, remains in jail.

And there is Hla Hla Win, a young journalist arrested while interviewing monks and community leaders on video. She was first charged with having an illegally imported motorcycle, then when she was discovered to be a journalist she was sentenced to an additional 20 years for violating the Electronics Act, which prohibits uploading or downloading data deemed damaging to security. She also was released last month.

President Obama applauded the releases of prisoners of conscience as “a crucial step in Burma’s democratic transformation and national reconciliation process.” These released prisoners—lawyers, journalists, bloggers, activists, ethnic and religious leaders—will be key in building Burma’s future.

A second area where the actions of the Burmese government are significant is the opening to greater debate and discussion of political issues. In the last year the government has engaged Aung San Suu Kyi in a substantive dialogue. It has amended electoral laws, allowing the National League for Democracy and other opposition parties to register as political parties and begin preparing for the April by-elections. It has begun to ease some restrictions on media and civil society, and is beginning to allow humanitarian access for the United Nations and NGOs to conflict areas.

A third, related area where the government has undertaken reforms is in building a stronger democratic foundation. Last year the government passed a new labor law that expands the rights of workers and will allow unions to become legal again for the first time since the 1970s. In December, the Parliament passed new legislation protecting the right of assembly.

We have heard reports that work on a revised press freedoms law is underway. And the government established a new Human Rights Commission.

But much remains to be done. Hundreds of political prisoners are still being held, and a number of the laws used to arrest and detain them remain on the books. Censorship has been relaxed—but the censorship board remains in place. NGOs are allowed to operate—but many have not been allowed to legally register.

Probably the most important and most difficult remaining challenge is the need to end violence in ethnic minority areas and to advance an inclusive, meaningful dialogue leading towards genuine national reconciliation.

The government has struck preliminary ceasefire agreements with the Shan State army and with the Karen National Union, which has been involved in one of the longest-running civil wars anywhere in the world. At the same time violence in Kachin State has worsened, with reports of serious human rights abuses and violations of international humanitarian law.

Ultimately the ethnic violence is rooted in political causes, and it will require negotiated political solutions on both sides to address the underlying grievances.

In the coming months and years we must steel ourselves for challenges that will inevitably come with this transition. Over the years, it’s my observation that when ossified societies begin to loosen up, the process is neither smooth nor linear.

That is why this Administration is committed to a long-term engagement, one that both continues to push for reform and change, while at the same time offering encouragement and support.

As Secretary Clinton said, “The United States will meet action with action.” In response to the January 13 prisoner release, Secretary Clinton announced that we will exchange ambassadors. In a step-by-step fashion, we hope to build a relationship based on mutual respect and tangible progress on the issues that matter most to improving the daily lives of people.

Where Burma goes from here will depend on the political will of its leaders and the willingness of the government’s opponents to engage. And this political will needs to flow from two directions – from the top down, and from the bottom up.

The President and his advisors have created a kind of top-down reform process that has pushed through initiatives at a rapid pace. And this is to their credit. These changes have opened political space. But opening the political space doesn’t bring meaningful change unless people move into that space and start to use it.

It’s like an empty house. If the house is in bad shape, you may have to shore up the roof and hang some drywall before you can even move in. Then you need to bring in some furniture, move in, hang pictures that express your vision of what a home should look like, and invite a bunch of friends over for dinner, or plant a garden. Then that empty house starts to become a home.

To make Burma a home for all of its people requires broad, grassroots engagement by the widest possible range of politically active citizens. Ethnic leaders and bloggers. Lawyers defending clients. Lawmakers writing new media freedom laws. Factory workers forming unions and negotiating for better conditions and higher pay. Human rights advocates working with local powerbrokers to stop forced labor. NGOs working to bring child soldiers home.

All of these groups will need to push for structural changes from the bottom up, at the same time as the political leadership works to push reform from the top down.

I don’t know where those two forces meet. It’s not for us to say. It’s up to the Burmese to find the place where the two sides meet, to build trust on both sides, and to negotiate a space where they can coexist peacefully. That process is how durable, systemic change begins.

So the project of reforming the system from within is immense. It will require both political will from the top down and dynamism from the bottom up. Those who have profited from power in every country are often resistant to sharing it, and thus a backlash is always possible.

I’ve been accused of irrational optimism. But I do believe there is reason to be optimistic. That doesn’t mean that we assume everything is going to work or that we rush our engagement faster than reforms warrant. But it does mean that we reconsider long held assumptions; recognize the dynamic change that is occurring, and seize the opportunities to support the people, and especially politically active civil society, to pursue real, sustainable reforms from within.

And frankly there is another reason why my optimism isn’t irrational. Her name is Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. Her country is fortunate to have a leader of her principles and her caliber to inspire and guide it through these tumultuous times.

On my last visit, I was struck by the warmth and the welcome given the Secretary.

The crowds who lined the streets for miles to welcome her.

The beautiful hug she got from Daw Aung San Suu Kyi.

The man who took an American official’s hands at the airport and said with tears in his eyes, “Thank you for coming to our country.”

The desire, expressed to us by so many Burmese, to rejoin the world – and not just the international banking system, but the international community.

Change is never guaranteed, but there is an appetite for change. And I know that all of you continue to work extremely hard to be part of it.

So I will stop here and am happy to answer your questions. Thank you.

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

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

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

Washington, DC

February 2, 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Remarks at a United Nations Security Council Session on the Situation in Syria

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State

United Nations

New York City

January 31, 2012

Thank you very much, Mr. President, and let me begin by thanking Prime Minister Hamad bin Jassim and Secretary General el Araby for their thorough briefing. 

 

The Arab League has demonstrated important leadership in this crisis.  And for many months, the people of the region and the world have watched in horror as the Assad regime executed a campaign of violence against its own citizens.  Civilians gunned down in the streets, women and children tortured and killed.  No one is safe, not even officials of the Syrian Arab Red Crescent.  According to UN estimates, more than 5,400 civilians have already died, and that number is rising fast.

 

The regime also continues to arbitrarily detain Syrian citizens, such as the activists Yahia al-Shurbaji and Anas al-Shaghri, simply for demanding dignity and universal rights.  To date, the evidence is clear that Assad’s forces are initiating nearly all of the attacks that kill civilians, but as more citizens take up arms to resist the regime’s brutality, violence is increasingly likely to spiral out of control.  Already, the challenges ahead for the Syrian people are daunting – a crumbling economy, rising sectarian tensions, a cauldron of instability in the heart of the Middle East. 

 

Now, fears about what follows Assad, especially among Syria’s minority communities, are understandable.  Indeed, it appears as though Assad and his cronies are working hard to pit Syria’s ethnic and religious groups against each other, risking greater sectarian violence and even descent into civil war. 

 

So in response to this violent crackdown on peaceful dissent and protest, the Arab League launched an unprecedented diplomatic intervention, sending monitors into Syria’s beleaguered cities and towns and offering President Assad many chances to change course.  These observers were greeted by thousands of protestors eager to share their aspirations for their universal rights and also the stories of what had befallen them and their families.  But as the Arab League report makes clear if you read the entire report, the regime did not respect its pledges or the presence of the monitors, and instead responded with excessive and escalating violence. 

 

Now, in the past few days, the regime’s security forces have intensified their assault, shelling civilian areas in Homs and other cities.  And this weekend, the Arab League suspended its monitoring mission, pointing to the regime’s intransigence and the mounting civilian casualties. 

 

So why is the Arab League here before this Security Council?  Because they are seeking the support of the international community for a negotiated, peaceful political solution to this crisis and a responsible, democratic transition in Syria.  And we all have a choice:  Stand with the people of Syria and the region or become complicit in the continuing violence there. 

 

The United States urges the Security Council to back the Arab League’s demand that the Syrian Government immediately stop all attacks against civilians and guarantee the freedom of peaceful demonstrations.   In accordance with the Arab League’s plan, Syria must also release all arbitrarily detained citizens, return its military and security forces to their barracks, allow full and unhindered access for monitors, humanitarian workers, and journalists. 

 

And we urge the Security Council to back the Arab League’s call for an inclusive, Syrian-led political process to effectively address the legitimate aspirations and concerns of Syria’s people, conducted in an environment free from violence, fear, intimidation, and extremism. 

 

Now, I know that some members here may be concerned that the Security Council could be headed toward another Libya.  That is a false analogy.  Syria is a unique situation that requires its own approach, tailored to the specific circumstances occurring there.  And that is exactly what the Arab League has proposed – a path for a political transition that would preserve Syria’s unity and institutions.

 

Now, this may not be exactly the plan that any of us ourselves would have designed.  I know that many nations feel that way.  But it represents the best effects and efforts of Syria’s neighbors to chart a way forward, and it deserves a chance to work.

 

I think it would be a mistake to minimize or understate the magnitude of the challenge that Syrians face in trying to build the rule of law and civil society on the ruins of a brutal and failed dictatorship.  This will be hard.  The results are far from certain.  Success is far from guaranteed.  But the alternative – more of Assad’s brutal rule – is no alternative at all.

 

We all know that change is coming to Syria.  Despite its ruthless tactics, the Assad regime’s reign of terror will end and the people of Syria will have the chance to chart their own destiny. The question for us is:  How many more innocent civilians will die before this country is able to move forward toward the kind of future it deserves?  Unfortunately, it appears as though the longer this continues, the harder it will be to rebuild once President Assad and his regime is transitioned and something new and better takes its place. 

 

Citizens inside and outside Syria have begun planning for a democratic transition, from the Syrian National Council to the courageous grassroots local councils across the country who are organizing under the most dangerous and difficult circumstances.  But every day that goes by, their task grows more difficult. 

 

The future of Syria as a strong and unified nation depends on thwarting a cynical divide-and-conquer strategy.  It will take all Syrians working together – Alawis and Christians hand-in-hand with Sunni and Druze, side-by-side Arabs and  Kurds – to ensure that the new Syria is governed by the rule of law, respects and protects the universal rights of every citizen, regardless of ethnicity or sect, and takes on the widespread corruption that has marked the Assad regime. 

 

For this to work, Syria’s minorities will have to join in shaping Syria’s future, and their rights and their voices will have to be heard, protected, and respected.  And let me say directly to them today:  We do hear your fears and we do honor your aspirations.  Do not let the current regime exploit them to extend this crisis.

 

And leaders of Syria’s business community, military, and other institutions will have to recognize that their futures lie with the state and not the regime.  Syria belongs to its 23 million citizens, not to one man or his family.  And change can still be accomplished without dismantling the state or producing new tyranny. 

 

It is time for the international community to put aside our own differences and send a clear message of support to the people of Syria.  The alternative – spurning the Arab League, abandoning the Syrian people, emboldening the dictator – would compound this tragedy, and would mark a failure of our shared responsibility, and shake the credibility of the United Nations Security Council.  

 

The United States stands ready to work with every member in this chamber to pass a resolution that supports the Arab League’s efforts, because those are the efforts that are well thought out, and focused on ending this crisis, upholds the rights of the Syrian people, and restores peace to Syria.

 

That is the goal of the Arab League, that should be the goal of this Council, to help the Syrian people realize the goal of the future that they seek.  Thank you.

Live at State: LGBT Issues and U.S. Policy

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

Holly Jensen

Washington, DC

January 31, 2012

MS. JENSEN: Hi. Welcome to LiveAtState, the State Department’s interactive webchat platform for engaging with international media. I’m your host, , and today I am joined in the studio by Deputy Assistant Secretary Dan Baer, where he’ll be talking about foreign policy issues and LGBT.

Before I turn it over to Dan, I would just like to make a few housekeeping notes. If at any time during the program you experience any problems and you can’t submit your questions in the lower left-hand portion of your screen, I ask that you email us directly at LiveAtState.gov. And if you’re having problems listening, you can also call us on our listen-only phone bridge, and the number is listed in the lower left-hand portion of your screen. Right now, you can start to ask your questions for Dan Baer in the window at the bottom titled, “Questions for DAS Baer.”

And with that, I will turn it over to you. Thanks for joining us today.

MR. BAER: Great. Thanks so much. Thanks, everybody who’s out there watching. Thanks very much to the watch parties that I know are going on in various embassies around the world – Paramaribo, I heard, and Kyiv and Warsaw. Thanks to the people watching in Geneva and other places around the world, all over Latin America, I’ve heard. So it’s great to be with you this morning.

This is really an opportunity for me to get to follow up and to do some Q&A with you all in the wake of the Secretary’s speech last month in Geneva on December 6^th, which was her Human Rights Day speech where she talked about human rights applying to everyone, including LGBT people. That speech was really not a kickoff event but a continuation event, continuing the leadership that the Secretary and President Obama have demonstrated on this issue since the beginning of the Obama Administration and following up on a lot of work that we’ve got underway here at the State Department and at our embassies around the world.

So today, I look forward to the interaction. I look forward to hearing what’s on your mind and doing my best to answer your questions. So let’s just turn to questions.

MS. JENSEN: All right. Our first question comes from Pablo Simonetti: Will the United States encourage other states, as Chile for example, to develop laws that set rules, public policies, and affirmative actions to fight LGBT discrimination?

MR. BAER: I think what the Secretary laid out was that we will support and work with partners, those who are interested in having technical conversations about how you develop laws so that they are inclusive and nondiscriminatory. Yes, absolutely, we’d be happy to engage with partners like Chile and others around the world on developing various kinds of law.

I mean, what we’ve found in the United States is that it has been an ongoing process in making our laws more inclusive on many fronts, but oftentimes it gets down to the nitty-gritty of various regulations about who gets access to certain public housing or how you handle various questions around healthcare or things like that. And so there’s actually an in-depth practical process that has to be undertaken.

Once a legislature or a government decides that they are going to make the law inclusive, there’s an implementation process that has to be undertaken. And we would be happy to work with partners around the world on discussing how we’ve done that and how our Department of Justice enforces nondiscrimination provisions in our law, et cetera, to help make sure that, as much as possible, every person is treated equally under the law.

MS. JENSEN: Great. Just a quick reminder that you can follow us on Twitter using our official handle @statedept, and if you would like to continue this conversation today, you can do so by using the hashtag #Dignity4All. That’s Dignity-the number 4-All.

Our next question comes from Visar Hoti from TV TEMA in Kosovo: Kosovo society is pretty conservative, and although there are no laws forbidding homosexuality, public display of affection between same-sex couples are not accepted as normal, hence the expression or promotion of rights of the LGBT persons are not seen as proper in Kosovo, according to many international human rights watchdogs. What is your experience with conservative societies in promoting the rights of LGBT persons, and what was your approach to help them overcome these cultural barriers or taboo problems in terms of legislation upgrade, institutional capacity building, and awareness raising?

MR. BAER: Thanks very much for that multi-part question. I think that what we’ve found and what many others have found around the world who have been working within their own societies to advocate for tolerance, to advocate for treating everyone equally, is that in many, many places, it requires an ongoing and a long-term conversation. And I think one of the things that I most appreciated about Secretary Clinton’s speech last month was that it really was overall an invitation to a conversation. It was not a lecture; it was an invitation to work through a set of questions that people have.

And the invitation was put out there understanding that, for many people, this is a difficult issue to think through and work through. But it was put out there at the same time with the very clear conviction that all people are people and that being gay doesn’t make you less human and doesn’t make you less entitled to human rights. And so working through these questions is an ongoing process.

I think in terms of what can be done, there’s work to be done from the bottom up in the conversations that we each have with our friends and our associates at work or at our church or synagogue or mosque or wherever we may find ourselves. We can help build cultures of tolerance in everything that we do every day. And there is indeed work that can be done from the top down. Having public figures, whether they be political leaders or celebrities or anybody else who has access to a public platform, having them speak out and articulate a message of equality that is not about anybody being special or having special privileges but is about the fundamental commitment to treat everyone equally and that everybody is equally entitled to dignity, I think that can have a huge impact in every society on both helping others embrace that notion and also reinforcing that notion where it’s already reflected in law and culture.

MS. JENSEN: Our next question comes from Katherine Zappone: Sending great appreciation to the President and Secretary of State for their groundbreaking initiative of the USA support of rights of LGBT people throughout the world. Does this represent or reflect any changes in U.S. domestic policy re rights of LGBT people, and will we be able to exchange models of good practice between countries and with the USA as part of this initiative?

MR. BAER: I think that it has developed alongside on a parallel track with a series of changes that have happened domestically, most notably perhaps with the repeal of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell legislation, which happened a little over a year ago, which was the legislation that didn’t permit LGBT soldiers from serving openly in our military. So there have been a series of changes. There have been other changes. Secretary Clinton made changes domestically to the State Department in terms of how LGBT employees are treated and how their partners are treated under our employment benefits and things like that. So there have been other changes that have happened for Americans, if you will, that have accompanied the parallel track of our engagement abroad.

And I think that in general, one of the things that we’ve tried to do in our human rights policy and recognizing that human rights is a fundamental plank of U.S. foreign policy is to embrace and acknowledge the fact that we want to lead by example and that what happens here at home reflects on our leadership in the world. And so I think there is a concerted effort across the board to be consistent in our practice and in what we advocate and the principles that we think will undergird a more stable, peaceful, and democratic world.

MS. JENSEN: Our next question comes from Shengjyl Osmani from BIRN Kosovo: What are the practices of the USA applicable to other societies towards establishing full rights and a culture of respect and acceptance for the LGBT community?

MR. BAER: I think the practices aren’t unique to – first of all, it’s great that Kosovo is so well represented today. I think the practices that are most applicable to the question of securing equality for LGBT people are not themselves unique to the question of securing equality for LGBT people. I think what we see both in the American context and in many places around the world is that – and one of the things that Secretary Clinton has made a hallmark of her administration – is that having a free and vibrant civil society, a civil society that is allowed to organize citizens around issues, that is allowed to appeal to the government to do better, that is allowed to engage with government and make recommendations about how government can better serve citizens – that that’s really crucial.

And I think if you look back at the progress that we’ve made as a country toward a more perfect union, toward a country that is more respectful of the equality of each and every citizen, I think that progress is largely attributable not – it certainly wouldn’t have been possible without the leadership of those in civil society. Obviously, Dr. King is somebody who comes to mind, and he was not a government figure, and yet he is somebody who many of us credit with having shifted the national conversation in ways that we are all still benefitting from today. And so I think if there’s one principle that we would articulate around the world – and Secretary Clinton talked about this in Krakow in July of 2010 – it’s the need to support civil society and to make sure that laws that attempt to clamp down on civil society or sham trials that try to lock up the leaders of NGOs, that those are rejected, and that people are allowed to express their views and debate them and contribute to a national conversation.

MS. JENSEN: Please note that at this time during the program, you will see our 10 in-language Twitter feeds scrolling across the bottom of your screen. If you’d like to join us, you can do so in-language or you can do it at our @StateDept, our official State Department Twitter feed.

Our next question comes from Gay Center Rome: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that gay rights are human rights. This was a brave statement which challenged the countries in the world where homosexuality is considered as a crime, as well as those, like Italy, where attempts to legislate on these matters is met by strong resistance. What is the U.S. planning to do to promote gay rights around the world?

MR. BAER: We’re – well, first of all, I would say that going back to what the Secretary said, if – your question, “What are we planning to do to promote gay rights around the world,” the first answer is that when we take that on, we define that as promoting human rights for LGBT people, the same human rights that we promote and that Democratic and Republican administrations in the United States have seen as a hallmark of our foreign policy for many, many years. And so this is not a – this is not something new in that sense. This is making sure that our approach is inclusive and that we are really focusing, because fundamental to human rights is the idea that each and every person is entitled to them by virtue of being human, that we are indeed widening our focus and making sure that we are including each and every person in that focus, including LGBT people.

In more practical terms, what we’re doing – we’re doing a range of things. We engage diplomatically with partners around the world, in both places where this is a more difficult conversation and places where we’re working with other governments who want to collaborate with us and help to secure rights for everybody around the world. So we have a range of conversations ongoing with other governments at the government-to-government level. We have been very supportive of South Africa’s leadership, particularly in the Human Rights Council, where a resolution was passed last June that the South Africans led on, and was co-sponsored by many others from all regions of the world that condemned violence against LGBT people. So we’ve been working in the UN fora to support that.

And then we’ve been working a lot on the ground, and I think one of the kind of theories of change that we ascribe to is the idea that progress on human rights generally is made from within, and the best thing that we can do often, as a government, is to really focus on supporting those who are making the case for change within their own societies. And sometimes that means shining a spotlight on their work because they can benefit from that, both in terms of getting their message out and also in keeping safe. Sometimes that means just having conversations with them or convening groups at our embassies or going out to meet with them and hear about the challenges that they’re facing so that we can link them up to others who may be able to help. And in many places, we also provide grants that provide technical assistance, that help train people on advocacy, et cetera.

One of the things that I’ve found – and I try to meet with LGBT NGOs around the world when I travel – one of the things that I’ve found is many times, if there are LGBT NGOs that are working on these issues, they are isolated from other human rights NGOs, even in their country. And so one of the things that we’ve been focusing on is: How can we help these well-intentioned human rights defenders who are working on human rights for LGBT people? What kind of training do they need? Do they need help learning how to run an organization? Do they need help learning how to put together a media campaign? Do they need help learning how to document abuses so that they can base their advocacy on factual records?

And so we’re working very hard, and all of our embassies have been instructed to and are doing a great job of following up in local contexts to make sure that we’re in touch with those who are working on advancing human rights for everyone within their own communities.

MS. JENSEN: Our next question comes from a watch party in Suriname: Why are LGBT rights a priority for the U.S. Government?

MR. BAER: I think the answer to that is simply that human rights are a priority for the U.S. Government. When President Obama gave the Nobel lecture after he won the Nobel Prize, he talked about the fact that the only lasting peace would be a peace that was based on the inherent dignity of every person. And I think that one of the things that this Administration has recognized is that in many places around the world, as in our own past and present, LGBT people are often left out, pushed aside. They don’t have access to social services. Sometimes they are thrown in jail, sometimes they are even killed for who they are. And that if we believe that human rights apply to everyone and that human – that a world that respects human rights is more likely to be safe, prosperous, and good for all of us, then it stands to reason that we should be committed to human rights for everyone.

And because in many places, LGBT people, like other minority groups, other vulnerable groups, are left out and pushed aside, it makes sense to focus concerted effort on making sure that our human rights policy and that human rights protections around the world include everyone.

MS. JENSEN: Our next question comes from Stefano Bolognini: Today, Mrs. Elsa Fornero, Italian minister of welfare and equal opportunities, declared her full commitment to the fight against any discrimination of homosexual and transgender people. In your opinion, and also considering the action of your government on this issue, which steps should be taken by a democratic nation against this kind of discrimination? And as regards to the American Administration, what are the initiatives that you will undertake within the United Nations in order to achieve a full decriminalization of homosexuality throughout the world?

MR. BAER: I haven’t yet seen the minister’s comments, but I think one answer to your question about what can be done is obviously to have ministers make those kinds of public commitments. I think it has a great impact on all of those. Obviously, certainly, when Secretary Clinton says something, I’m listening, and I take that as a signal toward what I should do. So I believe that in other governments as well, when the

the minister talks the people below the minister listen and it changes the way they do their business. And so I think having the minister speak out is a great step. I think there are a range of tools, and oftentimes there are domestic institutions that allow for review, whether that’s through the courts or through nation human rights commissions or through consultations with judicial experts, et cetera.

I think there are a range of ways to review the current domestic law and regulations and to identify areas that may need to be revised. And so I think once there is commitment and political will behind a particular change in policy, then the question becomes largely a practical one of how do you go about implementing it. And the U.S. experience has been one way, and there are many others to draw from.

So in respect to your question about the UN, as I said, we’ve really been very supportive of South Africa’s leadership on this issue at the Human Rights Council and we intend to continue to support South Africa and their leadership. There will be a panel discussion at the Human Rights Council on March 7^th during the March session, where human rights of LGBT people will be discussed. So that’s the next upcoming event, and we’re looking forward to that. We think that that will be another chance to have a conversation.

There was a report that was issued recently in December by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights which talked about various international legal instruments, parts of international human rights law, and how they apply to LGBT people. So that’s another place where it hasn’t been because we’ve been directly involved but it’s another part of the UN that has been engaged on these issues. And as I said, we continue to be interested in working with our partners around the world. We’re certainly not the only ones who are interested in this, and we continue to look to work with them not only bilaterally but also in the context of the UN as well.

MS. JENSEN: Our next question comes from Sergey Ilupin from Russia, a blogger and LGBT activist: Russian law does not recognize LGBT as a social group and does not contain the term homophobia. It is impossible to prove the homophobic reasons of dismissal, beating, or murder of LGBT people. Moreover, the law prohibiting propaganda of homosexualism has recently been passed in a few regions of Russia. In fact, this law aims to paralyze the activity of LGBT rights organizations. What steps are you planning to take to help us overcome this situation?

MR. BAER: The situation in Russia is obviously very difficult, and we are well aware of that. To – I think the first step is there are many places where LGBT is not called out as a particular vulnerable group that needs protection, and in those cases – and indeed, in the U.S. hate crimes law has been a recent innovation and in the last few years. And so I think where there isn’t specific protection in the law, you have to rely on the general protections that apply to everyone. Now, I understand that in various contexts even those protections are not firm enough supports and that they are unevenly applied and often discriminatorily applied. And that is a real challenge. I think as much as possible, appealing to general protections of freedom of expression or freedom of association is obviously the legal route that is available.

Now, you also raise the worrying trend, which we’ve seen not only in Russia but in other places around the world, of trying to limit speech as a way of trying to curtail various forms of citizen participation in government or citizen activism. And I think one of the things that really needs to be highlighted about these kinds of laws, the laws that say you can’t talk about homosexuality, is that they’re not just a limitation of speech for LGBT people, they’re a limitation of speech for all Russians or all people, all citizens of whatever states in which they might be – or municipalities in which they might be considered. And so they are a violation of international standards of freedom of expression, and we should argue against them not because we’re seeking to protect one particular community but because we’re seeking to protect that standard of freedom of expression for everyone.

In terms of the specific instances that you raise, I think we’ve been very clear in our disagreement with that kind of legislation, and we will continue to urge that such legislation is not a way forward that is consistent with international human rights obligations and that it’s unlikely to solve any problems that it may be identified as solving.

MS. JENSEN: Our next question comes from Julian Neaves : Will there be any penalties for countries that refuse to adopt anti-discriminatory policies?

MR. BAER: The Secretary’s speech really laid out what we see as an affirmative policy. Really, it was a commitment to engage in a conversation with partners and with those who have much more progress to make around the world on making sure that rights are secured for everyone. So it was not intended to be a message about penalties or demerits or detractions. It was intended to be an affirmative message about the value that we can all derive out of seeing that everyone is protected. So that’s really the aim of our policy right now, and that’s the aim of our assistance to the extent that we’re investing in grants for NGOs, et cetera.

What we’re trying to do is help make sure that when we invest in civil society abroad that we’re making sure that we’re investing in civil society across the board, including civil society that advocates on behalf of vulnerable groups like LGBT people. So this isn’t – this wasn’t meant to be a threatening message. It was an invitation to a conversation and to an opportunity to make progress in all societies, including our own.

MS. JENSEN: Our next question comes from Embassy Warsaw: We know that the U.S. Secretary of State monitors human rights situations across the globe. What is the mechanism of reacting for cases of violation of LGBT rights by other countries? In other words, how is the U.S. Government going to react in the case of violation of LGBT right across the world?

MR. BAER: That’s a good question about the – kind of how we operationalize the policy, and it’s one of the things that we’ve been working on internally. But I would say that the Secretary, over a year ago, sent out a message to all of our ambassadors around the world asking them to engage on human rights for LGBT people as part of our comprehensive human rights policy. And obviously we rely on – in all aspects of our foreign policy, we rely on our embassies around the world to really give us a heads up when things are happening and to let us know what their assessment is of facts on the ground and how we might be – how, if at all, we might be most effective in reaching out to the government or making any kind of public comment or reaching out to help an activist who may in trouble, those kinds of things.

And I’ve been really thrilled in the last few years to see how embassies are, around the world, are taking seriously this work. We’ve always had a great relationship with embassies in terms of their feeding back into Washington cases of concern about activists who get in trouble for speaking out or for advocating for women’s rights or for taking on a corrupt judiciary or things like that. And so that has continued, and we’ve seen that embassies have, in many cases, raised cases of LGBT people who get in trouble or raise cases of laws that are being contemplated that we ought to be aware of and that we ought to be considering how we can make the case that those laws are not necessary and would be counterproductive. So we really rely on our embassies a lot for the hard work that they do every day. There’s a human rights officer in every embassy around the world who makes it their primary responsibility to follow these issues, and we have a great partnership with them back here in Washington.

MS. JENSEN: Our next question comes from Embassy Kyiv in the Ukraine: LGBT individuals in Ukraine have no protection against being fired if their sexual orientation or gender identity is discovered. Has the U.S. considered working with American chambers of commerce, the Foreign Commercial Service, or economic sections in embassies to encourage U.S. firms working abroad or international firms in any country to adopt LGBT-friendly human relations policies?

MR. BAER: You’ve hit on something that we are in conversations right now about how best to engage the private sector. It’s something that a lot of people have raised that the private sector really has an opportunity to play a role here, and how should we talk to them about that. One of the reasons that people bring this up, of course, is that in the American context, it’s a little-known fact, but in the U.S. there is no federal legislation protecting – right now protecting LGBT people against discriminatory firing and employment. However, the American private sector has really led the way. And so I believe – I don’t know what the exact proportion is, but it’s the vast, vast majority of Fortune 500 companies have as a matter of corporate policy nondiscrimination policies that include LGBT people.

And the private sector has led the way on this, because it makes sense for business that you don’t want to lose out on any talent for a silly reason. And so they’ve made their own choices, and I think that there certainly is an opportunity. It’s probably the case that that principle applies in other places around the world as well, and so there’s certainly an opportunity for the private sector to lead in other places around the world as well. And that’s a conversation that I’ve started to have with a few friends in the private sector who have raised it with me, but we’ll be continuing to talk to friends, including in the chambers of commerce, et cetera, about what the opportunities are.

MS. JENSEN: We have another question from Suriname: What would you say to the people who claim that LGBT rights is a Western product with its promotion of a form of imperialism?

MR. BAER: I think I would refer back to what the Secretary said in her speech. There has long been a myth that being LGBT is a Western phenomenon and that therefore the commitment to protect LGBT people is a peculiarly Western thing. I think that demeans non-Western societies. Non-Western societies have commitments to human rights just like Western ones and have concepts of universalism just like Western ones, and I don’t see their commitments as any less valuable or real when compared to Western societies.

And so the commitment to human rights is a commitment to human rights for everyone. And I think that as a matter of history it’s interesting, because one of the things that I hear when I talk to folks often – I travel often in Africa, and one of the things I hear there is to say that protecting LGBT rights is – the human rights for LGBT people is a Western thing is actually a complete inversion, because, in most cases, the provisions and law that are discriminatory or that criminalize LGBT conduct or status are legacies of imperialism. They were left by Western governments and are still in place.

And so I don’t think the right way to approach this is that it applies to one region of the world. It applies to all regions of the world. Neither – it’s important to note – neither are the problems that LGBT people face solely non-Western phenomenon. There are problems that LGBT people face in my country and all over the countries in Europe. There are still hate crimes in the United States. There is still discrimination in the United States. This is something that we all can work on and that there’re improvements to be made in every country around the world. So it’s not a Western thing; it’s a universal thing. And being gay isn’t a Western thing; it’s a human thing.

MS. JENSEN: The next question comes from Matthew Jenkin: When the U.S. is still very much divided on gay rights issues such as marriage; does that lessen the impact of America’s pressure on other countries to establish LGBT equal rights?

MR. BAER: As I said earlier, I think that we have a general commitment in our approach to foreign policy to lead by example. And so obviously, domestic policy has implications in how we are understood internationally. And it’s well understood that we have an ongoing conversation domestically about the question of marriage; however, I think that even for those who don’t recognize a difference in kind in the question of marriage or the question of decriminalization, I think that you can recognize a difference in degree between the question of marriage and whether or not somebody should be killed or thrown in prison for who they are.

And so I think that we’ve found that the conversation about the fact that nobody should be killed or beaten or abused for who they are or who they love, that’s conversation that we can have with many, many partners around the world, and including in places where some people are surprised that the reception is collaborative and productive. So I think that’s something that everyone can agree on and that we’ll continue to expect that other conversations will continue not only in the United States but also in other places around the world.

MS. JENSEN: Rob Salerno wants to know: It’s been well known that the U.S-based evangelical organizations have been supporting efforts at criminalizing homosexuality in many countries, notably Uganda. Does the U.S bear any responsibility for these actions? And if so, how can the U.S. prevent American organizations from undermining LGBT rights abroad?

MR. BAER: We wouldn’t – we don’t seek to limit the activities of civil society or religious groups domestically or internationally, and there are many, many American groups that do enormously good work around the world. I know that there are reports of a number of organizations that have been advocating for laws that have, as their ultimate effect, a limitation on the human rights not only of LGBT people but of other people. Because many times these laws cast a very wide net, and obviously it’s very important to understand the context in which you’re working in order to be able to know what kinds of effects your actions will take.

One of the things that – as I’ve talked with the religious community here, one of the things that I’ve been asked to do and that I’ve tried to do domestically is to engage in a conversation about how religious organizations that are doing work abroad can best understand the context in which they’re working and what the implications or the effects of their work might be. I spoke at conference at the Union Theological Seminary in New York in October and talked about the challenge of reconciling religious beliefs that hold that homosexuality is a sin with the commitment that each person is entitled to dignity and should be free from violence or being thrown in prison for who they are.

And I think that’s a – it’s a serious conversation, and we shouldn’t shy away from it. And there are religious people who are willing to have that conversation, and we should engage in that conversation and really identify the way forward that allows us to do justice to both. And one of the things that Secretary Clinton said in her speech, which I deeply believe, is that for many of us religious beliefs are a great source of meaning, they help us understand the world around us, and they help us – they give meaning to our daily life. And at the same time, for many of us, the person who we choose to make a life with and who we love is also a great source of meaning and gives us a way to understand the world around us. So the ultimate effect of both of those things can be something that is enlarging, and we want to make sure that we are protecting the space for each individual to pursue not only his or her religious beliefs but also to be able to live a life of dignity.

MS. JENSEN: We have time for one more question, and it comes from Claudia Calleja from the Times of Malta: Two lesbian teenage girls were recently beaten up in Malta because of their sexual orientation. Various organizations called for better legal protection for LGBT people. What measures should governments take to protect LGBT people from such attacks?

MR. BAER: Well, I think the focus on better legal protection is a good one. I think one of the things that we see around world is that when crimes or abuses go unpunished or uninvestigated they are more likely to be repeated. And so one of the things that any society can do to help combat violence or abuse against any vulnerable group is to get serious about investigating and redouble efforts to investigate and prosecute those who are responsible. And that’s something that we’ve struggled with domestically throughout the decades but that we’ve gotten increasingly better at. And we have an entire division at our Department of Justice that prosecutes cases of discrimination. We now have a federal hate crimes law, and so we can prosecute federal hate crimes. And I think really focusing on that legal aspect is important.

But of course, there’s also the broader commitment which those laws evidence, and so again, here, this is a time where it’s an opportunity for leaders to speak out and to condemn violence against anyone and to say that it shouldn’t be part of a democratic and rights respecting society and that it won’t be tolerated. And I think the opportunities for leadership – whenever somebody who is vulnerable is being pushed out, pushed down, cast aside, violated in some way, there’s an opportunity for leadership to step up and to reject that and to say that that’s not the kind of society in which we want to live. And so I think both the legal aspect and the political aspect are opportunities here.

MS. JENSEN: Well, that’s all the time we have for today. I’d like – I know that there are a lot of questions still pending in the queue, and I’d like to apologize, but we got to as many of your questions as we could in the 30 minutes we had. I’d like to thank you all for the amazing questions and I’d like to thank you for joining us today.

There will be a full audio and video clip of today’s program available shortly after the conclusion of today’s webchat. If you’d like to get the latest information from the State Department, you can do so by following us on any of our ten in-language Twitter feeds, or you can continue this conversation now on Twitter using the Twitter handle @StateDept and the hashtag #dignity4all. That’s dignity, the number 4, all. We look forward to doing this again with you in the near future. Have a great day.

# # #

Remarks to Regional Journalists on the Margins of African Union Summit

William J. Burns
Deputy Secretary

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

Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

January 30, 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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