Remarks Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu After Their Meeting

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State

Treaty Room

Washington, DC

February 13, 2012

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, good afternoon, everyone. And let me say what a great delight it is for me to welcome my friend and colleague for intensive negotiations and discussions over a range of issues that are of importance to both of us. I am always pleased to have time to meet with Minister Davutoglu because of what the United States and Turkey are working on together, the values that we share, and the commitment to a peaceful, prosperous future, not only for the Turkish and American people but for people everywhere.

I want to say a word about the bombing of an Israeli diplomatic vehicle in India, the attempted attack on Israeli Embassy personnel in Georgia. Terrorism anywhere is an affront to the international community. There are many kinds of attacks that take place around the world. We condemn all forms of terrorism and we stand ready to assist in investigations of these acts and others because of the importance we place on having a strong international front against terrorism.

I think it’s important also to look at the Turkish-American relationship, not only bilaterally but what it means regionally and globally. We stand shoulder to shoulder in so many different ways: as NATO allies in transatlantic defense and stability; as partners united against terrorism from the PKK to al-Qaida; as economic partners working for mutual prosperity through trade and investment and so much more. In the past year, we have spent a lot of time consulting because of the challenges of a fast-changing Middle East and North Africa, from Libya’s transition, to the efforts to strengthen inclusive governance in Iraq, to certainly the situation in Syria.

Syria was at the top of our list of important matters to discuss today. It is deplorable that the regime has escalated violence in cities across the country, including using artillery and tank fire against innocent civilians. We stand with the Syrian people and we are looking for a peaceful resolution. The United States and Turkey have again called on the regime to heed the Arab League’s latest efforts, as well at the international community, to end the killing immediately, withdraw military forces from residential areas, allow in monitors and journalists, release political prisoners, and begin a genuine, sincere, democratic transition that starts with a respectful serious dialogue with the opposition.

The United States strongly supports the efforts of the Arab League as set forth at the conclusion of their meeting in Cairo. And we look forward to joining the Arab League initiative for the Friends of Syria group, which will have its first meeting in Tunisia next week. Certainly, Minister Davutoglu and myself will play a very active role in trying to search for solutions. We will intensify our diplomatic pressure on the regime to end its campaign of violence. We will strengthen our targeted sanctions, bring the international community together in condemnation of the actions of the Assad regime. We will increase our outreach to opposition both inside and outside of Syria.

And particularly we will work closely with Turkey and other partners to address the growing humanitarian concerns of those who are suffering. We have heard the call of the Syrian people for help and we are committed to working to allow the entry of medical supplies, of emergency help to reach those who are wounded and dying. We are increasing our funding to organizations like the Red Crescent, the International Committee for the Red Cross, and we’re working directly with Syrian organizations at the grassroots to help families who have no electricity, food, or clean water.

And because of the process leading toward Tunisia, we will work closely with Turkey and others to promote a political process. This is essential, and the Syrian people deserve no less than a democratic future free of government oppression, terrorism, and violent extremism. Turkey, of course, is one of the leaders and has much at stake being a neighbor and a nation of conscience that understands the suffering of the Syrian people and serves as an example of an alternative to the brutal Assad regime.

We talked about so much else. We talked about Iran, where we continue to pursue a dual track that both applies sanctions to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons but also makes it clear that we are ready to sit down and discuss in a purposeful way, through diplomatic engagement, the nuclear program. I have said many times from this podium and elsewhere we recognize Iran’s right to peaceful nuclear energy, but Iran also has international responsibilities that we expect it to live up to.

We also have discussed the very strong support that Turkey is providing for the new democracies. We discussed the full range of issues on a bilateral basis that we are continuing to make a priority between us. Turkey’s successful democracy is a real example. We are continually interested in the very important work being done by the Government of Turkey on religious freedom, the return of religious property, and of course, I expressed our interest in the Halki Seminary.

I think it’s important for us to be focused on what we can do to help the emerging democracies such as Tunisia, such as Egypt, such as Libya and others, and also to stay focused on the great needs of Syria. We’ve been able to speak for hours on these issues, as we always do when we meet, because we meet not only as colleagues but as friends. And I look forward to many more constructive conversations.

FOREIGN MINISTER DAVUTOGLU: Thank you very much, Madam. It was great honor for me to be in Washington again. After Secretary Clinton’s recent visit to Istanbul in July, we agreed to meet at least twice a year in both capitals, but meanwhile we had several opportunities to meet at the margin of several international conferences. Sometimes every week we are meeting because there is a huge agenda, common agenda, in front of us, common challenges, opportunities, in our surrounding regions as well as in global scene.

Today Turkish-American relation is really a relationship of model partnership, as it has been described by President Obama. And we want to have this relation not only a security relation but also an economic relation and an economic model partnership, having huge common projects in investment and trade.

On – in NATO we are – we have several issues to be shared with the new Strategic Concept in NATO, and the approaching Chicago summit will be very important, and we’ve shared our common approach in NATO.

But of course, the main agenda was regional issues, as Secretary Clinton mentioned, and we have been talking very closely. Last week we were in Munich, in fact, together, and we went through all these files, because there is a historic turning point and transformation in the Middle East. And Turkey is in such a geography, now in the western part of Turkey there is an economic crisis, in the southern part of Turkey there is a huge political crisis. Turkey is an island of stability, economic growth, and prosperity, and we have special relations with United States and we want to have a positive contribution in resolving all these crises around us.

Now the hot issue is Syria. We discussed in details, because after the peaceful and sometimes challenging but at the end of the day successful transformations in Tunisia, in Egypt, in Morocco, Libya in North Africa, elections were held. I think it is the right of other people, like Syrian people, to have the same, the same rights, the same values, to be implemented in their countries. We support the transformations – political transformations in North Africa. We discussed in detail how to help Tunisian, Egyptian, Libyan cases, where we work together shoulder to shoulder with the regional partners as well as global partners to make this a success, because the values of these people demanded were our values: rule of law, freedom, democracy, transparency, accountability. These are the values we are defending everywhere, in Turkey and outside.

Now Syrian people demand the same thing, not more. And it is the right of the Syrian people to have a new democratic political culture and atmosphere to get benefit out of this historic transformation. That was their demand. Last year there was no violence and Syrian people demanded these. But unfortunately, Syrian regime acted violently against these demonstrations, against these peaceful demonstrations, and today we have a real humanitarian tragedy in front of us.

As Turkey, we had a three-stage strategy in this crisis. First, bilateral engagement. From January until August last year, we did everything bilateral-wise to convince Syrian regime to accept the demands of the people. When it didn’t produce results, we worked at the second stage with Arab League as a regional initiative. And Arab League we appreciate. We admire all the efforts of Arab League. And here again I want to underline we support all the decisions of Arab League. Yesterday, I spoke with secretary general of Arab League, with presidents of Arab League, Qatari Prime Minister Hamad bin Jasim and Tunisian minister of foreign affairs, and we declared our support.

But despite of all these good intention and support of the Arab League, the UN Security Council, as you know, was not able to endorse the Arab League plan because of the vetoes. When there was such a deadlock in UN, of course, as international community, as regional partners, we could not wait and see, and every day artillery shelling is continuing and there’s a huge oppression in Homs, in many cities of Syria.

Therefore my visit to – although it was not planned for this purpose, it was a much more wide-range consultation, but it was very timely. We went through the situation in Syria. First, we agreed that there should be new humanitarian initiative to reach out to people who are suffering because of the shortage of food, medicine, everywhere in Syria. And therefore, I spoke with Secretary General of United Nations yesterday, and we started, as Turkey, an initiative in Human Rights Council in Geneva in United Nations, how to make this humanitarian access possible.

Secondly, of course the political dimension. We will be together in Tunisia, and the meeting in Tunisia will be an important international platform to show solidarity with the Syrian people, and to send a strong and clear message to the Syrian regime, that they cannot continue these violent policies. Of course, we will follow closely with the United States and other partners what – how things will evolve, but we will continue to defend Syrian people in this – in their struggle.

We discussed in details on Iran, Iranian issue, especially nuclear negotiations. I was in Tehran last month. The Iranians declared their willingness to restart the negotiations. We had a close contact with Cathy Ashton, and today we shared the best way is – to start these negotiations with a strong political will and good intention and with a result-oriented process, not just meeting and another meeting after one year, the same difficulties, the same procedures. They should meet and stay there until they resolve the issue. This – if there is such a concentrated negotiation, we hope that there might be – there will be a solution. There are other issues which we share – the developments in Balkans, Caucasia, Cyprus, many other issues. It shows how our – we have common agenda and interest together with the United States. And thank you very much for your great hospitality, Hillary. Thank you.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you so much.

MS. NULAND: We have time for four today. Two on the left side, two on the other side. We’ll start with (inaudible).

QUESTION: Thank you. Madam Secretary, the Russians seems to imply that no international peace-keeping forces, or even Arab League forces, can go back to Syria without the consent of the Syrian Government. So in this regard, are you putting pressure on the Syrians – on the Russians to mediate, to change their position? And how else can you have a mechanism to allow you to realize this?

And Mr. Foreign Minister, you just talked about Iran. Regarding Iran, Turkey has mediated before. Are you willing now to mediate to bring the Iranian back to the negotiation table, since the Secretary talked about willingness to have the – both sides talking?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well first, we support the Arab League’s decisions coming out of the meeting in Cairo to try to end the violence and move toward a transition. And we look forward to working closely with them in the lead-up to the meeting in Tunisia. There are a lot of challenges to be discussed as to how to put into effect all of their recommendations. And certainly, the peacekeeping request is one that will take agreement and consensus. So we don’t know that it is going to be possible to persuade Syria. They’ve already, as of today, rejected that.

But I think this is what we’re trying to explore with the upcoming meeting in Tunisia, where we bring people together who are committed, as Turkey and the United States are, to seeing an end to the violence and a transition, and explore all of the ideas. Ultimately, it’s going to be important to convince the Assad regime that they are leading Syria into the outcome that we all deplore. We do not want to see a civil war in Syria. No one wants to see a civil war in Syria. So we have to encourage the Assad regime, and those who support it, to understand that there’s either a path toward peacemaking and democratic transition – which is what we are promoting – or there’s a path that leads toward chaos and violence, which we deplore.

FOREIGN MINISTER DAVUTOGLU: Thank you about the nuclear issue. I think Turkey is one of the countries who are losing because of this tension of the main countries, and Turkey will be one of the winning side, if there is any resolution of this issues because we have two principles here. We are against any nuclear military capacity around us in the region, or we want to have nuclear disarmament throughout all – in the globe. And – but at the same time, we don’t want any limitation to the peaceful nuclear capacity or technology.

Based on these two values, there should be a negotiation. Iran must ensure that there will be no military dimension of their nuclear technology, but at the same time, the right of having peaceful nuclear technology should be given to all nations including Iran.

Based on these values, Turkey will be contributing to all process, not as a mediator or nor as a facilitator. The name – the position is not important. We will be doing everything possible to resolve this issue. Last year, we hosted the last meeting. If there is another – I mean – request from us, we will be willing to host. We will be willing to facilitate if neither is – we willing – we are willing to mediate or do anything which will contribute to the process.

MODERATOR: Next one, Ali Aslan from daily Zaman.

QUESTION: Thank you. Turkey is a leading Muslim majority nation which has historically been part of Europe. But unfortunately, Turkey’s full membership process with the European Union is not moving much forward nowadays. Madam Secretary, are you concerned about possible implications of EU’s unwelcoming attitude towards Turkey in larger Islamic world, especially given the U.S. emphasis on constructive engagement with Muslims all over the world?

And Mr. Minister, are you optimistic Turkey will eventually be a member of EU? And what can U.S. do to further facilitate this process? For example, would you like to see more efforts on the part of U.S. towards resolution of the Cyprus conflict?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well first, as you know, we have long supported Turkey’s full membership in the EU. We don’t have a vote, but we have certainly made our views known year after year because we think it’s in both Turkey’s interest and Europe’s interest for Turkey to be a full member of the European Union. And I am one who thinks eventually that will occur, that it is something that is very much in the interests of both economic and political integration. So I don’t want anyone to get discouraged, and I don’t want anyone to walk away from it – but like with any difficult negotiations, sometimes it needs to be put on the backburner for a while, and we have enough to keep us busy right now in the region.

And there is certainly a role for the United States to play because of our long association with, and alliance with Turkey that we value greatly. We’ve been partners and allies in NATO, where Turkey’s played a very constructive role from the beginning till the recent day. So we continue to believe that it’s in everyone’s interest for Turkey to become an EU member.

FOREIGN MINISTER DAVUTOGLU: This has been the question for many years. We have been repeating the same answer. Yes, we want to be member of EU, and in spite of all the discouragements coming from EU side, we are still optimistic that one day we will be member of EU, because our membership to EU will been an asset to EU and everybody will win. EU will be geopolitically more influential, economically more dynamic, culturally more inclusive. Turkey will be much more stronger, and Turkey and EU cooperation will be a great asset for U.S., for NATO, and for – will be great asset for the global community.

And of course, we are grateful to the United States because of the support given to this membership process, but of course, United States will not decide. If they have this chance to decide, I am sure until now, we would have been member of EU. But we still expect the same support. Every year, we are having transatlantic dinner hosted by Secretary Clinton, and she is facing problem always – first, EU meeting, then another meeting. Once – one day, we will be having just one meeting. We will be uniting.

SECRETARY CLINTON: And I always host a dinner with everybody at the table. (Laughter.)

FOREIGN MINISTER DAVUTOGLU: Yes, that’s --

SECRETARY CLINTON: It’s my eating diplomacy. I figure you eat together enough times, you work through all the problems.

FOREIGN MINISTER DAVUTOGLU: But this is her success, not insufficient success, because of her personal commitment. Thank you very much.

MODERATOR: Next one, Josh Rogan, Foreign Policy.

QUESTION: Thank you very much. Mr. Foreign Minister, it’s been reported that you brought a list of contingency options for Syria with you in hand to discuss with Secretary Clinton and Secretary Panetta. I’m wondering, did that list include providing buffer zones or safe havens inside Syria? And would Turkey be willing to contribute troops to such a mission?

And for Secretary Clinton, you just mentioned that a peacekeeping force in Syria would require the consensus of the Syrian regime. In the event that the Syrian regime does not concede to having foreign troops on their soil, what types of other assistance are – can be provided without their consent? Medical assistance, humanitarian assistance, communications, intelligence, et cetera? Thank you.

FOREIGN MINISTER DAVUTOGLU: Of course, as decision makers, politicians, we have to think all the options and scenarios. Some scenarios could be not opted for, but unfortunately in Syria today, there is such a situation we are alarming and we are all worried about. But today, the agenda in our consultations and also in Tunisian meeting will be a political solution, diplomatic solution, and humanitarian access as early as possible. Even at this moment, should be possible.

About other contingency plan, we hope that we will not need – there will be no scenarios for these plans. But if one day something happens, of course our basic reference is, as a neighbor, is the humanitarian – to include humanitarian situation and to protect civilians because they are not, I mean, far away. There are millions of people living in Turkey being relative of Syrian people. We cannot be silent when these humanitarian tragedies continuing. At this moment, we are talking on diplomatic and humanitarian steps to be taken, but for other scenarios we hope that those things will not be needed. But we need to think about contingencies as well.

SECRETARY CLINTON: I think that the minister has summed it up well.

MS. NULAND: Last one. (Inaudible.)

QUESTION: Thank you. Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki has harshly criticized and warned Turkey, claiming the Turkish Government interferes with internal affairs with – of his country. Ankara also responded to Baghdad.

Madam Secretary, are you concerned about the state of Iraqi-Turkey relations and do you think Iraq would be better off if it distances itself from Turkey? And what would be the possible implications for the United States?

Mr. Minister, what is Turkey’s vision about the future of Iraq? Are you concerned about an intensified sectarian conflict which might lead to a possible partition? Thank you.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we are concerned about the political situation inside Iraq, because it’s important that the Iraqi Government be an inclusive one in which all Iraqis believe that they have a stake in the future of a united Iraq. And the foreign minister and I had a good discussion about Iraq and how we can work together to strengthen their democracy, help to settle political differences between various factions. We both have a very strong interest in a unified Iraq that is developing its democracy, providing services for its people, regardless of who they are or where they live.

So we were encouraged by the return of the Iraqiya bloc to the Council of Representatives. We are supporting President Talabani’s efforts to mediate among the different factions, to move toward a national conference that would focus on achieving a political solution that would represent the interests of all Iraqis in accordance with Iraqi law and the Iraqi constitution, because the Iraqi constitution calls for power sharing. It recognizes that there are different constituencies within Iraq, and we strongly support the efforts to try to reaffirm that commitment and then to build a stronger base for Iraqi governance and democracy going forward.

We encourage Turkey to continue to play an important role in trying to reach out to Baghdad, to many different personalities within the political system, and we’ve encouraged other nations in the region to do the same. We think Turkey’s played a very constructive role. But we share the concern about the need to demonstrate unequivocally a commitment to an inclusive Iraqi Government that represents all Iraqis.

FOREIGN MINISTER DAVUTOGLU: I think Iraq is the backbone of the stability in our region. If there is no stability in Iraq, there cannot be stability in our region. We have been always saying Iraq is like a small Middle East. We have all sectarian, ethnic communities, religious communities in the Middle East we have in Iraq.

And as Turkey, for us the stability of Iraq is so important. The welfare of all Iraqis, regardless of their ethnic or sectarian background, that is the only demand of Turkey. And when we see an Iraqi, we don’t look the identity. We see all Iraqis as our eternal neighbors, brothers and sisters. Their welfare is our welfare. If they have any problem, any pain, it is us, we feel the pain. Whenever there was any terrorist attack, Iraqi Government knows first we call them and we ask them with all the facilities we are at your disposal. That will – that has been our attitude. That will be the continuation of our policy.

But as Secretary Clinton referred, Iraqi constitution necessitates power sharing. In fact, Iraq is the place where the first Arab Spring, in the sense, in that sense, started when we look at the free and fair election first occurred in Iraq, and this parliament has been formed after a free and fair election. Therefore the success of Iraqi democracy now, the efficient work of Iraqi Government, is so important for all of us. Whenever we say something to Iraq, it is not for any intention of intervention, but it is an intention to help, that Turkey will be siding with Iraq for the success of the Iraqi democracy. And it is a test now for all Iraqis, for all neighbors. If there is a successful Iraqi democracy, that will be a good model for other countries as well.

How can we make such a success? It is – the only success is a common commitment of all groups, all parties, for the nation of unity, nation of sovereignty, integrity of Iraq, and working together, sharing power, and preparing Iraqi people for the future. Iraqi people suffered a lot in last three decades because of Iran-Iraqi war, because of Gulf War, et cetera. Now it is time for happiness, for prosperity in Iraq, and Turkey will be always contributing to the prosperity and happiness of Iraqi people.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you all very much.

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.

Russia: Tax Evasion Case Against Sergei Magnitskiy (Taken Question)

Office of the Spokesperson

Washington, DC

Question Taken at the FEBRUARY 9, 2012 Daily Press Briefing

February 9, 2012

QUESTION: What is the State Department’s response to reported plans by Russian police to resubmit for trial a criminal tax evasion case against Sergei Magnitskiy?

ANSWER: Pursuing criminal charges against Sergei Magnitskiy serves no purpose other than to deflect attention away from the circumstances surrounding this tragic case.

We continue to call for Russian authorities to bring those responsible for Mr. Magnitskiy’s death to justice.

Remarks With Italian Foreign Minister Giulio Terzi di Sant'Agata Before Their Meeting

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State

Treaty Room

Washington, DC

February 9, 2012

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, good afternoon. And we are delighted to be welcoming the prime minister to the White House this afternoon for his meetings with President Obama and the foreign minister, who is well known in Washington, here to the State Department in his new capacity.

The United States and Italy have such a strong friendship and alliance, and we are working on a full range of important issues from our common efforts in Afghanistan to our concerns over Syria to, of course, the economic issues that will be the topic of the conversation with the President.

But I want to underscore how confident we are in Italy, in Italy’s future, in the extraordinary commitment that Prime Minister Monti and his government are bringing to the challenges confronting the Italian people, and in the Italian people themselves. So it is with great personal pleasure that I welcome you back, Minister.

FOREIGN MINISTER TERZI: Thank you very much, Secretary. It’s a great pleasure. It’s an honor to be seen here at State Department. And I believe that we are going to have a very interesting conversation about political issues, which are a common concern to both our countries and where we are involved.

You know, Madam Secretary, that we are particularly engaged in Mediterranean issues, especially developments in the societies which are leaning towards, we hope, democratic institutions and which are reaffirming the sense of the Arab Spring, but we are also concerned about developments in Syria and Iran. And that is something where we should have a common purpose and a common understanding on how to proceed. So I thank you very much.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I look forward to our conversation.

FOREIGN MINISTER TERZI: Thank you.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you all very much.

Bilateral Consultative Commission: Agreement Number 1 On Procedures for Conducting Demonstrations of Recording Media and/or Telemetric Information Playback Equipment

Bureau of Arms Control, Verification and Compliance

February 7, 2012

Geneva, Switzerland
February 7, 2012

The Delegation of the United States of America to the Bilateral Consultative Commission and the Delegation of the Russian Federation to the Bilateral Consultative Commission.

Acting in accordance with the Treaty between the United States of America and the Russian Federation on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms of April 8, 2010, hereinafter referred to as the Treaty,

Taking into consideration that the Parties have conducted the initial demonstrations, required by the Treaty, of recording media and telemetric information playback equipment,

Have agreed as follows:

The Parties shall conduct subsequent demonstrations, in accordance with the Treaty, of recording media and/or telemetric information playback equipment using the following procedures:

1. During the demonstration the providing Party shall:

(a) describe its telemetric signal conversion processes (from reception to recording) associated with the recording medium and telemetric information playback equipment to be demonstrated, or provide data on telemetry systems that enable the conversion of telemetric information contained on the recording medium to the form (format) that originates on board the missile before broadcast;

(b) demonstrate each type of recording medium to be provided to the receiving Party in accordance with subparagraph 6(a) of Part Two of the Annex on Telemetric Information to the Protocol to the Treaty, hereinafter referred to as the Annex on Telemetric Information. Each such recording medium that is being demonstrated shall contain a recording of the following examples of telemetric information:

(i) actual telemetric information that was broadcast during the launch of an ICBM or SLBM; or

(ii) information with characteristic features of telemetric information that is broadcast during the launch of an ICBM or SLBM. 

In this connection, the recording contained on the recording medium that is being demonstrated must be suitable for demonstrating the playback of the telemetric information on the appropriate telemetric information playback equipment;

(c) describe each type of recording medium that is being demonstrated, as well as describe the recording methods and formats that are used for each type of recording medium;

(d) demonstrate all the telemetric information playback equipment in a manner that allows the receiving Party to observe a display or indicator that demonstrates that the telemetric information playback equipment is operating properly. Such telemetric information playback equipment shall be demonstrated in operation using all the types of recording media that are being demonstrated in accordance with subparagraph (b) of this paragraph;

(e) answer questions of the receiving Party pertaining to its ability to play back telemetric information recorded on the demonstrated recording media;

(f) for the examples of telemetric information recorded on the recording media that are being demonstrated, provide corresponding illustrative examples of summaries of each of the demonstrated recording media that meet the requirements of paragraph 2 of Part Three of the Annex on Telemetric Information, and corresponding illustrative examples of interpretive data for the telemetric information that meet the requirements of paragraph 5 of Part Three of the Annex on Telemetric Information.

2. Upon completion of the demonstration, the providing Party shall provide to the receiving Party all the demonstrated recording media with the examples of telemetric information recorded on them, examples of summaries of each of the demonstrated recording media and examples of interpretive data for the telemetric information on the recording media, as well as other information that is additionally provided in order to achieve the objectives of the demonstration.

3. The Demonstration must be sufficient for the receiving Party to be able to get an idea of the full set of telemetric information playback equipment, as well as the technical requirements necessary for playing back the examples of telemetric information recorded on the demonstrated recording media.

4. During the demonstration the procedures for playing back telemetric information shall be demonstrated. The providing Party shall provide a description of those types of modulation, methods, modes, and recording formats, as well as methods for encoding telemetric information contained on recording media that allow the receiving Party to convert the telemetric information contained on the recording medium to the form (format) that originates on board the missile before broadcast.

5. Ambiguities and unresolved questions in connection with the demonstration shall be considered within the framework of the Bilateral Consultative Commission.

6. The provisions of paragraphs 2-6 of Part Six of the Annex on Telemetric Information, which are applicable to the trainee team members, shall also apply to representatives of the receiving Party participating in demonstrations.

7. This Agreement shall enter into force as of the date of signature and shall remain in force so long as the Treaty remains in force.

Done at Geneva on February 7, 2012, in two originals, each in the English and Russian languages, both texts being equally authentic.

Commissioner of the United States of America to the Bilateral Consultative Commission   John M. Ordway

Commissioner of the Russian Federation to the Bilateral Consultative Commission   Vladimir L. Leontyev

Bilateral Consultative Commission: Decision on the Number of Launches of ICBMs and SLBMs Conducted in 2011, on Which an Exchange of Telemetric Information Will Be Carried Out in 2012

Bureau of Arms Control, Verification and Compliance

February 7, 2012

Geneva, Switzerland
February 7, 2012

In accordance with paragraph 2 of Part Seven of the Protocol to the Treaty between the United States of America and the Russian Federation on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms of April 8, 2010, the Delegation of the United States of America to the Bilateral Consultative Commission and the Delegation of the Russian Federation to the Bilateral Consultative Commission decided that the Parties would exchange, in 2012, telemetric information on one launch of an ICBM or SLBM conducted by each Party during the period from February 5, 2011, to December 31, 2011.

Commissioner of the United States of America to the Bilateral Consultative Commission   John M. Ordway

Commissioner of the Russian Federation to the Bilateral Consultative Commission   Vladimir L. Leontyev

Bilateral Consultative Commission: Agreement Number 2 On the Amount of Telemetric Information on ICBM and SLBM Launches That Each Party Shall Provide

Bureau of Arms Control, Verification and Compliance

February 7, 2012

Geneva, Switzerland
February 7, 2012

The Delegation of the United States of America to the Bilateral Consultative Commission and the Delegation of the Russian Federation to the Bilateral Consultative Commission.

Acting in accordance with the Treaty between the United States of America and the Russian Federation on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms of April 8, 2010, hereinafter referred to as the Treaty,

Have agreed as follows:

1. For each launch of an ICBM or SLBM for which telemetric information is provided in accordance with Article IX of the Treaty, Part Seven of the Protocol to the Treaty, and the Annex on Telemetric Information to the Protocol to the Treaty, the Party conducting the launch shall provide telemetric information to the other Party beginning from the time of ignition of the first stage motor of the ICBM or SLBM, until:

(a) the end of issuance of the command for separation of the self-contained dispensing mechanism from the final stage of the ICBM or SLBM; or;

(b) the end of issuance of the command for separation of the first of the other objects installed on the ICBM or SLBM for the purpose of being delivered into the upper atmosphere or space, from the final stage of the ICBM or SLBM; or

(c) the expiration of one second after loss of active control of the missile’s control system (when the active stage of the missile does not respond to control signals), if such loss occurred prior to separation of the self-contained dispensing mechanism or the first of the other objects installed on the ICBM or SLBM for the purpose of being delivered into the upper atmosphere or space, from the final stage of the ICBM or SLBM, or until the moment of loss of the telemetric signal coincident with such loss of active control, whichever occurred earlier.

2. Each Party shall provide, in the interpretive data for the telemetric information, names of data elements and their location in the telemetry frame, as well as descriptions necessary to identify the command for separation of the self-contained dispensing mechanism or the first of the other objects installed on the ICBM or SLBM for the purpose of being delivered into the upper atmosphere or space, from the final stage of the ICBM or SLBM.

3. This Agreement shall enter into force as of the date of signature and shall remain in force so long as the Treaty remains in force.

Done at Geneva on February 7, 2012, in two originals, each in the English and Russian languages, both texts being equally authentic.

Commissioner of the United States of America to the Bilateral Consultative Commission   John M. Ordway

Commissioner of the Russian Federation to the Bilateral Consultative Commission   Vladimir L. Leontyev

Interview With Vitaliy Haidukevich of TVi Television

Philip H. Gordon
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs

Kyiv, Ukraine

February 6, 2012

QUESTION: [Through Interpreter]. Going back to what former U.S. Ambassador Steven Pifer said about the idea of a blacklist of Ukrainian officials, under what conditions would Washington be ready to start freezing assets of businessmen close to the current administration and blacklisting Ukrainian senior officials from traveling to the Western countries, the United States – or is such scenario impossible in principle?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GORDON: Let me tell you how we’re dealing with this set of challenges. We prefer direct engagement. If we have an issue to discuss with our friends in Ukraine we will bring it up very directly and clearly with the top leadership and we’ll talk about it publicly as well. So on this question of the Tymoshenko case, Secretary Clinton – when she met with President Yanukovych – raised it. She told him it was creating a real problem with the perception out there in the international community of selected prosecution, and that it would be an impediment to the sort of relationship we would like to build. So we’re for engagement and clarity in these relationships.

I know Ambassador Pifer and others have talked about things like sanctions and visa bans. We can be clear about that as well. It is the policy of the United States to deny visas to those who are guilty of grave violations of human rights or who have been responsible for measures like arbitrary detentions.

As you know, in the case of Sergei Magnitsky in Russia - that’s the context in which this often gets discussed - we have said there are people who will not be given a visa to the United States. But these are really two separate issues. That’s not what we’re talking about in Ukraine. We are having a very frank conversation with our Ukrainian interlocutors and we’ve said, as I said both privately and publicly, that there’s a real problem here and to fulfill our relationship we hope that Ukraine is able to deal with that problem.

QUESTION: [Through Interpreter]. What you are trying to appeal to, is to the statesman-hood perception, what is the state officials supposed to do? Your argument that when Ukraine will become more democratic there will be, in the long term, greater economic success for Ukraine. But doesn’t Washington understand, don’t you figure it out - the people who are running the country, they are pursuing their own private agenda? Big business, hit and run, earn more money, invest it. They are not basing their policy on statesman-hood.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GORDON: What is clear is that the country as a whole will only develop when it creates a climate that is attractive to foreign investment and foreign trade. And I think we are vastly under-performing and Ukraine is vastly under-performing in that regard.

The link between the democracy discussion and the economic discussion is: I think the Ukrainian people want a government that’s going to be responsive to the needs of the entire country and not themselves. So by insisting on free and fair elections and transparent democracy, you give the people a chance to put in office those who will serve the country as a whole. If they don’t, then the people have the right to remove them from power. That’s what a democracy is. In the long run, that’s the way to ensure that leaders are accountable to their people, are transparent, are not corrupt, is to have a functioning democracy. Without a functioning democracy you can have all sorts of things happen by the government with no accountability. That’s why if leaders are seen to be serving their own needs or enriching themselves and not the people, the people deserve the right to choose different leaders.

QUESTION: [Through Interpreter]. Is there an understanding in the West - because there is a concern internally here - that with the very categorical stand of the West, European Union, that Ukraine should follow certain procedures, certain requirements, that Kyiv will slip into the Moscow orbit? And don’t you realize that a reincarnation that may occur that Putin will get his geopolitical victory here and Ukraine will be totally under Russian influence? It will be a kind of Russia-lite here, and it will be lost.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GORDON: We don’t want to see Ukraine lose its independence and we don’t want to see Ukraine totally in the Russian orbit, as you describe. But we don’t think Ukraine wants to lose its independence or to be in anybody’s orbit. We want - first of all, we have said we want a stronger relationship with Ukraine, we want it to orient towards Euro-Atlantic institutions, the United States and European Union. We don’t believe that necessitates a bad relationship with Russia. We don’t see our own relationship with Russia in zero sum terms. It’s not a competition for Ukraine.

So we’re not asking Ukraine to reject Russia, but we also don’t want to see Ukraine be overly dependent on Russia. We’re trying to offer Ukraine diversity in its relationships and its economic, geopolitical orientations. Our whole attitude and approach towards European security is to get beyond this notion of zero sum relationships. But at the same time I think Ukrainians shouldn’t misunderstand. We are not so motivated by the specter of a Ukraine under Russian influence that we will sacrifice our own values and principles in dealing with Ukraine. That’s why when we say we need to see certain things happen in Ukraine before that relationship develops, that’s actually the reality. If the result of that - if Ukraine isn’t, for example, able to move forward with its relationship with the European Union and it’s more dependent on Russia, that’s unfortunate from our point of view, but it’s even more unfortunate for Ukraine.

QUESTION: [Through Interpreter]. Imagine the situation that the majority of the Ukrainian public is for a democratic orientation, which by default is pro-West, and a narrow circle of power brokers in Ukraine are orienting toward Russia. Is Washington ready to fight for Ukraine, that it remains oriented toward democratic societies? Or you will give up on Ukraine and then Ukraine will appear in the club of failed states?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GORDON: Washington, the United States, we’re willing, interested, determined to vigorously support democracy in Ukraine. We think the Ukrainian people want to have free and open democratic institutions, they want to have a prospering market economy, they want a relationship with the European Union and ultimately join it, and they want to have positive relations with the United States. And that’s why we stand for free and transparent democracy in Ukraine because if the Ukrainian people have a say we think that’s going to be the outcome.

Frankly, that’s why I’m here. That’s why Secretary Clinton is engaged on issues. We want Ukrainians to know that we want to develop this relationship and it is in their hands and that’s why we will continue to press vigorously for a fair democracy to develop in this country, because ultimately I think Ukrainians will be better off and we’ll all be better off if that orientation continues.

QUESTION: [Through Interpreter]. The U.S. has a huge influence on the IMF: geopolitically, economically as a contributor. Can’t there be made a connection, in addition to the economic requirements that Ukraine should meet to get another IMF tranche, a requirement that Ukraine abides by democratic requirements? Free and fair elections, free and fair democratic system is in place, will be made a requirement for Ukraine to get another tranche. That the economic requirements are intertwined with these democratic institution requirements?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GORDON: I think inevitably they are. The willingness of the international community in its different forms to support Ukraine does depend on democracy developments as well as economic ones.

Typically the IMF will focus in on more narrow criteria that are solely in the economic area, as is appropriate. Those conditions are hard enough to meet. But I do think that in reality if a country is seen to be violating its democratic obligations, it becomes more difficult for international institutions to support them, especially in this climate where there’s a lot of pressure on funding and a lot of countries that need support. So even when democracy is not an explicit criterion from the IMF, I think it is fair to say that the international community will be less enthusiastic about supporting a country if it’s not upholding its democratic obligations as well. And certainly those countries outside of the international institutions will do so. The most important example as we speak is the European Union which will have a very explicit democracy criteria for what it has to offer a country like Ukraine and others as well.

QUESTION: [Through Interpreter]. We know you met during your brief visit with representatives of the government. Are there any meetings with the opposition planned, and who, and what kind of message are you going to deliver to the opposition representatives?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GORDON: I said earlier that our messages in private and public are the same, and they will be the same. I’ve been very frank in private and in public about what we think on energy, democracy, the IMF, Tymoshenko and I will say the same thing. So the short answer is yes, I will meet with civil society representatives. I will later today meet with civil society representatives and members of the opposition just as I met with members of the government and my message to them will be consistent with everything I’ve said in private and public so far in Kyiv.

QUESTION: Thank you.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GORDON: Thank you.

Press Roundtable on U.S.-Ukraine Issues

Philip H. Gordon
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs

Kyiv, Ukraine

February 6, 2012

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GORDON: Hello, everybody. Thanks for coming. Apologies for keeping you waiting. I’ve just come from a long series of meetings. I saw Mr. Lyovochkin this morning, I saw the Prime Minister, and I saw Deputy Foreign Minister Klimkin.

I’m here in Ukraine to talk to counterparts about the wide range of issues that we’re working on with this country and also to follow up on the meeting that Secretary Clinton had with President Yanukovych the other day at the Munich Security Conference. I’ll just give you a sense of what the Secretary had to say to the President and what I’ve been saying in my meetings here about this relationship.

We want to strengthen our partnership with Ukraine in a number of areas, from the economy to energy to security to democracy.

In the area of energy, the Secretary expressed appreciation for Ukraine’s efforts to reform the energy sector and an American willingness to help, particularly in the area of possibly exploring for shale gas.

She also expressed appreciation for Ukraine’s work with us in transferring the highly enriched uranium out of Ukraine that President Yanukovych promised at the Nuclear Security Summit. It’s a big priority for the United States.

We also talked about ways to increase American investment in Ukraine and I expressed, frankly, to my counterparts here today on this issue that there remain some obstacles to that investment in the form of regulations and in the areas of taxes and customs and on the question of corruption.

I met this morning - before seeing Ukrainian counterparts, I met this morning with a group of American business people and heard some of the difficulties they face in trying to expand investment in Ukraine.

American exports to Ukraine are up and I think at an all-time record high, but they’re still only around $2 billion which is much less than it should be. I also pointed out statistics showing that Ukraine ranks very low on a list of countries that are ranked by how easy it is to do business in Ukraine. I think it was ranked 152^nd out of 183 countries, and that’s very unfortunate, because if it’s difficult to do business, then American businesses won’t come and Ukraine won’t develop. So we hope that some of these issues will be tackled on taxes, customs, regulations and corruption, because we want to see more Americans investing in Ukraine.

I also raised with my counterparts, and the Secretary raised with President Yanukovych, the issue of democracy in Ukraine. We stressed the importance of free and fair and transparent elections next October. And we expressed concerns about the perception of selective prosecutions, most notably in the case of former Prime Minister Tymoshenko. What Secretary Clinton said to the President is that this perception interferes with the full development of the relationship we would like to have with Ukraine.

It’s not for us on the outside to prescribe how Ukraine’s judicial system works, but the perception of selective prosecution is an unfortunate one and it stands in the way of full development of our relations, as between the Ukraine and the European Union.

So those are some of the issues that I raised here in Kyiv today, some of the issues the Secretary raised in her meeting. But the basic message was that we want to see increasingly strong U.S.-Ukraine relations. We think Ukraine has enormous potential and we want to see it continue down the course towards Euro-Atlantic integration, stability, prosperity and democracy.

I’ll be happy to take your questions.

QUESTION: [Through Interpreter]. Assistant Secretary, we do witness certainly more energetic meetings, a more energetic relationship: meeting of the Secretary with the President, your visit today here. You said and the Secretary expressed to President Yanukovych what you would like to see in relations with Ukraine.

It would be interesting to know, what is your perception, whether President Yanukovych and your Ukrainian interlocutors took what you told them on board, or whether you have any other secret diplomatic weapons to make sure that what your vision that you express will move forward. And whether we should see as an expression of displeasure of the United States with selected prospection in Ukraine, the fact that Secretary Clinton is not coming to Kyiv for the inauguration of the new embassy compound here.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GORDON: Thank you. You’ll have to ask the Ukrainian government what their perception of our message is. All we can do is be clear about what we think, and I think we have been. We are very frank and transparent with our friends. We consider Ukraine a friend, and we say the same thing public as in private. I don’t think anything Secretary Clinton said about the Tymoshenko issue, about energy, about the investment climate, about our desire to expand our relations - I don’t think any of that will have come as a surprise to President Yanukovych. I would encourage you not to see the absence of a visit by the Secretary today as any sort of message. She has an enormously busy schedule. She of course visited Ukraine last year, had to get back to Washington, and while she would no doubt like to inaugurate every new embassy the United States has, that’s not always possible.

On the contrary, if there was a message it’s that she wanted to meet with the President when they had the opportunity in [inaudible], and that was the first bilateral meeting she did after her speech.

QUESTION: Can I follow up on what you were referring to about the question of Tymoshenko? There’s been, over the last few months, attempts to persuade or convince Yanukovych about what he should - or [inaudible] the atmosphere he should create. Recently it was suggested by former Ambassador Steven Pifer that it might be time to start thinking about blacklisting - visa bannings of Ukrainian officials. It’s clear that Yanukovych either isn’t getting the message - he’s either ignoring it or not getting it or something along these lines - [inaudible] to do what Ambassador Pifer suggested.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GORDON: I think as I said, we have decided that the best way for us to convey messages is to speak frankly, both in public and in private, and so the Secretary’s choice was to meet with the President to tell him exactly what she thought, which I think I shared with you here, which I have said to my interlocutors here, and I’m saying publicly now. I think that’s the best way we think we can convey messages on this issue.

QUESTION: [Through Interpreter]. However if your message gets ignored over and over again, do you have any other leverage that you are prepared to employ? And second, a very specific question, is the United States prepared to recognize the results of October elections here if Tymoshenko and her political force is not allowed to participate?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GORDON: Two separate questions. On October, let’s not get ahead of ourselves. We have said that we want to see a full, fair and transparent election. That would mean that all legitimate opposition groups should be allowed to participate in that election. We have been assured that that is the full intention of the Ukrainian authorities.

Ukraine is going to be the next Chairman in Office of the OSCE next year and I’ve said it would be quite an appropriate symbol, gesture, for that incoming chairmanship to be the model in how you run an election, how you invite in international observers including OSCE observers, to make sure that everything is absolutely transparent, and, again, I was given assurances that that was the intention of Ukraine.

On your first question, I think what I said about the consequences of perceived selective prosecution was that it stood in the way of the kind of relationship that Ukraine could have with the United States and European Union.

In the case of the European Union, I think it’s very clear that includes that the European Union has said that a deep and comprehensive free trade agreement and the association agreement won’t be signed and implemented until political circumstances are appropriate. I think, by that, it’s clear that they mean this issue has to be dealt with.

The United States strongly supports that approach. We were in close contact with our European colleagues as they were proceeding in these areas. I was personally in touch with Commissioner Fuele, so we not only strongly support the EU’s approach, but in our own case, as I’ve said, this issue stands in the way of the development of the relationship and the way we would like it.

If Tymoshenko remains in prison, doesn’t appear to be getting appropriate care, and there are issues with party registrations for October, I think it’s fair to say that would stand in the way of relations with both the United States and the European Union.

QUESTION: Is Tymoshenko receiving appropriate care in your opinion?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GORDON: I think there are real questions about that and they haven’t fully been answered yet. I haven’t personally seen her nor have representatives of the United States recently been able to, but that’s part of the problem. We’ve gotten some negative reports about her health and her conditions and her access to medical care. We can’t independently verify them, but they are of great concern to us.

QUESTION: [Through Interpreter]. Have you had the intention to visit her and couldn’t for some reason?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GORDON: Our ambassador expressed an interest in doing so and has not been permitted to do so. On this very short trip I didn’t make a specific request myself.

QUESTION: [Through Interpreter]. Is this true that apart from the frank and friendly conversation the United States administration has no other ways to influence, no other leverage over the behavior of the Ukrainian government like the leverage the European Union has with its association agreement?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GORDON: There is no pending specific issue that’s analogous to the pending association agreement and DCFTA. But it remains the reality that there are open questions about how the United States could help Ukraine, invest in Ukraine, assist it in achieving its objectives that we’re not able to do. It’s simply a reality so long as this problem remains.

Markets make independent decisions. There are a lot of opportunities in the globalized world in which we live. Perceptions of political instability or negative reputation can have a very big impact that is not a specific policy decision but its consequences can be very big.

QUESTION: If we’re talking about the economy, it’s clear that Ukraine is in something of a bind right now. The Russians didn’t give them the gas deal they wanted, now they’ve suddenly started speed flying to Washington and trying to talk to Lagarde in Davos. These meetings are happening, but it’s not clear that Ukraine is actually bringing anything new to the table.

Is it clear to you what they’re bringing to the table? Do they have any new arguments? Or is their argument simply, please give us the money or we’ll have to take the money from Russia with all the political concessions that would entail?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GORDON: Again, I’ll leave it to the Ukrainian government to describe how it intends to meet the challenges that you mention, but I think it’s true that they are seeking to renegotiate the gas deal with Russia and haven’t yet succeeded. They are hoping to get the IMF to move forward with another tranche of assistance but haven’t yet met the IMF’s conditionality. And they’re hoping to get more support and investment from the United States and European Union, but as I described, the combination of the Tymoshenko case and the challenges to doing business in Ukraine remain a constraint on that assistance at the same time.

QUESTION: [Through Interpreter]. What is your opinion, what is your view of the reforms that the Yanukovych cabinet headed by Prime Minister Azarov is said to be conducting? And secondly, what would be your comment to observations of certain cynical domestic experts who say that relatively soft reactions of the U.S. administration to misbehavior of the Ukrainian government is conditioned by either complete loss of interest in Ukraine or the fact that not all of the highly enriched uranium has been transferred from Ukrainian territory yet?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GORDON: To clarify the second question, the suggestion is that the United States has been soft on the government of Ukraine either because we’re not interested or because we’re waiting for the HEU to be transferred? Is that the question?

QUESTION: [Through Interpreter]. Yes.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GORDON: I guess I’d challenge the premise that we’ve been somehow soft. I’m not sure what that means. I think I’ve just described -- and I would also challenge the premise that we’re not interested. I’ve just described how very clear we’ve been about how this case stands in the way of the development of the relationship and some of the consequences that it has, and that our Secretary of State went out of her way to make this point clear to the President of Ukraine. I think that’s pretty direct.

I also don’t accept the notion that we’re not interested in Ukraine. Again, I think I’ve described not just the meeting that took place over the weekend and my visit here, but our consistent pattern of interest and engagement at so many levels over many months. I think you’ve seen a number of statements, letters coming under the direct signature of the Secretary of State. I’ve told you about some of my extensive engagements with the European Union. We have discussed it at the highest levels. Our President has met with your President. So I think there’s an enormous amount of interest in Ukraine. Again, I can attest personally to the Secretary of State’s interest who sees such potential in Ukraine and I think really wants to see it develop.

I owe you an answer to the first part of your question about reforms, and I would just say I do believe that the government is working hard on and is serious about reforms, and I had the opportunity to hear about them today. Ultimately markets are going to decide if reforms have been enough and I think what I described about this ongoing perception that there is still too much regulation, lack of transparency, and corruption standing in the way, it would be impossible to judge the reforms a success until markets and investors decide that Ukraine is a more attractive place.

QUESTION: [Through Interpreter]. You mentioned Russian-Ukrainian gas talks. Any advice for Ukraine how to influence the Russian position and get the conditions that Ukraine is seeking? Maybe the way to go is to sue in the International Arbitration Court. What would be your advice?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GORDON: I think the most important thing Ukraine can do is work on its own energy efficiency, other sources of energy, and own sources of energy to make it less dependent on a single supplier. That’s ultimately the way to improve leverage in a negotiation about price. I think there’s a lot more that can be done in all three of those areas, and we would be ready to help.

Thanks, everybody.

Meeting With Staff and Families of U.S. Embassy Sofia

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State

U.S. Embassy Sofia

Sofia, Bulgaria

February 5, 2012

(In progress.) And so of course I’m not going to cancel, and I’m delighted that I had a chance to be here. And I want to thank not only our American team, but all the locally employed staff who really provided the continuity from ambassador to ambassador and a huge team to help us work together.

Now, I was here in 1998 and I am thrilled to be back. I’m delighted to have Peace Corps volunteers here somewhere. (Applause.) I know they’re not a quiet group. (Laughter.) I expect to get some reaction whenever I run into them. And so 20 years ago, Peace Corps volunteers started arriving to teach English, working here in development. A Fulbright Program commission was established for university exchanges. We’ve given over $600 million in aid to help build schools, fight corruption, (inaudible) civil society. And we see democratic institutions taking root and growing stronger. In fact, starting next year, Peace Corps members will start leaving. And that’s – it’s kind of a bad (inaudible) to this story, because I know that you love serving here. When I asked Jim, “How do you like serving in Bulgaria,” he lit up and talked about how wonderful the country and people were.

But Bulgaria doesn’t need Peace Corps volunteers the way it once did, and it no longer qualifies for U.S. assistance in democracy and government promotion. Because that’s the story we want to sell, that our aid, our people coming, and help in the democratic transition. And Mission Sofia has been a model for innovative, low-cost solutions. I am thrilled about the commitment to green initiatives. Jim told me there’s even a chance that we could get to our goal of a net zero building, which would be an amazing accomplishment.

Your post support unit is a great success and a notable (inaudible), handling financial track factions for aiding posts, and this is our last year (inaudible), had a process over 80,000 value. So you’re putting into action what I call Smart Power 21^st Century Statecraft. It is very important, as the State Department and USAID take their rightful place in our national security team (inaudible) events, that we do our jobs in the most effective way possible, using taxpayer dollars in an efficient manner to get results, and you here in Sofia are really helping to lead the way.

(Inaudible.) But I am thrilled that I had a chance to see you, and to thank you, and to really thank you for the work you’re doing on behalf of strengthening and deepening this really important relationship.

Thank you all very much, and I want to shake your hands. (Applause.)

# # #

Remarks at a Roundtable With Young Roma Professionals

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State

Embassy Sofia

Sofia, Bulgaria

February 5, 2012

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, thank you very much. I wish to thank Ambassador Warlick and the Embassy for arranging this meeting, and I am honored to be meeting with so many leaders from Bulgaria’s Roma community. And I think that the men and women around this table remind us of the lessons that history has borne out again and again, that discrimination anywhere, against anyone, diminishes the human dignity of us all, that persistence does eventually win out over prejudice, and that talent only needs the opportunity to thrive.

Americans have learned these lessons over the course of our history. As you may well know, we have had many challenges to include every member of our society, regardless of their race or their ethnicity or any other characteristic that set them apart or made them a member of a minority group, and we are the stronger for it.

Here in Europe, one of the pieces of unfinished business is the full integration of the Roma people into the societies and nations where they reside. For too long, Roma citizens have been marginalized and isolated, prevented from contributing their talents and participating in their societies. This is a critical matter of human rights, and it affects millions of men, women, and children across the continent.

I’m also very troubled to see anti-Roma violence and protests, which in some places are increasing and getting worse. It’s also an error for any society not to fully educate every child, and in too many places Roma children attend subpar, usually segregated, schools. And what is the result of that? Well, then Roma people themselves begin to feel apathetic, uninvolved, and then that continues the cycle, which has to be broken.

So I think that building better understanding between Roma and non-Roma communities is very important. I remember visiting with Roma children at the Faith, Hope, and Love Center during my visit to Bulgaria back in 1998. Seeing their spirit and intelligence shining through the adversity that they had experienced in their young lives was a highlight of my trip. So helping to promote and protect the inalienable human rights of Roma everywhere is a long-standing personal commitment of mine, and it is a stated foreign policy priority of this Administration.

Today, I am proud to announce that the United States will join the Decade of Roma Inclusion as an official observer. This commitment is admirable by European governments, and it will help improve opportunities for Roma to participate in the political, social, economic, and cultural lives of their communities. Bulgaria is a founding member of this initiative, so I’m very pleased that I could announce the United States joining this effort here in Sofia.

I also want to commend the Government of Bulgaria for their Roma integration strategy and urge that they work together with the Roma communities and other people of interest to implement the plans that have been adopted.

Now, there’s a moral reason why supporting the rights of the Roma people is the right thing to do, but there’s also, in today’s 21^st century economy, economic reasons. Countries that don’t fully integrate women or minorities of any kind will not have the economic growth in GDP that is possible and will face the loss of human potential.

So I’m looking forward to hearing from our guests today, to hear of their experience and their ideas about what we together can do that will really put into action the commitment that I wish to make clear today to Roma people, to civil society groups, and to governments working on this issue across Europe, that the United States is very concerned and interested and will stand with you as a partner.

Thank you very much.

# # #

Remarks With Bulgarian Prime Minister Boyko Borissov After Their Meeting

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State

Council of Ministers

Sofia, Bulgaria

February 5, 2012

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, it’s an honor to be back in this beautiful country and to have a chance to demonstrate the very strong partnership and friendship between the United States and Bulgaria. I promised the people of Bulgaria that the United States would stand with you, and we have done so. And we are very impressed and proud of the extraordinary progress that has been made and the strong relationship between the Bulgarian and American people and governments.

I would like to thank the prime minister for receiving me today and for the excellent discussions that our two teams have just concluded. I also want to thank the president, with whom I met earlier, and the foreign minister, with whom I work on a regular basis throughout the year.

The prime minister and I just had a very productive meeting. It underscored the depth and range of the partnership between us. As NATO allies, Bulgaria and the United States work side by side around the world to address critical issues, from ensuring a successful transition in Afghanistan to keeping the peace in Kosovo, to diversifying and securing our energy supplies, including in the nuclear sector. We are partners in helping to advance Bulgaria’s energy independence and security and in protecting the beautiful Bulgarian environment.

When we demonstrate that technologies are safe, we pursue both goals at once, and we will stand with the Bulgarian people and government as they work to be able to provide affordable energy that meets your needs. I will be sending my special envoy for Eurasian Energy, Ambassador Richard Morningstar, to Bulgaria this week to have expert conversations about how we can be more helpful in protecting your environment and advancing your energy security goals.

Our excellent cooperation has helped to deter, detect, and stop trafficking in nuclear and other radioactive materials. Our joint counternarcotics investigations have seized over $3 million in illegal assets. Our law enforcement partnership has led to the arrest of hackers conducting international fraud schemes. I want to commend the law enforcement arms of the government, as well as the government itself – for being a very effective leader in these kinds of efforts, addressing critical problems that affect, not just Bulgaria and the region, but indeed the world.

Bulgaria’s experience transitioning from communism to democracy, setting up effective institutions and persevering over the last 20 years provides many useful lessons. All one has to do is look at the statistics – among the lowest unemployment rates, lowest taxation rates, increasing international investment, including American investment. The social and economic development of the country stands as a great model, not only within Europe, but increasingly abroad to countries attempting to make the transition from authoritarianism and dictatorial rule to democracy and rule by the people.

Bulgaria has taken several steps in the last few years to combat corruption, pursue judicial reform, and uphold the rule of law for all citizens. These are very important steps for any democracy, and it will help Bulgaria continue to strengthen your democratic institutions. The Sofia Platform, which will meet for the third time later this year, is an excellent vehicle for sharing the lessons that you have learned throughout Central Europe and the Middle East. And we thank Bulgaria, thank you, Prime Minister, for your leadership in this area.

Bulgaria has just recently joined the Open Government Partnership that was started by President Obama and is co-chaired with the Brazilians. We will look forward to working with Bulgaria as you implement your action plan to improve government transparency and accountability and also pursue the potential use of e-government, which we are finding around the world is a great tool for bringing government closer to the people. And I think the president told me earlier that 2.2 million Bulgarians are on Facebook, so the technology is already present and putting it to use on behalf of better governance will be one of the issues we discuss when the Open Government Partnership meets in Brasilia later this spring.

I will be also meeting with a group of young Roma leaders and activists, and I applaud the Government of Bulgaria for the important Roma integration strategy, an important step toward full integration of your Roma people.

The relationship between our two countries is broad and deep. And President Obama and I are committed to working with the prime minister, the president, the Government of Bulgaria, and the people in making it even stronger and deeper in the years ahead. So it’s a great pleasure to be here, to see for myself even with this short visit the extraordinary progress that you are making. We will continue to stand with you as you move on the path of democracy to consolidate the gains that have brought so many benefits to Bulgaria, and we will face together the challenges and opportunities of the 21^st century.

Thank you, Prime Minister.

PRIME MINISTER BORISSOV: (Via interpreter) I would also like to thank you. Just a couple of words on the main issues discussed, our cooperation. I would build on what Mrs. Clinton said. We all are concerned with what is going on in Syria, with the developments in Syria, and we hope that this will stop immediately. We also discussed the issue of shale gas. I just want to mention this so that there are not too many questions about it. As Mrs. Clinton said, Bulgarian environment, Bulgarian nature and its protection for the next generations is a top priority, it ranks first, and the financial and economic benefits come second. This is why we agreed to bring the best specialists on these new technologies to present the benefits of the technology to the Bulgarian people. Until then, the moratorium is in place so that we can safeguard Bulgarian environment.

Deepest respects was paid to the Bulgarian soldiers, Bulgarian troops in Afghanistan. It was mentioned that our – they’re highly professional soldiers with regards to energy diversification. I presented to Mrs. Clinton the fact that the Bulgarian-Romanian gas interconnection will be launched in May. The connection with Greece will be launched in – somewhat later because of the (inaudible) position procedures and delays related to them, as well as I presented Secretary Clinton with information about the joint cabinet meetings of Bulgarian and Turkish Government, when officials will be taken for launching the interconnection.

Just one question each. If you have any questions to me, on Bulgarian side. Bulgarian National Television, Mr. (inaudible).

QUESTION: (Via interpreter) Secretary Clinton, will the U.S. commitment to Bulgarian security be broadened? And would the role of our joint facilities in Bulgaria be augmented after U.S. pulls out its troops from Europe?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, first let me say how committed the United States is to Bulgaria’s security. We are NATO allies. We take very seriously our Article 5 obligation for collective defense. Bulgaria has been an important, productive partner of NATO, and I did tell the prime minister that Bulgarian troops serving in Afghanistan have a well-deserved reputation for professionalism and bravery. I want to extend condolences for the loss of life and casualties that the Bulgarian troops have suffered.

With respect to security cooperation going forward, we want to make sure that we consult closely with our Bulgarian friends about how the United States and Bulgaria bilaterally and through NATO will make sure that Europe has the best defense in terms of missile defense and other capabilities in order to protect Bulgaria and all of our European allies.

I think that there will be a number of joint military exercises between the United States and Bulgaria this year. We are looking to expand our military cooperation and to do a thorough review about where it stands today and where it needs to be going in the future. I cannot prejudge that review, but the overriding issue for us is that Bulgaria has proven to be a very capable partner for whom we have the greatest respect and to whom we owe our NATO responsibility of providing defense. And we are absolutely committed to doing so.

I think we have an American question from Lachlan Carmichael.

 QUESTION: Hello to both of you. First, now that the Russians have vetoed the resolution on Syria, what’s the next step? The Syrians are calling for a coalition of support. What can you say to that? And then, of course, on Bulgaria, why is it so important that a country like Bulgaria be economically and politically independent of Russia?

 SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, do you want me to go first, Prime Minister? Let me start with Syria. Let me begin by saying that Bulgaria, as you just heard the prime minister express, has been very supportive of the aspirations and rights of the Syrian people, and we are grateful for that. What happened yesterday at the United Nations was a travesty. Those countries that refuse to support the Arab League plan bear full responsibly for protecting the brutal regime in Damascus. And it is tragic that after all the work that the Security Council did, they had a 13-2 vote. The 13 of us voting in favor of the Arab League plan were primed to start a process for political engagement that would lead to a transition. We feared that the failure to do so would actually increase the chances for a brutal civil war. Many Syrians, under attack from their own government, are moving to defend themselves, which is to be expected. So what do we do? Well, faced with a neutered Security Council, we have to redouble our efforts outside of the United Nations with those allies and partners who support the Syrian people’s right to have a better future. We have to increase diplomatic pressure on the Assad regime and work to convince those people around President Assad that he must go, and that there has to be a recognition of that and a new start to try to form a government that will represent all of the people of Syria.

We will work to seek regional and national sanctions against Syria and strengthen the ones we have. They will be implemented to the fullest to dry up the sources of funding and the arms shipments that are keeping the regime’s war machine going. We will work to expose those who are still are funding the regime and sending it weapons that are used against defenseless Syrians, including women and children. And we will work with the friends of a democratic Syria around the world to support the opposition’s peaceful political plans for change. We will work to provide what humanitarian relief we are able to do so. And over the coming days, I will be consulting closely with our allies and partners in Europe, in the Arab League, and around the world. Because remember, in those 13 votes you had not only Europeans, but you have Arabs, Africans, Latin Americans, South Asians. This was a unified international community seeking an end to the violence. So we will consult – be consulting with the foreign minister here and others – about what we can do to rescue this deteriorating situation before it's too late.

 Do you want to say anything about Syria?

 PRIME MINISTER BORISSOV: (Via interpreter) I can answer to the second question. I even said this to the – during European Council meeting. You know that we passed the declaration with regards to the violence in Syria, and my position is no internal or external political issue can be resolved by blood, by shedding people’s blood. Condolences to those who lost their lives in Egypt, and (inaudible) the football game. The loss of life is of greatest concern to all democratically thinking people, and they should all insist that this should immediately stop. This is our categorical position.

On the second question on the diversification, energy diversification of a country such as Bulgaria, to make it more independent from the energy supplies from Russia, just like in the case of shale gas, I was very clear. Our environment comes first, and until we convince – we persuade the public that the technology is safe, we cannot move forward. I would say the same, sir, with regards to nuclear. I will quote what I said to Mrs. Clinton. If I believe one hundred percent that building a nuclear power plant is a hundred percent safe and we will not have to decommision reactors in 10 years’ time, because we already have such experience in Bulgaria, I would sign the agreement today.

 It is those concerns that make us be so careful, so cautious, but we’re still trying to work for diversification in any area – any electricity generation, gas, oil, and so on and so forth. We have made great progress, in Bulgarian terms, of using renewable energy sources, also using coal. Bulgaria is very active. We are planning to start construction of the Gorna Arda hydroelectric power station. So we are making great efforts in this direction. We are pragmatic with regards to every – any project; is it good for the environment, is it economically and financially beneficial, and of course, what would happen in 10 or 20 years with the project?

I think you should agree that if – for us to pay 7-10 billion and to have to decommission in 10 years, that would be stupid. You see, in communications in modern and (inaudible), what were thought as state of the art technology a year ago is obsolete now. This is why, when I am to commit to allocate taxpayers’ money for certain projects, I have to be very cautious. We already spent more than 1.4 billion leva for the (inaudible) project, and we’re still trying to find solutions, and I hope we will find them soon.

 SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you.

Remarks at Women's Breakfast

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State

Prinz Carl Palais

Munich, Germany

February 5, 2012

SECRETARY CLINTON: (Applause.) Well, thank you so much. Thanks to the Bavarian State Chancellery, which is hosting us, especially to Minister Merk, for organizing this breakfast, and to all of you for getting up so early on a Sunday morning in the cold to come out to show solidarity and support for women in international security. I wanted to make just a few brief comments and then if anyone has something they want to say or ask before I have to go to Bulgaria, I would be very pleased to respond.

I wanted to just focus our attention on an area that is of critical importance in which we are making some, but not enough, progress. And that was the passage of the historic UN Security Council Resolution 1325. We recognize that when we think about peacemaking, which is, after all, one of the critical tasks of any of us in international security, that something is missing. And that is women. There are not enough women at the table, not enough women's voices being heard. And when the Security Council passed Resolution 1325, we tried to make a very clear statement, that women are still largely shut out of the negotiations that seek to end conflicts, even though women and children are the primary victims of 21st century conflict.

And this is not just a faraway problem. Where I was sitting up on the stage at the Munich conference, I was trying to count what looked to be the heads of women. And there were not enough, I have to tell you. (Applause.)

PARTICIPANT: Thirty-seven.

SECRETARY CLINTON: I don't know. Thirty-seven? Thirty-seven. Well, I didn't get that high a number, but I take your word for it.

And in the last two decades, dozens of conflicts have persisted because peace efforts were unsuccessful. Talks broke down, agreements were broken, parties found it easier to fight than to negotiate. And far too often in these failed efforts women were marginalized, making up, by one estimate, just eight percent of all peace negotiators. And when you look around the world, as a number of us are privileged to do in the positions that we hold now, or that we have held in the past, you see how hard it is to make peace under any circumstance. But the exclusion of women, I argue, makes it even harder.

Because there is a great story about an effort to try to resolve aspects of the conflict in Darfur a few years ago. And the men had been arguing and arguing for days about authority over a particular riverbed. And finally, a woman heard about this and just made herself walk in and say, "But that river dried up. There is no water in that river." Or think about the wonderful documentary, "Pray the Devil Back to Hell," about the women in Liberia. But for them, who knows whether that conflict would have ended?

And so that is why, in December, finally, the United States, under President Obama, launched the first-ever U.S. national action plan on women, peace, and security. We worked very hard on this, and we did it jointly, between the State Department and the Defense Department. Because, from our perspective, it was essential that we have a comprehensive road map for accelerating and institutionalizing efforts across the United States Government to advance women's participation in making and keeping peace.

And the national action plan represents a fundamentally different way for the United States to do business. It is really trying to lay out a new approach in our diplomatic, military, and development support to women in areas of conflict, and to ensure that their perspectives and that considerations of gender are always part of how the United States approaches peace processes, conflict prevention, the protection of civilians, humanitarian assistance.

Now, more than 30 countries, many of them represented here, have had similar national action plans developed. And we think the United Nations really deserves our support in making sure that we continue this progress. NATO itself has a robust effort, increasingly factoring women and their needs into key planning processes and training courses, and stationing experts throughout operational headquarters.

Now, I am well aware that whenever I talk about these issues, as opposed to who we are going to strike next and what kind of tough position we are going to take, it is often dismissed as soft or relegated to the margins of the real conversation. Well, we just completely reject that. And the evidence is so clear that rejecting it is the right decision. So if you look at what we did with the Department of State, Department of Defense, USAID, others across our government, it incorporates the lessons that our military has learned over, frankly, 10 years of war about the links between the security of women and the stability and peace of nations.

For example, the Department of State works closely with the Department of Defense on the Global Peace Operations Initiative, which has facilitated the training of more than 2,000 female peacekeepers worldwide, many from African countries, where persistent conflict is so devastating to women and children.

In Afghanistan we have tried to increase the role of women, no easy task. We sent our own teams of female soldiers, as did other NATO-ISAF countries, to curb violence against women, honor killings, female immolation, as well as pursue certain security functions such as inspections and personal examinations. And in 2010, 10 percent of the Afghan military academy's class will be women. And by 2014, we expect to field 5,000 women Afghan national police officers. That is a tough job. And I want all of us to support that, because part of what we have to do as we try to test whether peace is possible in Afghanistan, is to make it very clear that peace will not come at the expense of women's rights and roles. They have suffered too much for too long. (Applause.)

So, I would be eager to hear thoughts and perspectives. I look around this room and I see great colleagues, colleagues from the United States Senate -- Susan Collins, who is here, I don't know if we have anyone else from the -- anybody else from the -- oh, Loretta Sanchez, who is from the House, and then other colleagues of mine in government, colleagues from the EU, from NATO, from other parts of our work together. So I would be delighted. And, of course, I am always pleased to be with the President of Kosovo, who has been such a great representative for her country. (Applause.)

Remarks at the Munich Security Conference

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State

Bayerischer Hof

Munich, Germany

February 4, 2012

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you. It’s good to be back here in Munich for this important conference and the first time that the American delegation includes both the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, which I think speaks volumes about the importance of our transatlantic relationship.

As I said this morning, I have now traveled to Europe 27 times as Secretary of State. President Obama has visited ten times. So when President Obama says that Europe remains the cornerstone of our engagement with the world, those are not just reassuring words; that is the reality. Europe is our partner of first resort.

Here in Munich, I have had productive discussions with a number of my counterparts concerning a list of critical issues. One that kept coming up is the ongoing violence in Syria. As a bankrupt regime clings to power by shelling its own people in their homes, we have seen a living nightmare play out in the city of Homs. It’s a nightmare that has been repeated across Syria over these past many months. Almost 30 days – almost 30 years to the day after the infamous Hama massacre, the international community must send Assad a clear message: By repeating the horrors of Syria’s past, you have lost your place in Syria’s future.

As President Obama said today, we owe it to the victims of Hama and Homs to learn one lesson – that cruelty must be confronted for the sake of justice and human dignity. The United States and our partners have engaged in intensive diplomacy at the United Nations Security Council to put the world on record in support of an immediate halt to the violence; a negotiated, peaceful solution; and a responsible democratic transition.

It is difficult, however, to imagine that after the bloodiest day yet in Syria, there are those who would prevent the world community from condemning this violence. And I would ask them: What more do we need to know to act decisively in the Security Council? The Syrian Government has shown its contempt for the international community, for its Arab neighbors, and most of all for its own citizens. As I said at the United Nations on Tuesday, to block this resolution is to bear responsibility for the horrors that are occurring on the ground in Syria.

Now, no one should minimize the challenges Syrians will face after Assad. But the alternative is in no one’s interests. As the Security Council has debated, the killing has intensified. Each day of repression and violence makes it more difficult for Syrians to reconcile, rebuild, and chart that new future that they deserve. It also increases the risk of sectarian conflict and chaos in the heart of the Middle East. The Syrian people have asked the Security Council to act. The Arab League has asked the Security Council to act.

The draft on the table being considered as I speak gives full backing to a Syrian-led process that will benefit the region and the world, and give the Syrian people the chance they deserve. We should act now. And I’m grateful to say that on this issue, as on so many others in this fast-changing world we inhabit, America and Europe are standing shoulder to shoulder in confronting the challenges and seizing the opportunities of the 21^st century.

So let us hope that we will continue to work closely together to realize the benefits of that extraordinary Euro-Atlantic relationship and to help not only our own people, but the people of the world realize a better tomorrow.

I’ll be happy to take some questions.

MODERATOR: We have time for three tonight. First one, Reuters, Arshad Mohammed.

QUESTION: Secretary Clinton, you didn’t mention Russia by name in your statement, though it is believed to be the only holdout at this point. Is there anything that you heard either in your meeting with Secretary – with Foreign Minister Lavrov or in the couple of hours since then that has given you any hope that Russia might support or might abstain on the resolution?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, Arshad, I had a long meeting with Foreign Minister Lavrov today. I reiterated our strong view that the Syrian people are counting on the Security Council to act, and act today. I pointed out that this resolution had been debated and discussed by our representatives in New York. It had taken into account some of the concerns that were raised by Russia and others, but that we needed to pass a resolution that laid out a clear path to end the violence, protect civilians and human rights, and chart a political, democratic transition.

There were questions that were raised by Minister Lavrov concerning amendments that Russia sought in the resolution that had been agreed to and had already moved into what’s called being in blue, which means it can be brought up at any time by any member of the Security Council. I thought that there might be some ways to bridge, even at this last moment, a few of the concerns that the Russians had. I offered to work in a constructive manner to do so. That has not been possible. And we are going forward, as we said we would, with the vote this afternoon.

And as members of the Security Council, we feel strongly it is time to declare ourselves. Are we for peace and security and a democratic future, or are we going to be complicit in the continuing violence and bloodshed? I know where the United States stands, and we will soon find out where every other member of the Security Council stands.

MODERATOR: Next question, Ralf Borchard, ARD.

QUESTION: Thank you. Secretary Clinton, we could all hear your counterpart, Sergey Lavrov, ask a question about the endgame in Syria. What is the way ahead in case there is no President Assad stepping aside, even in case of a weakened resolution Russia agrees to? How does the endgame look like?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we don’t know what the endgame will be until we start the game, and that is what the Arab League has been working on and reaching consensus about and setting forth in a plan that they adopted to make clear that we need to have a transition process that begins. Now, standing here in Munich, I cannot predict to you every step along the way, but one thing I am sure of – if we do not begin the process, I know what will happen: more bloodshed, increasing resistance by those whose families are being killed and whose homes are being bombed, and a greater likelihood that Syria will descend into a civil war. That is the outcome every one of us must work to avoid.

So I know my friend Minister Lavrov says, “Well, what’s the endgame?” Well, the endgame, in the absence of us acting together as the international community, I fear, is civil war. The potential endgames, if we are serious about putting this kind of international pressure on the Assad regime, making it clear to the opposition that they should pursue their changes in a peaceful manner, is the possibility of beginning a transition.

Similar to what we have seen now beginning in Yemen, it took a long time, it was a lot of false starts, but we just kept at it day after day. And they’re going to have an election; they’re going to have the chance to at least try to move forward. So I think that asking what the endgame is can’t be answered until we actually start to bring about the changes that we think will be beneficial.

QUESTION: Any possibility of (inaudible)?

MODERATOR: Les, I’m sorry.

SECRETARY CLINTON: No, military intervention has been absolutely ruled out, and we’ve made that clear from the very beginning.

MODERATOR: Last question – a short one because the Secretary’s got to go – Matt Lee, AP.

QUESTION: I’ll try to – okay. I’ll try to make this as short as possible. Staying in the region, but not on Syria, it’s no secret that U.S. relations with Egypt have been strained for some time now, especially over the detention or the no-fly status of these NGO workers. You met with the Egyptian foreign minister a little earlier this afternoon. I’m wondering if anything has been resolved, what did you tell him, and have you renewed the warning that U.S. aid to Egypt might be at stake?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I did meet with Foreign Minister Amr today. I had a chance to once again express our deep concerns about what is happening to our NGOs, and Americans and others who work for them, as well as the Konrad Adenauer Foundation that is based here in Germany. We do not believe there is any basis for these investigations, these raids on the sites that the NGOs operate out of, the seizure of their equipment, and certainly no basis for prohibiting the exit from the country by individuals who have been working with our NGOs.

We are very clear that there are problems that arise from this situation that can impact all the rest of our relationship with Egypt. We do not want that. We have worked very hard the last year to put into place financial assistance and other support for the economic and political reforms that are occurring in Egypt, and we will have to closely review these matters as it comes time for us to certify whether or not any of these funds from our government can be made available under these circumstances.

MODERATOR: Thank you very much.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you very much.

Background Briefing

Senior State Department Official

Bayerischer Hof

Munich, Germany

February 4, 2012

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: The Secretary had two bilateral meetings this morning, first with Ukraine President Yanukovych. Subjects included energy security, particularly some of the work that U.S. and Ukrainian firms are doing together to diversify sources of supply, looking at shale gas, looking at LNG, working on pipelines. They also discussed Ukraine’s European integration aspirations in that connection and more broadly. The Secretary made clear our concern about selective prosecutions of political opposition members, particularly the case of Yulia Tymoshenko and her health and the conditions of her confinement. They also talked about the Ukraine’s work with the IMF.

The Secretary also had a relatively long bilateral meeting with Foreign Minister Lavrov. I think it was scheduled for half an hour and went about 45 minutes – that’s about right – about two-thirds of the meeting taken up with discussion of the pending UN Security Council resolution on Syria. The Secretary and the foreign minister had a very vigorous discussion. They both agreed that the situation on the ground is urgent, given the violence. The Secretary made clear that we feel, that the United States feels strongly that the UN Security Council should vote today. The Russians – or Foreign Minister Lavrov did not dispute the urgency of the situation, and the action now moves to New York as they wake up.

QUESTION: What does that mean, a very vigorous discussion?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: What I said, very vigorous discussion. They also talked about --

QUESTION: Did they make any progress?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Let me finish the brief and then we’ll go to questions, okay?

They also talked about missile defense, our ongoing consultations on the possibility of U.S.-Russian and NATO-Russian collaboration in the area of missile defense, continued support for talks in the Tauscher-Ryabkov channel. They also talked about our work together to support stability and security in Afghanistan, a little bit about the upcoming G-8 ministerial in preparation for the G-8 summit in Chicago. Secretary on adoptions expressed our hope that the Russian Duma will ratify the agreement. And then they talked a little bit about the work of the U.S.-Russia Bilateral Commission.

That’s what I got for you.

QUESTION: Just one – where is the upcoming ministerial?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: There’ll be a G-8 ministerial in the U.S. because we’re the host.

QUESTION: Right. Where is it?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: We haven’t actually decided yet.

QUESTION: Can I make a recommendation?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Hawaii, I’m going to guess.

QUESTION: No, no, no, no, like South Beach or New Orleans.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: I’ll tell the Secretary that’s what you were thinking, Matt.

QUESTION: New Orleans is a good one.

QUESTION: Right around Jazz Fest.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: (Laughter.) Exactly. Okay.

QUESTION: On the – so on the resolution, does that mean that – when you say “We’re not going to New York,” does that mean you’re going to push a vote regardless of what the Russians are going to do? You’ll force a veto if they have – if their concerns haven’t been met?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: I’m not going to predict what’s going to happen in New York except that we think that it’s important to vote today.

QUESTION: But can you even – I mean, can you say what – what does that mean? I mean, Lavrov said in his brief that they had two problems – two specific problems that they’ve submitted amendments; did – is that correct? They think it was all of those amendments to their satisfaction, maybe not the U.S.?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: I’m not going to get into any details --

QUESTION: But he said that. He said --

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: -- on the discussion of the resolution. I understand what he said. I’m not going to get into the substance of their discussion on this – of this. It’s not helpful to getting where we want to go.

QUESTION: Is it fair to say, then, that at the end of their meeting, the differences were not resolved?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: It’s fair to say that we will – we’ve got to now go to New York.

QUESTION: Well, what does that mean? Does that mean you go to New York to try and negotiate with the Russians there, or do you go to New York just to push a vote today?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: New York is going to have to have – I think I’ve said what I want to say on this subject.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) haven’t said anything.

QUESTION: Can you tell us whether or not the issue was resolved? I mean, if it wasn’t resolved, fine; you live to fight another day. She told us downstairs we’re – after the meeting and during the photo op with the Armenian, said, “We’re still working on it.” To me, that implies it’s not done. In fact, your going to New York implies that you want --

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Well, obviously, we’re still working on it.

QUESTION: Right.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Obviously, otherwise I wouldn’t have said that --

QUESTION: So --

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: I wouldn’t have come out and said --

QUESTION: So do you have any kind of an agreement on it?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: This has to be taken up in New York now.

QUESTION: But it doesn’t get any higher, at least, unless you go – I mean, New York is not elevating the level of discussion seniority-wise, so --

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: I understand that. I understand. Do you have anything else?

QUESTION: I mean, can you not give any indication of whether she feels – she clearly – I don’t think she feels like she made progress, because, as I said, she made progress. She said, “We’re working on it.”

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Well, she said to you after the meeting, “We’re working on it”?

QUESTION: Right.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Well, I think that’s accurate, obviously.

QUESTION: So you did make progress?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: I’m not going to characterize how far we’ve gotten or not gotten because none of it matters till we see what happens in New York.

QUESTION: And do you – are you still hoping for a yes vote from the Russians?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Absolutely, that’s what we want, is the strongest possible consensus on this resolution.

QUESTION: So – but so we’re clear, you’re still hoping for a yes vote?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: We are.

Anything – anybody care about anything else or should we go --

QUESTION: Well, what did the Ukrainians say back about Tymoshenko?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Without getting too deeply into characterizing another country’s position, the president outlined the various legal reform steps that they are taking, and made clear that these could have implications for the Tymoshenko case. The Secretary made clear that this was a matter not just of legal reform but of all of us wanting to support Ukraine’s European integration and to improve Ukraine’s image and reputation.

QUESTION: Well, does that – when you said it could have implications for the Tymoshenko case, that they think that those implications would be positive in terms of what the U.S. and others want from them?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: He talked about needing to reform the legal code, et cetera. These are points that he’s made publicly before.

QUESTION: [Senior State Department Official], what was the Secretary’s message to Lavrov on missile defense?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Her message to him on missile defense was: Let’s keep working in the Ryabkov-Tauscher channel to come to some kind of a cooperative understanding about how we can work together on missile defense.

QUESTION: Did she have any reaction to his comments just prior to the meeting that there’s no light at the end of the tunnel (inaudible) Russian?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: There was no disagreement in that room that we need to keep working on this.

Switzerland: Department of Justice Action Against Wegelin and Co.

Office of the Spokesperson

Washington, DC

Question Taken at the February 3, 2012, Daily Press Briefing

February 4, 2012

QUESTION: Has the State Department heard from the Swiss Government regarding the Department of Justice’s recent action against Wegelin and Co.?

ANSWER: We have a strong bilateral relationship with Switzerland and maintain a wide-ranging dialogue with the Government of Switzerland on a variety of issues of mutual interest. This matter involves allegations of criminal wrongdoing by a particular institution and its employees. We refer you to the Department of Justice for any further questions related to this case.

Spain: Palomares

Office of the Spokesperson

Washington, DC

Question Taken at the February 3, 2012, Daily Press Briefing

February 4, 2012

QUESTION: Can you confirm that a decision has been reached by the United States regarding cleanup of the Palomares accident site?

ANSWER: The Governments of Spain and the United States continue to discuss remaining concerns at the highest levels. In 1966, we worked closely with Spain to remediate the accident site, and have collaborated with Spanish authorities for more than forty years to monitor the site and the health of local inhabitants.

At the request of the Government of Spain, a U.S. interagency technical team led by the U.S. Department of Energy visited Madrid and Palomares in February 2011 to discuss concerns and offer technical advice on the Government of Spain’s rehabilitation plan for the Palomares site.

No final decision has been reached regarding cleanup of the site.

Remarks at Euro-Atlantic Security Community Initiative and Keynote Session Q&A

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State

Bayerischer Hof

Munich, Germany

February 4, 2012

SECRETARY CLINTON: (Applause.) Thank you very much. This is a first, with both Secretary Panetta and I here together. But I think that it speaks volumes about the importance that we place on this conference, Wolfgang, and on the significance of the alliance that has grown so strong over the last 50 years. It is also a great personal pleasure for me to be back in Munich with so many colleagues and friends. I wish to thank one of them, my friend, the Foreign Minister, Westerwelle, for his important comments. And I also wish to thank the presentation by Sam Nunn and Igor Ivanov on the Euro-Atlantic Security Initiative that I think holds great promise for us all if we heed the words that it contains.

This gathering, as Leon just said, founded at the height of the Cold War, has become an important symbol of our commitment to stand together as a transatlantic community. And we come to Munich each year, not only to advance our shared values, our shared security, and our shared prosperity, but to take stock of where we stand in the efforts to forge that union between us, and also to lift up our heads and look around the world at the global security situation. That calling is no less powerful today than it was 50 years ago.

Now, I have heard all the talk about where Europe fits in to America's global outlook. And I have heard some of the doubts expressed. But the reality couldn't be clearer. Europe is and remains America's partner of first resort. I have now traveled to Europe 27 times as Secretary of State. President Obama has visited 10 times. And wherever America is working to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, to fight disease, to help nations on the difficult journey from dictatorship to democracy, we are side by side with our friends in Europe.

In fact, I would argue the transatlantic community has never been more closely aligned in confronting the challenges of a complex, dangerous, and fast-changing world. The breadth and depth of our cooperation is remarkable. You know the litany. In Libya, NATO allies came together with Arab and other partners to prevent a catastrophe and to support the Libyan people. In Afghanistan, with nearly 40,000 European troops on the ground alongside our own, we have built and sustained NATO's largest-ever overseas deployment. And we will continue to support the Afghans as they assume full responsibility for their own security by the end of 2014.

As Iran continues to defy its obligations, America, Europe, and other partners have put in place the toughest sanctions yet. And we are also pursuing diplomacy through the E3+3 track, because Europe is vital to both halves of that dual-track strategy. And as a tyrant in Damascus brutalizes his own people, America and Europe stand shoulder to shoulder. We are united, alongside the Arab League, in demanding an end to the bloodshed and a democratic future for Syria. And we are hopeful that at 10:00 a.m. Eastern Standard Time in New York, the Security Council will express the will of the international community. (Applause.)

As Secretary Panetta just made clear, our commitment to European defense is just as deep and durable as our diplomacy. At this year's NATO summit in Chicago, we will update our alliance to keep it strong for the 21st century. So when President Obama says that "Europe remains the cornerstone of our engagement with the world," those aren't just reassuring words. That is the reality.

Today's transatlantic community is not just a defining achievement of the century behind us. It is indispensable to the world we hope to build together in the century ahead. Here in Munich, it is not enough to reaffirm old commitments. The world around us is fast transforming, and America and Europe need a forward-leaning agenda to deal with the challenges we face. Let me just briefly discuss five areas in particular that will require a greater collective effort.

First, we have to finish the business our predecessors started, and build a Europe that is secure, united, and democratic. And we heard the ICI Report that sets forward some very specific steps we could take together. From day one of this Administration, we have worked closely together to transform strategic relations with Russia, while standing firmly behind both our principles and our friends. This approach has yielded results, but we need work to sustain it. And this is not the only place in our community where we need to overcome mistrust. As long as important conflicts remain unresolved in Eastern Europe, the Balkans, the Caucasus, and the Mediterranean, Europe remains incomplete and insecure. Even as we grapple with a wider global agenda, we cannot lose sight of the challenges closer to home.

And let me underscore the word "trust". We heard it from Igor Ivanov, we heard it from Guido Westerwelle, and I think it deserves repeating. We have to do more together to build a sense of trust and to overcome mistrust among us. That will have to be one of our strategic imperatives, if we expect to address successfully the issues ahead.

Second, because the strength of our alliance depends on the health of our economies, security and prosperity are ultimately inseparable. That means we need a common agenda for economic recovery and growth that is every bit as compelling as our global security cooperation. We recognize that Europe's most urgent economic priority is the ongoing financial crisis. As you probably know, we have been dealing with one of our own. And although we get good news from time to time, as we did yesterday with jobs figures and drops in unemployment, we know we have a ways to go, as well. We remain confident that Europe has the will and the means not only to cut your debt and build the necessary firewalls, but also to create growth, to restore liquidity and market confidence.

As Europe emerges from economic crisis, we have to work harder to reinforce each other's recoveries. As deep as our economic relationship is, it has not yet lived up to its potential. I speak often about economic statecraft, because I think we cannot talk about what must be done in the 21st century without recognizing that our economic strength lies at the core of everything we are able to do to advance our values, to protect our interest, to create the security architecture that will sustain stability, going forward. The new U.S.-EU High-Level Working Group on Jobs and Growth created by President Obama and his European counterparts should be at the forefront of our efforts to put our people back to work.

And also, America and Europe can and should be trading more with each other and with the rest of the world. That means we also need to be focused on promoting our economic values. Too often, American and European companies face unfair practices that tilt the playing field against us: favoritism for state-owned enterprises, barriers to trade emerging behind borders, restrictions on investment, rampant theft of intellectual property. Together, America and Europe need to instill that all nations must respect the rules of the road that guarantee fair competition and market access. And above all, we need to remember that our investment in global leadership is not the cause of our fiscal problems. And pulling back from the world will not be the solution.

Third, in a time of tight budgets we need to ensure that our security alliance is agile and efficient, as well as strong. That is what Secretary General Rasmussen calls "smart defense": Joint deployment of missile defenses, the commonly-funded Alliance Ground Surveillance program, Baltic air policing, and a reinvigorated NATO response force. These are practical ways to provide security while minimizing cost to any one nation.

We also need to build our capacity to work with partners such as Sweden, Japan, Australia, members of the Arab League, and many others. And this will be a focus of our efforts in Chicago to ensure that NATO remains the hub of a global security network with a group of willing and able nations working side-by-side with us.

Fourth, our shared values are the bedrock of our community. We need to vigorously promote these together around the world, especially in this time of transformational political change. In the Middle East we have a profound shared stake in promoting successful transitions to stable democracies. We are making the Deauville Partnership a priority during America's G8 presidency this year. And to make good on its promise, we will be putting forward an ambitious agenda to promote political and economic reform, trade, investment, regional integration, and entrepreneurship to help people realize the better future they have risked so much to have.

Just as the impetus behind the Arab Spring has extended beyond the Middle East, so much our work. We have to help consolidate democratic gains in places like Cote d'Ivoire and Kyrgyzstan, and support democratic openings in Burma, and wherever people lack their rights and freedom. At the OSCE, the Community of Democracies, and elsewhere, we need to align all of the tools we have to further our values and goals.

America and Europe have more sophisticated tools than ever to support and reward those who take reforms, and to pressure those who do not. And wherever tyrants deny the legitimate demands of their own people, we need to work together to send a clear message: You cannot hold back the future at the point of a gun.

Of course, it is not credible to preach democracy elsewhere unless we protect and promote it ourselves within our community. The trappings of democracy are not enough. We need a vibrant free press, clean and transparent elections, an independent judiciary, a healthy political opposition, and protection for women, religious, and ethnic minorities. We must protect democratic rights and freedoms wherever they are endangered, including here in Europe.

Fifth and finally, we have to reach out to emerging powers and regions. The world we have worked together to build is changing. There are new centers of wealth and power, and fewer problems can be addressed decisively by America and Europe alone. So we have a challenge to make the most of this critical window of opportunity, to enlist emerging powers as partners, and strengthening a global architecture of cooperation that benefits us all.

I am glad that Europe's engagement in the Asia Pacific is on the agenda here in Munich, because we need to reach out together to regions already playing a growing role in world affairs. Now, a great deal has been said about the importance of a rising Asia Pacific for the United States. But not nearly enough has been said about its importance for Europe. America and Europe need a robust dialogue about the opportunities that lie ahead in the Pacific-Asia region. And we are building one here today. Taken together, all of these elements point to a larger enduring truth: When Americans envision the future, we see Europeans as our essential partners. There is no greater sign of our confidence and commitment than just how much we hope and need to accomplish with you.

We have not sustained the most powerful alliance in history by resting on our laurels. Our predecessors planned for the future together. They acted on the belief that America, Europe, and like-minded nations everywhere are engaged in a single common endeavor to build a more peaceful, prosperous, secure world. That is as true today as it ever was. And in this time of momentous change, let us have that same spirit guide us as we chart our path forward together. Thank you. (Applause.)

AMBASSADOR ISCHINGER: Thank you, Secretary Clinton. Thank you, Secretary Panetta. We are running just a little bit behind schedule, but I think we should have time for a few questions. A couple of questions have already reached me here.

And I will start this question and answer session by reading a question from someone you know well, Karl Kaiser, sitting somewhere here, from Harvard. His question is -- I think it is addressed to the Secretary of Defense, I imagine -- "Is the U.S. posture during the Libya crisis of 'leading from behind' and relying on allies to assume the main share a pattern likely to remain?" I think that goes to you, Leon.

SECRETARY PANETTA: Look, in the world that we are dealing with, with the myriad of threats that I outlined, whether it is terrorism, whether it is the war in Afghanistan, whether it is the threats from Iran, North Korea, turmoil in the Middle East, I think we need to have a broad and flexible approach to dealing with each of those crises. We can't just rely on one mode to be able to confront the conflicts in today's world. Libya, it worked to have NATO come together. It was effective, it was successful. But it doesn't necessarily mean that that particular model might apply if we had to go to war in North Korea, or if we had to confront a threat elsewhere.

I think the most important thing the United States has done in developing our defense strategy is to maintain our capability to be able to engage in a broad way, depending on what the crisis is, what the threat is. So if we need land forces to confront land forces, and we have to take the lead on that, we have the capability to do that. If we have to deal with someone trying to close the Straits of Hormuz, we have the naval and air force capability to be able to do that. We can do that in conjunction with NATO, or we can do it on our own. We need to maintain a full, flexible, agile, and strong defense in every way. And that means working with NATO, but at the same time understanding that all of us have to have the capability to deal with threats as they emerge.

AMBASSADOR ISCHINGER: Thank you very much. The next question goes to Secretary Clinton, but I can't read this properly. It comes from Stefan Kornelius. Could somebody give a microphone to Stefan over there, and we will invite him to present his question himself?

MR. KORNELIUS: Wolfgang, I am glad to give you a lot of (inaudible) both questions I want to ask myself.

Secretary Clinton, the question of Afghanistan and their sort of emerging probable negotiating process with the Taliban, the first steps have been made. Is the Administration prepared to do a confidence-building measure in thinking of releasing detainees in Guantanamo, as the other side demands?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I am not going to go into any details about what we are or are not prepared to do, because we are just at the beginning of this process of exploration whether or not there is an opportunity to bring about an end to the conflict through a political solution. But this is, first and foremost, an Afghan-led and Afghan-owned process. We support the Afghan Government in its efforts to work with the representatives of the Taliban and other insurgent groups, to see whether there is common ground on which to build enough trust -- to go back to that word again -- to have a resolution.

There are certain conditions that certainly the United States would look to. We would expect anyone who was engaged in such talks to: renounce violence, to be prepared to lay down arms and enter the political process, if that is what they were to seek, to have their views known within the Afghanistan political system; to renounce all ties with al Qaeda because of the history with the Taliban -- that is a very important issue to the Afghans, to us, to NATO-ISAF; and to agree to abide by the constitution of Afghanistan.

So, there will continue to be all kinds of speculation about what is or is not happening. But I think it is important to say of course we are exploring whether there is a way forward in partnership, and with the lead of the Afghans themselves.

AMBASSADOR ISCHINGER: Thank you. Because we are running out of time I will call on two more. If you could be brief, first one is member of the German Bundestag, (Inaudible) Stinner, and the second one is Francois Heisbourg, over there. So we go to (Inaudible) Stinner first.

QUESTION: Yes. Thank you very much. Due to the shortage of time, I would like to do it in English, then. The question goes to Mr. Panetta, Secretary Panetta, with regard to missile defense. This morning we heard a very interesting presentation by Senator Nunn. And my understanding of these two presentations from him and from you, I see a difference in tonality. Senator Nunn, to a very large extent, elaborated on the political issue with regard to coming to terms with Russia. You more or less concentrated on a technical aspect of defending ourselves, which is most valued, of course.

But would you subscribe to the ideas of Senator Nunn, that it is of utmost political importance to come to terms with Russia, and that we are to take into consideration the political and psychological concerns of Russia?

And the last question is with regard -- is Russia fears that the missile defense will undermine their capability of defense themselves. I think it is unjustified, as far as it goes, from phase one to three. With regard to phase 4, inaugurated probably by 2020, I see that this phase 4 will indeed -- or will eventually indeed undermine Russia's capability. To what extent are you willing to subscribe to what Senator Nunn has done with regard to political implications? And what do you think about Russia's concerns here? Thank you very much.

SECRETARY PANETTA: No, I greatly respect the work that Senator Nunn has done. And frankly, I don't see a contradiction here. I think to engage in what Senator Nunn wants to do, to be able to reach out to develop the kind of communication and relationships that are important to trying to prevent war in the future, I think that is absolutely essential. But I also think you need to do that from a position of strength, not a position of weakness. And, therefore, I think we have to continue to build our defense. We have to continue to be able to deploy that which we think is important to the defense of Europe. And we intend to do that.

Now, we do not view, very frankly, the ballistic defense system that we are trying to develop here as in any way a threat to Russia. We have made that clear, time and time again. We will continue to make it clear to Russia. And we hope that, ultimately, we can resolve those issues, so that we can proceed in a way that represents the defense of Europe, not a threat to Russia, but the defense of Europe.

AMBASSADOR ISCHINGER: Thank you. And the last question goes to Francois Heisbourg, from Paris.

QUESTION: Yes, Secretary Panetta, in the very substantial changes in the American defense posture which you announced recently, the -- your starting points are defense budget reductions which do not take into account sequestration.

Am I right in assuming that sequestration would be countermanded, would not need to be taken into account if, for example, President Obama were reelected and the balance in the Congress would change? But if one assumes that, does that mean that there would be no further defense cuts beyond those upon which you have based the announcements in the change of defense posture? Because the difference between a world with sequestration and a world without sequestration is about half-a-trillion dollars of defense spending.

SECRETARY PANETTA: Sequestration, for those of you that are not familiar with that term, is a crazy formula that was developed by some of our colleagues in the Congress that essentially said if they didn't reach a number of savings to be achieved -- it was done with this committee, the super committee that had been appointed. The committee was to achieve at least, I think, about 1.4 trillion in savings. And if they did not achieve at least that amount, that then an automatic cut across the board would take place of that amount. And for defense, that represents a virtual doubling of the cuts that we would confront.

As the President has pointed out, and I have emphasized, we are not paying attention to sequester. Sequester is crazy. And therefore, I am going to urge -- and we strongly urge -- the Congress to be able to come forward and try to detrigger that amount. Because, frankly, it is not only the amount, but it is the way it would be done. The formula is built in to sequester. It would cut across the board. And, as I have said, it would virtually devastate our national defense. And for that reason, we are saying no, we are not planning on sequester taking place. If sequester happened, I would have to throw the strategy that I just developed -- I would have to throw that out the window. And I think that would be dangerous for America, and it would be dangerous for the world.

With regards to the future, obviously we will continue to work. I think we have developed a very strong strategy for the future. I think the strategy that was developed with the service chiefs -- I developed it with the service chiefs, with the under secretaries of defense. It was a unified effort to establish a strategy that would give us a defense not only now, but in the future, and make it one that would be agile and flexible for the future. We think we want to stick to that, because it is important for the United States to set a strategy, and a consistent strategy, so that the world understands where we are going with defense, not just now but in the future.

AMBASSADOR ISCHINGER: Let us all thank our two Secretaries for a great presentation. (Applause.)

Mark C. Toner

Deputy Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC

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

1:01 p.m. EST

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

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

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

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

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

QUESTION: But I’m --

MR. TONER: Yeah. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Go ahead, Andy.

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

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

QUESTION: And what specific --

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

QUESTION: Mark, one more on --

MR. TONER: Yeah, Jill.

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

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

QUESTION: Mark --

MR. TONER: Go ahead, Said.

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

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

QUESTION: Are you able to --

MR. TONER: Yeah.

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

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

QUESTION: But --

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

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

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

QUESTION: Well, this – wait.

MR. TONER: Yeah, go ahead.

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

MR. TONER: Yeah, I believe so.

QUESTION: Yeah, it was.

QUESTION: Okay.

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

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

MR. TONER: Absolutely, Brad.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MR. TONER: I’ll try to get clarity.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: Another --

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

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

QUESTION: Another subject?

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

Yeah.

QUESTION: Mark, another subject?

QUESTION: Another subject?

MR. TONER: Are we done with Egypt?

Yeah, go ahead.

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

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

QUESTION: At the Labor Department.

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

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

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

QUESTION: And just to follow, one more quick.

MR. TONER: Yeah.

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

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

QUESTION: Staying on India?

MR. TONER: Sure, we’ll stay on India.

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

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

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

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

QUESTION: So do you --

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

QUESTION: Can I just quickly --

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

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

QUESTION: Can we go on to Syria?

MR. TONER: Yeah. Sure. Thank you.

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

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

QUESTION: This is – okay. Sorry.

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

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

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

QUESTION: The reworded --

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

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

MR. TONER: Right.

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

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

QUESTION: Its tone.

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

QUESTION: Do you know how long that conversation lasted?

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

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

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

QUESTION: From the plane?

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

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

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

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

Go ahead, Said.

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

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

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

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

Yeah. Go ahead, Brad.

QUESTION: Aside from the substance --

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

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

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

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

QUESTION: It was productive, or was it --

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

QUESTION: Okay.

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

Yeah. Lalit.

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

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

QUESTION: So they are going meet in Munich?

MR. TONER: I believe so.

QUESTION: Change topics?

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah. Sure. Elise, you got a question?

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

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

QUESTION: Yes. It’s on Israel.

MR. TONER: Okay.

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

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

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

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

MR. TONER: Well, let me just finish.

QUESTION: -- Israel going after them?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

QUESTION: So do you think that --

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

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

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

In the back.

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

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

QUESTION: But does it limit your ability, because there is sort of impasse at the moment between Pakistan and the United States?

MR. TONER: Well --

QUESTION: They were supposed to review, the U.S. was supposed to wait for the recommendations. Is there any communication --

MR. TONER: We are, in fact, still waiting for those recommendations and that review.

QUESTION: But does the internal situation limit your ability to engage with Pakistan?

MR. TONER: I don’t think so. We remain in very close consultation through our ambassador in Islamabad, Cameron Munter, and his counterparts on the ground in Islamabad, but at a variety of levels with the Pakistani Government. So I think where we are with the broader bilateral relationship is exactly what you said, which is that we understand there’s this parliamentary review underway. Once that’s completed, we can sit down with Pakistan and try to address some of these issues.

Yeah, sure. Samir.

QUESTION: What’s the U.S. reaction to the parliamentary elections in --

QUESTION: Another on Pakistan?

MR. TONER: Let’s finish with Pakistan. I apologize. I didn’t realize it. Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: Well, there were two interesting developments last week – or rather this week: President Obama saying that the drone that attacked targets in FATA are American drones, and the Pakistani foreign minister saying that yes, we can bring the Taliban to talks with the Afghan Government. Previously, both sides refused to acknowledge these things, so does it reflect a new resolve to addressing difficult issues rather than sweeping them under the carpet?

MR. TONER: Well, it’s – that’s a good question. Look, I think we want to – as we’ve said many, many times since the very tragic events of November 26, we are committed to this relationship with Pakistan. It’s absolutely essential. It’s in our national security interests and it’s in Pakistan’s national security interests. I think in the context of the two things you cited in your question, those are – I think we’re trying to bring greater focus to bear on the broader threats that we both face, which are these extremists operating who are an existential threat to Pakistan as well as a threat to the United States as well as a threat to Afghanistan and the region as a whole. So as much as we can honestly work together to address those threats, that’s a good thing.

Yeah. Let’s go to Samir. He had a question.

QUESTION: Was the U.S. --

MR. TONER: Kuwait, you asked?

QUESTION: Parliamentary election yesterday in Kuwait.

MR. TONER: I do have something. Hold on just one moment as I look for it.

QUESTION: Of course, you do. You’re the State Department.

MR. TONER: That’s right. We do follow events in Kuwait. (Laughter.) Thanks, Brad.

We do congratulate the Kuwaiti people and the government for continuing to uphold Kuwait’s democratic traditions and institutions, including through their national parliamentary elections which took place yesterday, as you noted. Transparency and due process are essential to protecting the integrity of the electoral process and preserving the confidence of the Kuwaiti people and their democratic system. So we’re encouraged that the government invited citizens and international observers to monitor and report on the elections and of course, some of the initial reports indicate that these elections were, in fact, free and fair. So, again, we congratulate the Kuwaiti people on a job well done.

QUESTION: Although 60 percent of the parliamentarians – parliament seats are apparently Islamist or from the Muslim Brotherhood, people that may want to see Sharia law imposed and less and less freedoms?

MR. TONER: Well, again, your question contains the kernel of my response, which is that it’s not about labels, what these parties may call themselves. It’s going to be how they govern and do they govern in a democratic fashion that’s consistent with the aspirations of the Kuwaiti people. That’s how we’re going to judge going forward.

QUESTION: Did you experience – is it your experience that the Islamists governing – actually they govern in accordance with rule of law rather than Sharia law?

MR. TONER: I apologize. I didn’t --

QUESTION: Okay. Let me rephrase it then. From your experience thus far, do you have confidence that these Islamic parties will rule according to their constitutions or --

MR. TONER: I think it’s something we’re watching closely, whether it’s Egypt or Kuwait, and we’re going to be monitoring closely going forward -- excuse me. But I would say the jury’s out. But again, we’re going to judge them by how they actually govern.

Yeah. Go ahead.

QUESTION: On a new subject, on Okinawa, there are reports out there that the Administration has given up its plan to shift the Marines out to Guam and instead is looking at rotating them through Australia, Philippines, other places. Can you tell us what’s the status of this?

MR. TONER: Sure. I am aware of those reports. I can say that we’re obviously strongly committed to maintaining and enhancing our security alliance with Japan. At the same time, as we’ve noted before, we’re looking to mitigate the impact on Okinawa and the United States and Japan remain fully committed to the implementation of the Futenma replacement facility and the relocation of the Futenma airbase to Camp Schwab. So there’s no change there.

QUESTION: New topic?

QUESTION: Same topic?

MR. TONER: Sure. Go ahead. Yeah.

QUESTION: The Japanese Foreign Minister Gemba said that the U.S., Japan are rethinking the Futenma relocation in the roadmap, so which mean – it implies maybe they are – they going to make a change about this plan. So would you please explain this? And also, would you please tell me what kind of impact do you think it has on the relocation of Futenma to Henoko.

MR. TONER: Well, again, I think we’ve said all along that we’re in discussion with Japan. We’re looking to, as I just said, to mitigate the impact of the – on Okinawa of these changes. But I don’t have anything to announce or anything new to say about it.

QUESTION: I have a new --

QUESTION: But it’s inaccurate to say that you’re relooking at the roadmap? I mean, you’re committed to the current plan for now, but you’re also looking at other options. Is that correct?

MR. TONER: We’re committed to – I think we’re committed to the roadmap. I’d stop there.

QUESTION: I have a new topic.

QUESTION: So there is no change right now you --

MR. TONER: Not that I’m aware of. No.

QUESTION: This is on Spain.

MR. TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: The Spanish foreign minister announced --

MR. TONER: Are we done – sorry. Are we done with Futenma? Yeah. Sorry.

QUESTION: So your understanding for this moment is that it’s within agreement U.S., Japan (inaudible) --

MR. TONER: That’s my understanding, yes.

QUESTION: So it’s not like a renegotiating for other agreement.

MR. TONER: Right.

QUESTION: On Spain, the Spanish foreign minister announced today that the U.S. has agreed to retrieve some soil contaminated with radioactivity from this incident in the ’60s where a U.S. plane with an atomic – dropped an atomic bomb. And there’s a quote in the Spanish papers by Kathleen Doherty, deputy assistant secretary. Is this a done deal from the U.S. point of view, and is the U.S. agreeing with the public comments by the Spanish foreign minister that you’ve agreed to --

MR. TONER: That we’ve reached agreement on a settlement, if you will, for this?

QUESTION: Yeah. Yes.

MR. TONER: You know what, Elise? I’m going to take the question. I apologize. I am well aware of the case. I just don’t know --

QUESTION: If you could take the question --

MR. TONER: I absolutely will take the question.

QUESTION: -- because the Spanish foreign minister said it today, and the Secretary’s scheduled to meet with her tomorrow, so --

MR. TONER: No, absolutely. And, as I said, I’m very – you’re absolutely right, and I’m very much aware of the – of this. It’s a very tragic story, but we’ll check on it.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR. TONER: Yep.

Sure, Said.

QUESTION: New topic?

MR. TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: Palestinian issue. Did you follow closely the visit of Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to the West Bank and Gaza?

MR. TONER: We’re the State Department.

QUESTION: (Laughter.) Okay. Great.

MR. TONER: No --

QUESTION: Did you – do you agree with what he said at the tail end of his visit, that the window on the two-state solution is closing?

MR. TONER: Well, look, we would agree that there’s an urgency here, yes, and that – and we’ve talked about this many times before, that the status quo is not sustainable, so that it’s in both sides’ interests to get back and to address these issues at the negotiating table.

QUESTION: Sorry. He also called on the Palestinians to return to the negotiating table, but he also called on the Israelis to be serious about giving up the land. Do you agree with him?

MR. TONER: Well, again, these are all issues for – to be addressed in direct negotiations. So we would call on both sides to come to the negotiating table with serious proposals.

QUESTION: And lastly, he also called on Israel to lift the siege on Gaza. Would you also agree with that?

MR. TONER: Again, all of these matters are best left to the negotiating table for discussions there. David Hale is in the region now. He was, I believe, in Ramallah yesterday, where he did meet with Abbas, and he’s in Israel today. I’ll try to get a readout of his meetings there. But that remains our focus right now, is we’ve got this pause in the talks that began in Jordan. We want to see them get back to the negotiating table, as I said, with real, concrete proposals on how to bridge some of these differences.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR. TONER: Let’s go to the back. Swiss – you’re the Swiss. I remember you, see.

QUESTION: Exactly. No, yesterday the Department of Justice indicted, for the first time in history, a Swiss bank on conspiracy and tax fraud, and it’s the first time that a foreign bank is indicted on these counts. So I was wondering what impact this has on the ongoing negotiations and on the --

MR. TONER: You’re talking about the – and forgive me if I mispronounce it --

QUESTION: Wegelin.

MR. TONER: Wegelin. Yeah. Thank you.

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR. TONER: I know Brad’s watching closely for my pronunciation.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) your pronunciation. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: (Inaudible) remediate it. (Laughter.)

MR. TONER: That’s a perfectly valid word, by the way. In any case, let me assure you that we obviously enjoy a very strong and long-lasting partnership with Switzerland. That goes without saying. This particular matter does involve allegations of criminal wrongdoing by a particular institution and its employees, so I have to refer you to the Department of Justice, as it’s an ongoing investigation.

Yeah. Go ahead.

QUESTION: But some people back in Switzerland are characterizing this as a unfriendly move from the U.S. What’s your reply?

MR. TONER: Not at all. As I said, the broader bilateral relationship remains very strong, but this is a matter – an investigation that’s being conducted by the Department of Justice, so I’m limited in what I can, frankly, say about it.

QUESTION: So you didn’t hear back from the Swiss Government yet?

MR. TONER: I don’t believe so, but I can – I’ll check on that.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR. TONER: Yeah, Goyal. One last question, quickly.

QUESTION: Just a quick – back to Iran quickly, please. Thank you.

MR. TONER: Who do you think is going to win the Super Bowl, Goyal?

QUESTION: As far as sanctions are concerned against Iran, many countries and many companies are still doing business with Iran. Are you going to sanction those countries and companies who are helping Iran?

MR. TONER: You’re talking about the CBI legislation, the – about the Central Bank of Iran?

QUESTION: Yes, sir.

MR. TONER: Well, I think we’ve also said – and very quickly – we’re – we’ve sent teams out. We’re talking to allies and partners throughout the world. We’re committed to implementing this law and this legislation, but we’re also trying to do it in a fashion that doesn’t put undue pressure on our partners in this process.

So thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 1:40 p.m.)

DPB # 23

Background Briefing En Route to Munich, Germany

Senior State Department Officials

En Route

Munich, Germany

February 3, 2012

MODERATOR: Okay, we are en route to Munich and Sofia with the Secretary of State. Here to give you a laydown of our plan is [Senior State Department Official], hereafter Senior State Department Official Number One. Take it away.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Thanks, [Moderator]. So the Secretary is attending what I think is the 48^th meeting of the Munich Security Conference, a big gathering of leaders not just from across Europe but now globally. And the day tomorrow will begin with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense speaking together on a panel, and that’s a real opportunity for the two of them together to send a strong message of support for and engagement with Europe.

Without previewing too specifically their remarks, I think the Secretary of Defense will talk about the defense review that the Pentagon recently undertook and what it means for Europe and how we are going about reaffirming our commitment to European security and Article 5 and global partnership. And the Secretary of State will talk about what a key partner Europe is in the global security, economic, democracy promotion agenda that we have.

Secretary Clinton will then go on to do a number of bilats, and I’ll give you mostly the schedule, which is still in flux. But she will likely see Ukrainian President Yanukovych, which is an important opportunity for us to continue our engagement with Ukraine, which is a critical player in Europe on security, energy, and economics. And she will reiterate our position that we’d like to see a much stronger U.S. relationship with Ukraine, but we also have some expectations of Ukraine. And she’ll no doubt raise the issue of democracy in Ukraine and the specific case of former Prime Minister Tymoshenko’s imprisonment.

She’ll have a bilat with Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov and, as always with Russia, a massive global agenda, and you can be sure that Syria and the discussions at the UN will be one of the issues there, among many.

She’ll see Egyptian Foreign Minister Amr. She will see Azerbaijani President Aliyev and Armenian Foreign Minister Nalbandian -- again, a big agenda in the Caucasus on economic security.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Azeri President Aliyev and Armenian Foreign Minister Nalbandian.

She’ll see the new Spanish Foreign Minister Garcia-Margallo, who she hasn’t met yet. She’s spoken on the phone with him, but this will be their first meeting.

She’ll see the Italian Prime Minister Monti, obviously a big agenda there, not just on the economy but on our global cooperation with Italy.

And no doubt some others, but those are the confirmed bilats at this point.

MODERATOR: We can go to what’s on your minds. (Inaudible.)

QUESTION: You said that she would see Lavrov and then no doubt they would talk about Syria and New York. Does that mean that you’ve concluded that this is not going to go to a vote today?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: I’ve concluded that Syria will remain a topic regardless of what happens today. I don’t know if you want to add anything.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: As I mentioned earlier, she is expecting to talk to Foreign Minister Lavrov on the phone sometime today, because we are interested in getting to a vote as quickly as we can.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: I don’t know. It’s --

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: We will ascertain for you whether that phone call has happened yet or not.

MODERATOR: Lach, a question?

QUESTION: About the Tymoshenko, did you meet with the daughter or have you heard about the abuse that she’s alleging? And what kind of pressure will you put on the Ukrainians?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: I was traveling when Yulia Tymoshenko’s daughter was in Washington, but at the State Department she met with Special Envoy Melanne Verveer, and Deputy Secretary Burns dropped by to see her at the White House. She met with Tony Blinken and Liz Sherwood-Randall. So she was seen at very high levels throughout the government in Washington, and we listened carefully to what she had to say about her mother’s situation. And we’ve expressed our very serious concerns, called for her release from prison, and the Secretary has been engaged on this issue and feels strongly. We are concerned about what really looks like selective prosecution.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: The Secretary also bumped into her at the prayer breakfast and had a chance to exchange a few words.

QUESTION: Is there any movement, which seems unlikely, on Nagorno-Karabakh?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Well, there’s lots of diplomacy going on around Nagorno-Karabakh, and it’s something we’re very much engaged in. As you know, the diplomacy is done by the Minsk Group co-chairs, one of the three of which is the United States. And again, this is something the Secretary takes a personal interest in. the co-chairs just joined the Russian president and the leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan for a summit-level meeting in Russia, and the Secretary wants to talk to both sides about the results of that and the follow-on from that and how we can help move the process forward.

QUESTION: Are they going to take – are she and Panetta going to take questions? Has that been decided?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: We’re still working out the schedule. I mean, that was the expectation, but things are getting a little squeezed, as they always do at Munich. But certainly, she’ll take questions at the end of the day, is our plan.

QUESTION: No, I meant from the audience there.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: That is still being worked because the schedule’s getting squeezed.

QUESTION: Are they not going to talk at all about Afghanistan or Iran?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: You mean in their statements?

QUESTION: In the security conference.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Of course, they will. Of course, they will.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Yeah. Well, I mean, when I said she’ll address our global cooperation with the Europeans, Afghanistan and Iran are obviously two of the things that we are closely engaged on.

New Report Highlights Humanitarian Threat from "Dangerous Depots"

Office of the Spokesperson

Washington, DC

February 3, 2012

In recent years, accidental explosions at arms storage facilities in Cyprus, Russia, Turkmenistan, and elsewhere have highlighted significant potential risks to surrounding communities from poorly maintained, improperly stored, or inadequately guarded conventional weapons and munitions, as captured in a new State Department report.

“Dangerous Depots: The Growing Humanitarian Problem Posed by Aging and Poorly Maintained Munitions Storage Sites” tracks accidental detonations at foreign military storage sites in recent years. The report, produced by Bureau of Political-Military Affairs’ Office of Weapons Removal and Abatement documents State Department efforts in partnership with the U.S. Department of Defense’s Defense Threat Reduction Agency, to promote security by helping countries safely dispose of aging arms and munitions and improve stockpile management, two key steps toward preventing future accidents as well as reducing potential proliferation risks.

Since 2001, the United States has partnered with more than 50 countries to promote safe disposal of surplus and aging weapons and munitions, including 1.5 million small arms and light weapons, more than 90,000 tons of munitions, and more than 32,900 man-portable air defense systems. In addition, U.S. experts have worked with partners to improve stockpile management practices. When requested, we have also deployed our Quick Reaction Force of civilian technical experts to help partner countries mitigate risks from potentially dangerous depots and safely remove and dispose of materials following incidents at these facilities.

The United States is the world’s single largest financial supporter of conventional weapons destruction. Since 1993, the United States has promoted peace and security through more than $1.9 billion in 81 countries for removal of landmines and other explosive remnants of war, and the safe disposal of small arms, light weapons, and ammunition. For more information, please visit the Office of Weapons Removal and Abatement’s Web page at www.state.gov/t/pm/wra.

Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs Philip H. Gordon Travel to Germany, Bulgaria, and Ukraine

Office of the Spokesperson

Washington, DC

February 3, 2012

On February 3-5, Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs Philip H. Gordon will travel with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton to Germany and Bulgaria. For additional information click here.

Assistant Secretary Gordon will continue on to Kyiv, Ukraine, February 6, to meet with senior Ukrainian officials and opposition leaders and continue our strategic dialogue on issues of mutual concern, including Ukraine’s integration into Euro-Atlantic institutions, cooperation on non-proliferation, energy security, economic reform, and advancement of democracy and human rights. The Assistant Secretary will also meet with civil society leaders.

Combating Corruption and Bribery in APEC: Promoting Open Governance and Market Integrity to Strengthen Economic Growth and Competiveness

David M. Luna
Director for Anticrime Programs , Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs

Moscow, Russia

February 2, 2012

Good morning.

As we start the new APEC year under the leadership of the Government of the Russian Federation, let me thank all of the economies here and the international organizations that worked with the United States last year to ensure success during our chairmanship of APEC’s Anti-Corruption and Transparency (ACT) Experts’ Working Group.

In passing the baton as Chair to Timur Eyvazov, I would like to provide a brief summary of what the ACT achieved in 2011, and I hope that we will be able to build on this momentum during the Russian Chairmanship to continue implementing the actions outlined in the ACT’s five-year strategy.

Last November in Honolulu, Hawaii, I joined Secretary of State Hillary R. Clinton and other ministers at the APEC High Level Policy Dialogue on Open Governance and Economic Growth to discuss how economies and communities – including representatives from business, academia, and non-governmental and labor organizations – from across the Asia-Pacific region can work to enhance public trust by combating corruption and by committing to transparent, fair, and accountable governance. Participants also underscored how good governance can spur high-quality economic growth by fostering and sustaining the entrepreneurial spirit that nurtures innovation, enhances competitiveness, reduces market distortions, and promotes trade and long-term investment.

The 2011 APEC High Level Policy Dialogue also reaffirmed and reinforced the commitment by economies to report on their implementation of previously-agreed APEC anti-corruption and transparency policies. We join our ACT colleagues in looking forward to seeing the first reports at SOM II and to learning more about economies’ anti-corruption and transparency efforts.

It is clear that our senior officials have placed a high priority on including effective transparency and anti-corruption measures as part of the overall APEC agenda, and open governance is fundamental to our work in many ways as it shines a light on corruption and empowers communities to monitor and voice their perspectives on government policies and the use of resources. Conversely, when a government hides its work from the view of the public, the public’s trust in the government erodes.

Good governance tools are critical to nurturing long-term, sustainable growth and to supporting the regional development and prosperity to which we all aspire. Working together with civil society, economies can harness greater innovation, efficiencies, and technologies that help shape a better future across communities.

Inspired by the Arab Spring, people around the world are demanding more transparency in government. Governments can demonstrate their commitment to uphold the highest levels of integrity by adopting effective anticorruption policies that put accountability front and center.

As Secretary Clinton has emphasized: Empowering citizens to fight corruption and harnessing new technologies to strengthen governance are also vital. Openness is not only good for governance, it is good for sustainable GDP growth.

Tools such as APEC’s Transparency Standards and other sectoral standards can help provides businesses, especially small and medium-sized enterprises, with greater access to laws, regulations, procedures and administrative rulings. These resources will help to enable greater regional economic integration, expansion of trade and investment flows, and job creation. I applaud economies that are also encouraging ethical business practices and implementing codes of ethics in export sectors that are of vital interest to SMEs.

Codes of conduct and financial disclosure systems also help promote public integrity and economic growth, and the United States welcomes the APEC Principles for Financial/Asset Disclosure by Public Officials that the ACT developed last year. These Principles will serve as a useful tool to prevent corruption, as they will help APEC economies identify conflicts of interest and assist in detection and prosecution of those who engage in illicit enrichment and other forms of corruption.

Through our continued cooperation with the private sector, we are leveling the playing field for businesses across APEC economies. In working with the APEC Business Advisory Council (ABAC) and other partners, we ushered in a new era of cooperation between the public and private sectors that will help forge a more connected, innovative, and dynamic Asia Pacific region.

Working with ABAC, the ACT advanced the importance of how corruption increases the costs of doing business, hinders economic performance, undermines competitiveness, and hampers the ability of economies to attract foreign direct investment. Capital flows gravitate to markets with open governance systems within a framework that respects the rule of law, while markets with poor governance and high levels of perceived corruption tend to have lower levels of portfolio investment.

Combating corruption and bribery and protecting legitimate business revenues by dismantling illicit markets and networks also require collective action and shared responsibility among APEC partners, as well as close coordination with relevant regional and international organizations that have expertise and capacities to help improve the overall governance climate in the Asia-Pacific region. The United States is proud that the ACT, in partnership with ABAC, also advanced anti-bribery as a core area of cooperation in 2011.

The United States would like to congratulate Russia for joining the OECD Working Group on Bribery. We hope that Russia’s active leadership in APEC and engagement at the OECD will inspire more of our partners to intensify their efforts against foreign bribery. Russia should also be commended for volunteering to host the Conference of States Parties of the UN Convention against Corruption in 2015.

In 2011, the ACT also took a more comprehensive and holistic approach to combating corruption and illicit trade to ensure integrity in global markets and supply chains, thereby helping to protect our shared prosperity and economic competitiveness. I hope that the ACT will continue to confront criminal entrepreneurs and market actors that navigate between licit and illicit worlds, tainting supply chains and threatening the integrity of our markets.

As we learned in the two ACT workshops in 2011 in San Francisco and Washington, DC, broken supply chains, compromised markets, and the corruption that both facilitates and is financed by illicit trade poses serious threats to our legitimate businesses. We agreed that the proliferation of counterfeit, pirated, and gray-market goods diminishes brand identities, company reputations, and returns on research and innovation and increases operating costs and investment risks for all market investors. We must continue working together to fight the corruption that greases illicit value chains and enables transnational networks.

As we strengthen our partnerships with other international organizations, APEC ACT members can, in fact, translate and advance our principles and commitments in a variety of other fora. Our call for strengthening anticorruption measures and transparency should continue to ring out around the world. In UNCAC, we should take the lessons and principles we have developed in APEC and lead by example on transparent, inclusive reviews; on the inclusion of stakeholders outside of government; and on developing practical measures to cooperate on asset recovery, such as the global Focal Points initiative supported by INTERPOL and StAR. The voices of members of our group are already heard in the G20, the OECD Working Group on Bribery, the ADB-OECD Anticorruption Initiative for Asia and the Pacific, the Open Government Partnership, and in the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership that will include robust anticorruption elements. We should continue to work together to multiply our efforts here through our leadership in these and other relevant fora.

Through our continued cooperation with international partners and our heightened commitment to responsible governance, we can build a firm foundation to invest and reap integrity dividends for future generations.

From Tokyo to New York to Beijing and Moscow, the ACT is developing innovative partnerships and capacities to tackle corruption and bribery. When both the public and private sectors lead and partner together, we can create a culture of integrity that has a lasting impact. We can create a better future by uniting in our support of accountability and good governance against corruption.

Again, I wish Russia a great and successful year in APEC 2012 and applaud my ACT colleagues for developing a vibrant course of action, a long-term strategy to combat corruption in our economies and a new path towards economic progress that nurtures open and cleaner governments and enhances integrity in markets and supply chains.

Remarks With Georgia President Mikheil Saakashvili Preceding Bilateral Meeting

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State

Treaty Room

Washington, DC

February 1, 2012

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, it’s a pleasure to welcome the president here to the State Department. He’s had a number of excellent meetings and consultations here in Washington, starting with the very comprehensive meeting he had with President Obama in the Oval Office. Georgia is a valued partner. They are actively participating in Afghanistan, where Georgian soldiers are showing great courage and professionalism. We are pursuing a system of consultations to determine the way forward on further trade and investment. There’s a lot of work going on in our bilateral consultations on education, on health, on good governance, on rule of law, on defense and security cooperation. So, the president’s had a very busy week here and there are more people for him to see. There’s a great deal of interest in Georgia in our capital. And again, welcome, Mr. President.

PRESIDENT SAAKASHVILI: Thank you, Madam Secretary. First of all, I would like to express utmost gratitude for your strong support, not just in words but in action, for Georgia’s territorial integrity and sovereignty and independence, because it’s lots of daily work. It’s a great struggle. Sometimes it’s like uphill struggle because it’s against the forces that are trying to undermine us. And your personal participation, President Obama’s personal backing for it was – it goes without saying, and that’s something that we really appreciate a lot.

And certainly, I walked out also from this office, but also from the Oval Office where we were also present, totally elated because I heard everything I wanted to hear. And I mean, it’s – I’ve been in there before. But this time, because the country has also matured – my country has also matured up to the challenges – I think we now are moving to another level in cooperation. And with free trade agreement, nobody could have imagined that Georgia would ever start to qualify for that a few years ago. The next level of defense cooperation – and we are proud to serve with you in Afghanistan – was unimaginable a couple of years ago.

Further development of our bilateral ties in all kinds of other fields where Georgia just had to get to this level to be good partners with you. And again, this mature Georgia wouldn’t have been possible without your personal involvement, and we are looking forward to seeing you in our city of Batumi in months to come. And again, thank you so much. Thank you for treating us like this, because I’ve really, as I said, my nation (inaudible) people in our region have been watching and we’ve been –we are not going back empty handed but we are so much (inaudible), so many things to carry back that it’s sensational. Thank you.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you, Mr. President.

PRESIDENT SAAKASHVILI: Thank you so much.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you all very much.