Bombing of Israeli Diplomatic Vehicle in India and Attempted Attack on Israeli Embassy Personnel in Georgia

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State

Washington, DC

February 13, 2012

2012/201

 

STATEMENT BY SECRETARY CLINTON

 

 

 

I condemn in the strongest possible terms the bombing of an Israeli diplomatic vehicle in India and the attempted attack on Israeli Embassy personnel in Georgia.  The scourge of terrorism is an affront to the entire international community.  The United States places a high priority on the safety and security of diplomatic personnel around the world and we stand ready to assist with any investigation of these cowardly actions.  Our thoughts and prayers are with the injured personnel in New Delhi and their loved ones.

 

United States Commits Support to the Community of Democracies Tunisia Task Force

Washington, DC

February 9, 2012

Officials from the United States and more than twenty countries will convene in Tunis, Tunisia on February 9-10 for the inaugural meeting of the Community of Democracies Tunisia Task Force. The United States will be providing $5 million to support priorities emerging from the work of the Task Force and the broader Tunisian transition to democracy.

In July 2011, Secretary Clinton and other leaders participating in the Vilnius Ministerial of the Community of Democracies announced the creation of the Democracy Partnership Challenge to support countries in the midst of promising democratic transitions. Tunisia and Moldova were selected as the first two countries to participate in the initiative based on their commitment to consolidating democratic gains, their potential for future progress, and the strength of their applications.

This week’s meeting of the Tunisia Task Force will bring together officials from countries represented at the Vilnius Ministerial and representatives of civil society. Participants will work to channel support to priority areas identified by the Tunisian government and civil society, including: public administration reform, security and judicial sector reform, regional development, and efforts to strengthen civil society.

Each Community of Democracies Task Force is co-chaired by a long-established democracy and a country that has recently come through the transition process – the Netherlands and the Slovak Republic co-chair the Tunisia Task Force; the Moldova Task Force is co-chaired by the United States and Poland. For information on the Moldova Task Force, please visit: www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2011/12/178396.htm.

Rightsizing U.S. Mission Iraq

Thomas Nides
Deputy Secretary for Management and Resources 

Via Teleconference

Washington, DC

February 8, 2012

MS. NULAND: Thank you, Operator, and thanks to all of you for joining us. We are pleased today to have with us Deputy Secretary of State Tom Nides to talk on the record about a review that he is conducting for the Secretary on rightsizing the U.S. mission in Iraq.

Let me, without further ado, turn it over to the Deputy, and then we’ll take about three or four questions. Unfortunately, his time is a little compressed. Go ahead, Mr. Deputy Secretary.

DEPUTY SECRETARY NIDES: Hi. Thank you all very much. I just wanted to touch on a couple of facts as it regards to Iraq and what we’re planning to do and what we planned to do when we started the mission. As you know, we had the largest transition since the Marshall Plan taking place as of January 1^st, and I think many folks thought that it was a difficult mission set and we – I think arguably – could suggest we’ve had a very successful mission.

We – the military is now gone. We have a robust diplomatic presence. We have a diplomatic presence both in up north and down south and in Baghdad. We have been fully and completely engaged on the – all of the political aspects, which you all have been covering quite clearly. And Jim Jeffrey, in particular, I want to give enormous credit to of being fully engaged at all levels of the Iraqi political situation. We have stood up a robust police-training program, which is doing a terrific job working with the local police in training and developing a program, which I think will pay enormous dividends, too. We’re working on economic development, because as you know, they’re producing almost a million two barrels a day out of Basrah. And we’re working with the IO community to make sure that that, as well as all the other economic development all over the country – we have economic officers accomplishing that.

We have, the probably the most sophisticated OSC-I site, which we’re working with – or OSC-I sites – which we’re working with the military. As you know, the Iraqis have been purchasing tens of millions of dollars of equipment from us, and they will be continuing to do that. We’re training the Iraqis on that equipment, and that is U.S. equipment which they’re purchasing.

And as I’ve pointed out at the beginning is, we’re fully and completely engaged on the political deployment. And with that – knock on wood – we’re doing this, with the first and foremost, the security of our people. It’s certainly still a complicated situation there, but to the credit of our security and our diplomats and our locally engaged employees – knock on wood – we’re doing a better than fine job at accomplishing the goals that we set out.

That said, when we put this mission set up, it was very clear to us that we were going to make sure that over time – and what I mean by over time meaning over this year – we begin to try to right size the Embassy to look at – like so – there’s never such a thing as a normal embassy, but a more normalized embassy presence. And principally, our goal has been to shift our reliance on contractors to basically hiring local Iraqis. This is what the Iraqis want, and quite frankly, that’s what we want because it’s cheaper, it’s more important to be part of the community. And so first and foremost, our goal has always been to, over this year, is to shift more and more of our purchasing, and quite frankly, just our whole operations more to local – locally hired individuals. So that is our first priority, with the understanding that our main priority is making sure our people are secure.

So number one, we’re going to be looking at how we can do that over the next year. We’ll continue to look at our footprint, which is something we’ll always do. And we’re meeting with folks on a daily basis, along with my colleague Pat Kennedy and his team, to make sure that our footprint is appropriate for the period of time as we proceed. We’ll be looking at the – as we look at the programs that we’re offering, most of the programs that we’re offering will continue to be offered. But we’ll continue to look at how we can hire like we do in many countries around the world, that we hire Iraqis to help us with the programs that we’re executing. So I am – we’re doing exactly what we said we were going to do when we set up this mission set, which is we’re going to constantly continue to look to ways to shift more of the cost structure to

locally, which is going to be, obviously, substantially cheaper for us, but most importantly, to continue evaluating it as this mission set is accomplished and is being accomplished.

So I am – feel quite good about where we are. I will tell you, contrary to some of the news reports, we are not reducing our operations by 50 percent. But I will hope – quite frankly, I am hopeful that over the next few months that we’ll be able to reduce our size by, again, reducing the dependency on contractors, by focusing on the things that we said we were going to focus on. But that is – quite frankly, I think we owe it to our – the taxpayers. We owe it to the men and women who are working there. We owe it to all the men and women who have spent time there. And quite frankly, that’s what a good bilateral relationship will do.

So I am quite pleased as we are proceeding here, and I think we’ll have more opportunity in the next few weeks to continue to brief you about how our planning is going. But I should tell you, it’s going to be a process that we’ll go through over the next few months about how we do this plan and continue to do the planning in Iraq.

So why don’t I pause and take a couple questions.

MS. NULAND: Thanks, Operator. We’re ready to go to questions.

OPERATOR: Thank you. And at this time, if you do have questions, please press * followed by 1 on your touchtone phone. If you would like to remove your question, that is *2. Again, *1 for any questions or comments. One moment for that, please.

I am currently showing no questions. Again, that is *1 on your touchtone phone for any questions or comments.

DEPUTY SECRETARY NIDES: Boy, I must have been really good.

OPERATOR: I do have a question from Karen DeYoung. Ma’am.

QUESTION: Hi, Tom.

DEPUTY SECRETARY NIDES: Hi.

QUESTION: You said it won’t be 50 percent, but have you come up with any sense of what it would be? And do you see Iraqis actually taking over security functions, whether static or movement security or any kind of security?

DEPUTY SECRETARY NIDES: I would – to be honest with you, I don’t know where the 50 percent number came from. But I am – it is what it is. But I think that the – I don’t know what the number is. What I – here’s the direction I gave people, okay? We made a commitment to try to reduce the dependency on contractors. There’s been a lot of press written about how many contractors we had. Much of that is security, but its food service, right? If I can get food purchasing – more food purchasing done in Iraq and not have to bring it in, that will dramatically decrease our dependency on contractors to do food service. And that goes through a lot of the service that we are providing now.

So my view of this is we will also look aggressively on perimeter security and how we manage that. But I should be honest with you, Karen. My – the only thing I worry about – the only thing I worry about is the security of our people. Okay? We have a diplomatic mission. We owe it to make sure that we fulfill the diplomatic mission that we set out to do when we made this transition. But the most important thing to do is to make sure that we are making sure that we have – our people are secure. And so I – as much as I would love to reduce – continue to reduce the numbers of people and the cost, I will not sacrifice the security of our people.

That said, I think as we go through this year, we’re going to see many, many opportunities to allow us to have a – the footprint that we can accomplish the goals around economic development and the OSC-I and the police training, the political engagement, with hopefully some fewer people and then also a lesser dependency on the contractors, which I think we all want to do. And we’ll do that. And it will take – it’s going to take time.

And what we’re not going to do is make kind of knee-jerk decisions. This has to be – there was several years of planning goes into these as the Embassy was stood up, and we will be very thoughtful as we begin moving – transitioning this is into a more – what I refer to as a normal-looking embassy. But that will take time, and so we’re going to be doing this very thoughtfully, and in consultation with the Congress, I mind you. I will have many conversations with the Congress, which we’re doing. And they get it. I mean, they totally understand what we’re trying to do.

MS. NULAND: Operator, next question.

OPERATOR: Thank you. Our next question comes from Steven Myers of The New York Times. Your line is open.

QUESTION: Hi, Tom and Victoria.

DEPUTY SECRETARY NIDES: Hey, buddy.

QUESTION: The – two questions, which are related: Why is this review happening now as opposed to over the last year when you knew this was coming? Even on the question of buying local food, for example, that could have been done years ago, but it wasn’t. And now you’re looking at it, so I wonder why.

DEPUTY SECRETARY NIDES: Well, I mean --

QUESTION: If I can just ask my second, because it’s related: The Iraqis have put up a lot of obstacles, some small but some rather significant, on movements, on visas. They’ve complained about the size of the security footprint. How much of the Iraqi obstructionism is causing you to rethink the number of people that you have there as well?

DEPUTY SECRETARY NIDES: Okay. Well, let me answer the first question. The first one’s a good question. I mean – and I should say let’s just step back and remind us where we were, okay? A year ago, we had almost 40-50,000 American troops there, okay? The military was the – was predominately the way we got around. It was certainly a major part of our presence, if not the greater preponderance of our presence, and all of our – much of our diplomatic presence was dependent upon everything from how we were fed and our medical care and all those activities, right?

So as we made the largest transition – again, I hate to use this line, but I’ll use it anyways again – since the Marshall Plan, our decision was – which was rightly so – is that we’re going to have to stand this mission set up. Because remember, we set a hard deadline to have those troops gone. So we knew that – starting January 1^st – that we were going to have to have a mission set up to basically allow us to do exactly what our mission was, which is the diplomacy, the political engagement, the police training. And so our goal was – at that point was to make sure we had a mission that’s set up.

We always said – if you go and talk to Senator Leahy or you talk to Kay Granger, I was very clear that this was going to be – we’re going to do this in stages. You and I had this conversation. We were going to basically have a glide path, which was we would do – like on police training, our original police training program had us this year – our original plan was to do a billion dollar police training, and we started the plan – the training with a half a billion dollar program, because we want to see how these programs work. And as I said to everyone on the Hill, we are going to stand this mission set up because it’s critically important as we get those – we get the military out that we have a very strong diplomatic presence and we don’t have any gaps between the military and our diplomatic presence.

But that said, I – we have been totally upfront and straight about this, that over time we want to have a more normalized embassy, and that will mean making a decision over time about contractors, the numbers of contractors, the size of some of our mission sets, without losing sight of our core mission, which is, number one, political engagement, economic development, kind of the – and then this – and then the OSC-I piece of this, which is very, very important as they purchase U.S. equipment.

So I – again, I’m – one thing about what we have said and certainly what I’ve said and I think our team has said is we were very clear with everyone what we were planning to do and how we will execute this over. And this is not going to happen overnight. I mean, we’re not going to have – tomorrow, we’re not going to be able to sit here and say okay, X numbers of – hundreds of thousands of people have departed. We’re going to be doing this over a period of time as we think about how this mission set should look like, and quite frankly, as we procure more goods and as we operate more.

Now, on your second question, I – we’ve had an unbelievable cooperation from the Iraqis, okay? Listen, is it always perfect? No. I’m sure it’s not always perfect. It’s not always perfect. And I’m sure they don’t think we’re always perfect. But the reality is, is they’ve given us the visas that we’ve needed. It hasn’t been always smooth, but we’ve been given the visas. We’ve set up an operation in Iraq which allows our diplomats to be safe, allows us to do political engagement, it allows us to have an OSC-I site that are training people on military equipment which they’re purchasing from us.

So I’d have to say, as cynical as all of us are – and I think most of us are pretty cynical – pretty darn good, I mean, if you ask us come January 30 – January or February 6^th where we are today. So I think you all would be questioning us if you weren’t asking us a question, “Well, what are you guys going to do over the long term? What is your long-term view of how big your footprint should be? How much should you be relying up on local contractors?” So we’re asking the tough questions. We’re going to continue asking the tough questions. And we’re going to, over time, allow ourselves to have this Embassy look like – more like a normal embassy, but it will take time without compromising our core missions.

MS. NULAND: And for those of you who aren’t wonked up on Iraq, Office of Security Cooperation is what OSC-I is.

We have time for one last question, Operator. Thank you.

OPERATOR: Thank you. And I have a question from Matthew Lee from the Associated Press. Your line is open.

QUESTION: Yeah. Hi.

DEPUTY SECRETARY NIDES: Hi.

QUESTION: Thanks. You say that you’ve been very clear about this with everybody, but apparently not, because that’s why this 50 percent number is floating around – I presume – that’s floating around in Baghdad. And whether or not it’s true or not, I’m wondering if it isn’t, in fact, the case if you are simply getting rid of the expensive contractors and replacing them with local contractors. While I see a reduction in cost, I don’t see a net reduction in contractors.

DEPUTY SECRETARY NIDES: Oh, well that – yeah. Listen, we’re not there to make – I mean, listen. We will go – we’ll go contractor by contractor, we’ll try to figure out over time what goods we can purchase locally in which we will not rely upon goods that are coming in over the border.

But I think the more – which – and I certainly appreciate the question – I think you also should recognize the fact we were spending last year almost $50 billion through DOD, and we’re now spending approximately $5.5 billion or – I mean, correct my numbers, but in that ballpark, right? For the taxpayers, okay, they’ve had a very positive gain. Okay? That said, I think most of us would agree that the – if you look at what’s happened in Iraq over the last month and a half, our political engagement there has been at the top end of the scale. The engagement of Jim Jeffrey and Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden and Barack – President Obama and all the players have been very strong and has been really done by the strength of our diplomatic presence there.

But listen, I think the reality is, as I said at the onset, my hope is that as we go through this next year, I’ll be having conversations which you’ll say, listen, we had X thousands of contractors. We have Y now because we are procuring more of our goods in Iraq, or we have concluded that we – the footprint that we currently have, we can have a smaller footprint. We don’t need as big a footprint. So consequently, we don’t need as many, quote, “static guards.” I mean, that’s what every good operation does. We should be – you – people should be pushing us all the time to continue to evaluate over the next couple years, which we will be doing.

Our goal has been, quite frankly, upfront, which is we will continue to look at this – the mission set to make sure that we do not compromise on our core responsibilities, which is, number one, the security of our people. So regardless of what the size is, we are going to make sure that the people there – our diplomats and our – and the people that we have hired there are secure, number one, and two, that the ability for us to be involved in the political engagement of Iraq is at the highest possible level because there’s – clearly, as you all know, there’s – this is as important a diplomatic mission that we have anywhere in the world. The stakes are high, and we plan to be engaged. So --

QUESTION: I understand that, but what I’m getting at is that barring – or unless – until there is development, until the circumstances allow for a dramatic reduction in, say, security guards, the security footprint, if you are just getting rid of the expensive contractors and hiring local people at less cost, isn’t it possible that there won’t be that significant a reduction in the number of personnel at all, at least until we get to the point where there doesn’t have to be that many – where there doesn’t --

DEPUTY SECRETARY NIDES: I mean, Matt, my – the way I’d answer the question is: I mean, having spent a lot of time in the business world as well, so I guess I’m somewhat uniquely qualified since I’ve had – I’ve done this a few times – there’s a variety of ways to do this, right? One is, obviously, the numbers of people that are working on different programs. And again, I go back to this notion that we want to make sure we have enough people to do the programs that we believe are critically important. The second way to make sure that you are smart about it is the numbers of locations you have, right? The amount of space you have, because obviously, the number of, quote, “security guards” you’re talking about is a total derivative of how many square feet we have, right? I mean, how many locations you have, because you have to obviously protect the perimeters of those.

So as we proceed over the next year, and as we look at our mission set and look at what we’re trying to achieve on the diplomatic side, my hope is, is that we’ll conclude over – in the period of time that we can consolidate some of the locations and space, and that will allow us to rely more upon local Iraqi contractors. But the most important thing is what we’re going to do is we’re going to be studying it, we’re working on it, we’re going to work very closely with our staff at our – in Baghdad and around the country, and we’re going to work with the Iraqis. They – we are a team working closely with them as we look at this diplomatic mission now and into the future.

So guys, I’ve got to run. But thank you all. And if I can be of any other help, I’m sure you’ll let us know.

MS. NULAND: Thank you all very much for joining us.

Syria: Payment of Locally Engaged Staff Employed by the U.S. Embassy in Damascus (Taken Question)

Office of the Spokesperson

Washington, DC

Question Taken at the FEBRUARY 7, 2012, Daily Press Briefing

February 7, 2012

Question: Can the U.S. confirm that local embassy staff are continuing to get paid? If so, how are the funds transferred?

Answer: Locally engaged staff members employed by the U.S. Embassy in Damascus continue to be paid. Executive Order (EO) 13582 includes an exception to the sanctions which allows the U.S. to continue payments associated with the conduct of official business. The United States has used this exception to pay locally engaged staff.

Briefing on Recent Developments at Camp Ashraf

Ambassador Daniel Fried

Via Teleconference

Washington, DC

February 7, 2012

MR. TONER: Thank you, and thanks to everyone for joining us on such relatively short notice. Appreciate it. Very happy to have here with us this morning Ambassador Dan Fried, who, as you know, has taken on the additional responsibility of being our special advisor on Camp Ashraf. And he’s here today to update us on the status of the situation at Camp Ashraf as well as some details regarding the UN’s January 31^st announcement that the facilities at former Camp Liberty now meet international humanitarian standards and are ready to receive the residents of Camp Ashraf.

Just a reminder before I hand the mike to Dan, this is an on-the-record call and Dan will say a few words, and then we’ll open it up to your questions. So without further ado, Ambassador Fried.

AMBASSADOR FRIED: Thanks, everyone, for joining. The U.S. has – welcomed – the U.S. has and continues to welcome and support the peaceful temporary relocation and eventual permanent resettlement of the residents of Camp Ashraf in Iraq. This was the heart of Secretary Clinton’s statement on December 25^th last year. Our purpose is humanitarian. We welcomed the signing of the MOU last Christmas Day between the Iraqi Government and the UN. This MOU charts a peaceful way forward.

Since the signing of that MOU, the Iraqi Government has worked to prepare a portion of former Camp Liberty, now called Camp Hurriya, to receive the first residents on a temporary basis, working in regular and close touch with the UN and the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. That work has made enough progress that the UN last week confirmed that the facilities and infrastructure at Hurriya are in accordance with international humanitarian standards.

The UN recommended that the Government of Iraq and the Ashraf residents discuss details of the first move to Hurriya. Yesterday, an Iraqi representative met with the leadership of Camp Ashraf to discuss these details. The UN was present as facilitator. These discussions, according to all of our information, were businesslike and productive.

The United States welcomes this progress, and we look forward to the first residents moving from Camp Ashraf to Camp Hurriya in the immediate future. In any move of this kind and in the early days, once people are settling into Hurriya, problems may arise, of course. Patience, goodwill, and willingness to resolve logistical issues in a practical way will be critical. The United States, through its Embassy in Baghdad and my office, will continue to support the reasonable, prompt resolution of issues that arise, cooperating with the UN and the Iraqi Government and in contact with the residents at former Camp Ashraf and, of course, Hurriya.

The residents of Camp Ashraf must make the decision to start this relocation process. Camp Ashraf is no longer a viable home for them. They have no secure future there. On the other hand, the Government of Iraq has committed itself to the security of the people at Camp Hurriya and is aware that the United States expects it to fulfill its responsibilities.

The UN has committed itself to stationing monitors at Camp Hurriya on a round-the-clock basis. In addition, as Secretary Clinton made clear in her statement, the U.S. will visit Hurriya on a regular and frequent basis. Camp Hurriya is intended as a temporary transit facility to support the safe departure of former Camp Ashraf residents from Iraq. In this regard, while the UN and the UNHCR are doing and will continue to do their part, governments in Europe and beyond and the United States must do our part as this process unfolds.

Once at Camp Hurriya, some people may decide to return to Iran, but on a voluntary basis only. Several hundred already have in the past. Others may have citizenship or valid residency status in third countries and should be able to return to their homes promptly. Still others may qualify for refugee status under UNHCR’s mandate. The residents who relocate to Camp Hurriya will need to be considered individually. To make our own determination about any specific individual, the United States needs to know more about them, and such information can be obtained only after they move to Hurriya and participate in the UNHCR’s status determination process.

In short, it is time for the MEK to make the decision to start the move out of Camp Ashraf to Camp Liberty-Hurriya from where they can begin new lives outside of Iraq. A peaceful solution, no matter what the circumstances, is the only acceptable solution, but it is time to move forward.

Now, with that, I’ll take your questions. And – oh, I should add that the UN head of mission in Iraq Martin Kobler and I were in Europe late last week discussing all of these issues with the European Union, with European parliamentarians, and I met separately with the French Government to discuss the way ahead. So this is an issue very much in motion.

So I’ll now take your questions.

MR. TONER: Great. Thanks, Dan. And, Operator, you can go ahead and tee up the first question.

OPERATOR: Yes, thank you. If you would like to ask a question, press *1. To withdraw your request, press *2. One moment for the first question.

The first question comes from Matthew Lee of AP. Your line is open.

QUESTION: Hey, Dan. Can I ask you what is prompting you to make this call today to tell the MEK that it’s now time? Has there been some new development where they’ve indicated they’re stalling again?

AMBASSADOR FRIED: I wouldn’t say that there’s a new development indicating stalling, but the reason I’m emphasizing this is because yesterday’s – last week’s determination by the UN that Camp Liberty was ready and yesterday’s practical discussions of the way ahead means that the time is now for the MEK to make its decision. It’s got to move forward. And it’s – all those who wish the residents of Ashraf a peaceful future outside of Iraq can help by encouraging the MEK to make the decision it needs to make.

QUESTION: Okay. But I thought – didn’t a limited number already move?

AMBASSADOR FRIED: No.

QUESTION: Or was that just an offer, that they said that some would --

AMBASSADOR FRIED: That was an offer.

QUESTION: It was an offer.

AMBASSADOR FRIED: No one has moved from Camp Ashraf to Camp Liberty because Camp Liberty was not yet ready to receive.

QUESTION: Oh, okay.

AMBASSADOR FRIED: So this was not a case of stalling. It was a case of the Iraqis having to get Camp Liberty up to speed. It now is. And that movement needs to start taking place.

QUESTION: All right. And who determined that it was okay, that it was habitable now? The U.S.?

AMBASSADOR FRIED: The UN. Not --

QUESTION: Not the envoy?

AMBASSADOR FRIED: Now, the U.S. has looked at it also, but the determination was made by technical experts from the UNHCR. The UN issued a statement last week, which is readily available, making clear that the infrastructure and facilities are now up to speed.

QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.

AMBASSADOR FRIED: Sure.

MR. TONER: Next question.

OPERATOR: And I show no further questions at this time.

MR. TONER: All right. We’ll give it a couple of seconds, but – for you to weigh in if you’ve got any additional questions.

AMBASSADOR FRIED: Well, I’ll take that as a sign that my presentation was comprehensive and answered all possible questions.

MR. TONER: Very good. Operator, last chance for our contestants.

OPERATOR: We have a question from Ian Duncan*. Go ahead.

MR. TONER: Right.

QUESTION: Hi, there. I’m calling from the LA Times. I just wondered to what extent the FTO designation hinders the U.S. role in the process and if there are any plans to change that designation.

AMBASSADOR FRIED: My office is not part of the FTO designation process. Obviously, I’m aware that that is a decision which the Secretary will make. We are – our interest in a humanitarian solution for the people at Camp Ashraf is quite independent of that decision. And we are able to move forward even now without that decision having been made.

QUESTION: Okay. Thanks very much.

OPERATOR: Thank you. Next question comes from Andrew Quinn with Reuters. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Hi. I have a couple of quick questions. One was: I was wondering if there has been any agreement on the process of moving people. I understand that there was some dispute over whether or not they’d be able to take their own vehicles, how they would get from Ashraf to Liberty. Do you know if that has actually been resolved and how they would get from A to B?

And the second question is: Earlier – last month, actually – and Mrs. Rajavi gave a speech in Paris where she said that the United States would hold full responsibility for all Ashraf members – for the safety of Ashraf members while they’re in Iraq. Is that a responsibility that the United States is now willing to accept, given the status of Camp Liberty? Thank you.

AMBASSADOR FRIED: First, the issue of the organization of the convoys was, I understand, discussed yesterday in some detail between the Iraqi Government representative and the Camp Ashraf leadership. I also understand that some good progress was made. And that – we welcome that. We welcome that.

With respect to the U.S. responsibility, Iraq is a sovereign country. Iraq has the responsibility for the exercise of that sovereignty, and they know that a peaceful solution is the only acceptable one. The U.S. is not the sovereign in Iraq. We are doing our best, and we are committed to trying to support a peaceful relocation of the people at Ashraf over to Camp – old Camp Liberty, and then support the UNHR efforts to get them out of Camp Liberty and out of Iraq. We’re going to try our best.

The responsibility for the next decision rests with the MEK. They need – the Iraqi Government has done, so far, what it committed to do; that is, it’s got Camp Liberty up to speed. The MEK and the residents of Ashraf, for their part, held a constructive set of discussions yesterday, and we welcome that. And now the decision has to be theirs to start this process and to work with all of us so that the shared objective, shared by all the sides in this – the UN, the Iraqi Government, the people at Camp Ashraf – for a peaceful solution. And the departure of these people from Iraq is up to them. A peaceful solution is at hand, but they’ve got to take it.

MR. TONER: Great. Any more questions?

OPERATOR: There are no further questions at this time.

MR. TONER: Okay. Well, we’ll take that for a sign that you’re all fully briefed on this. Anyway, thank you very much, all of you, for joining us today. And thanks to Ambassador Fried for also taking time.

AMBASSADOR FRIED: All right. Well, thanks a lot, everybody. And I’ll keep – I’ll – we can do this again when the news justifies it.

MR. TONER: Great. Thanks, all.

# # #

International Day of Zero Tolerance to Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State

Washington, DC

February 6, 2012

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

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

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

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

Suspending Embassy Operations in Syria

Victoria Nuland
Department Spokesperson, Office of the Spokesperson

Washington, DC

February 6, 2012

The United States has suspended operations of our Embassy in Damascus as of February 6. Ambassador Ford and all American personnel have now departed the country.

The recent surge in violence, including bombings in Damascus on December 23 and January 6, has raised serious concerns that our Embassy is not sufficiently protected from armed attack. We, along with several other diplomatic missions, conveyed our security concerns to the Syrian Government but the regime failed to respond adequately.

Ambassador Ford has left Damascus but he remains the United States Ambassador to Syria and its people. As the President’s representative, he will continue his work and engagement with the Syrian people as head of our Syria team in Washington. Together with other senior U.S. officials, Ambassador Ford will maintain contacts with the Syrian opposition and continue our efforts to support the peaceful political transition which the Syrian people have so bravely sought.

As the Secretary told the Security Council on January 31, we continue to be gravely concerned by the escalation of violence in Syria caused by the regime's blatant defiance of its commitments to the action plan it agreed to with the Arab League. The deteriorating security situation that led to the suspension of our diplomatic operations makes clear once more the dangerous path Assad has chosen and the regime’s inability to fully control Syria. It also underscores the urgent need for the international community to act without delay to support the Arab League’s transition plan before the regime’s escalating violence puts a political solution out of reach and further jeopardizes regional peace and security.

Mark C. Toner

Deputy Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC

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

1:01 p.m. EST

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

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

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

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

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

QUESTION: But I’m --

MR. TONER: Yeah. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Go ahead, Andy.

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

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

QUESTION: And what specific --

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

QUESTION: Mark, one more on --

MR. TONER: Yeah, Jill.

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

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

QUESTION: Mark --

MR. TONER: Go ahead, Said.

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

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

QUESTION: Are you able to --

MR. TONER: Yeah.

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

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

QUESTION: But --

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

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

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

QUESTION: Well, this – wait.

MR. TONER: Yeah, go ahead.

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

MR. TONER: Yeah, I believe so.

QUESTION: Yeah, it was.

QUESTION: Okay.

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

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

MR. TONER: Absolutely, Brad.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MR. TONER: I’ll try to get clarity.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: Another --

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

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

QUESTION: Another subject?

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

Yeah.

QUESTION: Mark, another subject?

QUESTION: Another subject?

MR. TONER: Are we done with Egypt?

Yeah, go ahead.

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

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

QUESTION: At the Labor Department.

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

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

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

QUESTION: And just to follow, one more quick.

MR. TONER: Yeah.

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

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

QUESTION: Staying on India?

MR. TONER: Sure, we’ll stay on India.

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

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

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

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

QUESTION: So do you --

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

QUESTION: Can I just quickly --

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

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

QUESTION: Can we go on to Syria?

MR. TONER: Yeah. Sure. Thank you.

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

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

QUESTION: This is – okay. Sorry.

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

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

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

QUESTION: The reworded --

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

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

MR. TONER: Right.

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

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

QUESTION: Its tone.

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

QUESTION: Do you know how long that conversation lasted?

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

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

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

QUESTION: From the plane?

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

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

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

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

Go ahead, Said.

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

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

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

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

Yeah. Go ahead, Brad.

QUESTION: Aside from the substance --

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

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

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

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

QUESTION: It was productive, or was it --

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

QUESTION: Okay.

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

Yeah. Lalit.

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

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

QUESTION: So they are going meet in Munich?

MR. TONER: I believe so.

QUESTION: Change topics?

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah. Sure. Elise, you got a question?

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

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

QUESTION: Yes. It’s on Israel.

MR. TONER: Okay.

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

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

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

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

MR. TONER: Well, let me just finish.

QUESTION: -- Israel going after them?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

QUESTION: So do you think that --

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

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

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

In the back.

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

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

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

MR. TONER: Well --

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

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

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

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

Yeah, sure. Samir.

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

QUESTION: Another on Pakistan?

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

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

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

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

QUESTION: Was the U.S. --

MR. TONER: Kuwait, you asked?

QUESTION: Parliamentary election yesterday in Kuwait.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MR. TONER: I apologize. I didn’t --

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

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

Yeah. Go ahead.

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

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

QUESTION: New topic?

QUESTION: Same topic?

MR. TONER: Sure. Go ahead. Yeah.

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

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

QUESTION: I have a new --

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

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

QUESTION: I have a new topic.

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

MR. TONER: Not that I’m aware of. No.

QUESTION: This is on Spain.

MR. TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: The Spanish foreign minister announced --

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

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

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

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

MR. TONER: Right.

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

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

QUESTION: Yeah. Yes.

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

QUESTION: If you could take the question --

MR. TONER: I absolutely will take the question.

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

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

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR. TONER: Yep.

Sure, Said.

QUESTION: New topic?

MR. TONER: Yeah.

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

MR. TONER: We’re the State Department.

QUESTION: (Laughter.) Okay. Great.

MR. TONER: No --

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

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

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

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

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

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

QUESTION: Thank you.

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

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

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

QUESTION: Wegelin.

MR. TONER: Wegelin. Yeah. Thank you.

QUESTION: Yeah.

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

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

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

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

Yeah. Go ahead.

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

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

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

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

QUESTION: Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

QUESTION: Yes, sir.

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

So thank you.

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

DPB # 23

Victoria Nuland

Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC

• MIDDLE EAST PEACE
  • David Hale's visit / Settlements
• SYRIA
  • Support of Arab League Plan in New York / Consultations
  • Foreign Minister Lavrov / Russian Support of Draft Resolution
  • Increase in Violence / Defections
  • Security Upgrades / Ambassador Ford / Status of Embassy
• EGYPT
  • U.S. Citizens Staying on U.S. Embassy Compound in Cairo / NGO's
  • Visiting Egyptian Military Delegation to Meet with Department Officials
• DEPARTMENT/EGYPT
  • Trips with U.S. Supreme Court Justices
• UZBEKISTAN
  • Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Act of 2012 / Waiver Authority
• PAKISTAN
  • NATO Classified Report
• AFGHANISTAN
  • Talks with Taliban
• IRAN
  • Undersecretary Sherman / Talks to Reduce Dependence on Iranian Crude / Japanese Visit
• DPRK
  • Talks with Ambassador Glyn Davies in Moscow
  • Talks with Assistant Secretary Kurt Campbell Visits to Seoul and Vietnam
• ANGOLA
  • Allocco Case / Consular Assistance

12:33 p.m. EST

MS. NULAND: Afternoon, everybody. Did the whole front row sleep in? Is that what we’ve got today? There he is, there’s Matt.

QUESTION: Is your alma mater in the back?

MS. NULAND: Before we start today, we will do a shout-out to the students from Choate Rosemary Hall in the back of the room. They’re making their annual trip to Washington.

Welcome, everybody. And let’s go to what’s on your minds.

QUESTION: You have nothing?

MS. NULAND: I have nothing at the top. Just been a little busy, that’s all.

QUESTION: Okay. I don’t really have much because I don’t expect really an answer to this. But yesterday Mark said that you guys were seeking clarification from the Israelis on this announcement that – excuse me – that they’re going to start giving incentives or that they’re going to give incentives to settlers moving into the West Bank housing blocks? Have you gotten any clarification from the Israelis?

MS. NULAND: To my knowledge, we have not yet. I think, as you know, David Hale has just started his round of meetings, and I don’t think that he has yet sat down with the Israelis. I think he started in Amman.

QUESTION: Do you know where he is, specifically, today?

MS. NULAND: My understanding is he is Amman today. He is talking to Foreign Minister Judeh. He is then going on to both Jerusalem and Ramallah on this trip.

QUESTION: Can you bring us up to date on where things stand on the diplomacy over the Syria resolution and, in particular, whether the Secretary’s talked --

MS. NULAND: Before we go to Syria, Said, were you --

QUESTION: I wanted to stay on the issue of the settlements for a little bit.

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: When a clarification is requested, in what form is it requested? Is it done officially through the Embassy? Or does it – is it in a statement made by, let’s say, Mark yesterday? Is that considered an official request for clarification?

MS. NULAND: No. I think in the first instance, obviously our Embassy is going in and saying, “What do you intend here, what are the implications?” So that was the first set of questions, but obviously David Hale will speak to this when he has a chance to talk to his counterparts.

QUESTION: Okay. Now the Israeli prime minister talked about 550 settlements all together, seventy of them in the West Bank. Do you ask clarifications about the ones that are on the West Bank?

MS. NULAND: Well obviously, we asked for clarification about all of it and we make clear our view that this is not helpful at this time.

QUESTION: Right. So I’ll ask you again what I asked Mark yesterday, if there is no incentive for the Palestinians to return to these talks seeing how this – the settlement activity is really proliferating, and the land is sort of shrinking and shrinking, what – why should they go back – why should they return to direct talks?

MS. NULAND: Said, we’ve talked about this many, many times, and you’ve asked the same question many, many times in this --

QUESTION: Right. And I will continue to ask it, because what disincentive should the Israelis have?

MS. NULAND: The best solution to the issue of settlements is for the Israelis and the Palestinians to sit down and negotiate a solution. Because with a solution will come permanent borders and the end of the settlement issue, because everybody will know where the borders of these two countries living side by side in peace are.

QUESTION: Okay, and one last question on this issue. Yesterday, Mark said that we were heading in the right direction with these preliminary talks in Amman. Do you feel that this announcement has sabotaged whatever chance there was with these talks?

MS. NULAND: Well, Said, as Mark said yesterday, as we say regularly about these issues, it is unhelpful. That said, we are encouraged by the preliminary rounds that have gone forward in Amman, we do believe that the parties are beginning to talk about substance. As you know they’re in a pause now, they’ve gone back to capitals, and we want to see them come back to the table as soon as possible.

QUESTION: Can we move to Syria?

MS. NULAND: Please.

QUESTION: Yeah. So can you give us an update on where things stand on talks over the Syria resolution? And in particular, has the Secretary managed to connect with Foreign Minister Lavrov yet?

MS. NULAND: Well, first on the process, as you know we had a very strong session up in New York yesterday; Secretary had the chance to participate. Very strong support around the council, as you heard, for the Moroccan draft resolution reflecting the Arab League plan and proposals. Some work still to do though.

The work now continues in New York among permanent representatives. Our understanding is that consultations begin at the perm rep level at 3 o’clock today. Ambassador Rice will be in the chair for us and that’ll begin the serious discussions about text with regard to the Secretary and Foreign Minister Lavrov. I think you heard the Secretary speak to this yesterday. She understands the difficulties of travelling in Australia. She’s been – made clear that she is open to speaking to him when he’s available.

QUESTION: So that would be a no.

MS. NULAND: They have not connected yet. No.

QUESTION: Sorry. What are the difficulties in travelling in Australia?

MS. NULAND: Secretary spoke to this yesterday that you’re involved in quite a different time zone. You’re sleeping when we’re awake. So she was empathetic to the situation of having difficulty connecting, but she’s made clear to him that when he’s available she’s ready to talk.

QUESTION: She doesn’t think that this is an issue of such importance that maybe Foreign Minister Lavrov might get up a little bit earlier or go to sleep a little bit later?

MS. NULAND: Well, it’s not as if we haven’t been having plenty of discussions with the Russians on this subject.

QUESTION: Right.

MS. NULAND: As Mark said yesterday, we’ve had consultations at the level of our Embassy. We’ve had Jeff Feltman in Moscow, we’ve had Deputy Secretary Burns talking to multiple Russian counterparts. Secretary had a chance to see the Russian permanent representative, Mr. Churkin, in New York, and Susan Rice – Ambassador Rice will certainly be working with the Russians over the next couple days.

QUESTION: And how have those consultations gone so far? Yesterday they threatened to veto a resolution. Doesn’t sound like the consultations thus far at the lower level have produced anything satisfactory for you, no?

MS. NULAND: Well, I have to say, having sat in the session yesterday – and you saw, I’m sure, it was a public session – the Russian view was that we need to support the efforts of the Syrians to find a peaceful resolution to this problem. So I think are all working together to find a way for the UN Security Council to support the aspirations of the Syrian people to end the bloodshed and to live better. We obviously got – we’ve obviously got hard work ahead of us on the resolution and that work begins in New York this afternoon.

QUESTION: How much of the Russian objection has been that this would be a slippery slope into some sort of military intervention in Syria? What sorts of assurances are the Americans and others offering to underscore what was said at the table yesterday that this is not in any way a military type of resolution?

MS. NULAND: Well, first of all, the Secretary was very clear, many other foreign ministers, including Foreign Minister Hague, Foreign Minister Juppe, were extremely clear in their statements in the Council and in their statements publicly to the press that this is not Libya, we are not seeking foreign intervention – that is not what the bulk of Syrians want – we are seeking to support the Arab League’s plan, which involves a dialogue among Syrians about a path towards a more democratic Syria.

But with regard to the precise negotiations that have to happen, Ros, as tempting as it might be to negotiate in public from this podium, we’re not going to do that.

QUESTION: So would you be agreeable to a clause in the resolution that unequivocally states that under no circumstances we’ll be going Libya’s way and allow a margin for military interference, as we did in Libya?

MS. NULAND: Again Said, I’m not going to negotiate the text of this resolution from this podium. That’s not appropriate. But we are working hard in New York to come to a text that everybody can support.

QUESTION: Does the Secretary feel snubbed by the fact that Foreign Minister Lavrov isn’t taking her calls?

MS. NULAND: I think she made clear last night in her press availability that she is quite relaxed on this subject and is available for him when he’s ready.

QUESTION: Was the Russian position what you expected, or was it more hard than you expected?

MS. NULAND: Again, I’m not going to give a grade to the Russians. We need to have these consultations on a text in New York, and we’re going to let that go forward.

QUESTION: Okay. The reason I asked this: Do you expect the Russians to show perhaps a little more flexibility in the next two weeks as the violence continues and the repression continues as well?

MS. NULAND: I think sitting in that chamber yesterday, and particularly hearing the extremely strong statements of the Arab representatives in the room – the prime minister of Qatar, the head of the Arab League, the Moroccan deputy foreign minister presenting the resolution – there was an enormous sense of concern about the violence and about, as many people said, since the council first started looking at this situation months and months ago, we now have thousands more dead. So I think you could feel a palpable sense in that room that the Security Council has got to take action. Obviously, we’ve got hard work to do on the precise text, as I said, but I think there was a strong commitment on the part of everybody, frankly, around the table for the Security Council to take its responsibility to protect peace and security.

QUESTION: Well, not everybody around the table. There was one Arab there who you didn’t mention, who didn’t seem to think it would be such a good idea. What did you make of what the Syrian Ambassador had to say?

MS. NULAND: I don’t think that the Syrian position at the table surprised us. He, like his --

QUESTION: Well, what about his historical – his reach into history with Syria head of parliament in 1919, Syria can’t understand why the Arab League is not – is bringing them to the table and not Israel for occupying Arab lands, that kind of thing?

MS. NULAND: Well, I’m not going to get into the Syrians’ head. I think what we heard --

QUESTION: No, no, no. I just want to know what you – what was the Secretary’s reaction to that? What was your – what was the Administration’s reaction to this?

MS. NULAND: I think that Foreign Minister Hague said it well when he said that there seems to be blame all around here except at the feet of those responsible for the violence. So our view remains that if the regime had been able, willing to solve this itself, as was the initial expectation, we wouldn’t be in the UN Security Council. But clearly, the regime is not proving capable or willing.

QUESTION: Right. No, I understand, but do you think his comments were appropriate given the situation?

MS. NULAND: Well, I’m not going to give his comments a grade. He spoke for where his government has been, which is not in the right place.

QUESTION: Victoria, on – the Russians spoke also of the armed element, the armed faction that were also attacking other communities and civilians, including they attacked the Russians, I think, in Damascus and so on. Do you agree or would you – would, let’s say, a common resolution include something like that?

MS. NULAND: Again, Said, I’m not going to get into the wordsmithing of the resolution from this podium. That’s the work in New York. What we have said many times from this podium and what the Secretary has said, President has said, is that the vast majority of the violence is being perpetrated by the Syrian regime. The degree to which we are seeing groups trying to defend themselves now, this is precisely the situation that the Secretary was warning about yesterday in her intervention. Violence needs to end before it begins to spiral out of control.

QUESTION: Now lastly, with the increased defection from the army, from the Syrian army, are you concerned that Syria may be sliding fast into a civil war?

MS. NULAND: This is precisely the situation that we are all trying to avoid by ending – by trying to get the regime to end the violence. We have seen an increase in defections. We’ve also seen the regime’s violence increase as it has worried about losing members of its armed forces. So this is part and parcel of the cycle of violence we’re worried about.

QUESTION: But Toria, when this ruling says that all sides need to put down their arms, and then, you say in the same breath, that the amount of violence being perpetrated by the regime is increasing, isn’t it natural for people who oppose the regime to want to try to defend themselves?

MS. NULAND: Well, again, this is the concern, that as the regime becomes more and more vicious – and the Secretary cataloged some of our concerns – you do have people trying to defend themselves. You have people who are armed trying to defend themselves. And this is the dangerous spiral that we’re worried about. This is precisely why the council needs to act, since the Assad regime has been unwilling to do what it needs to do.

QUESTION: Wouldn’t it be immoral, though, to say to those who were trying to protect themselves that they should lay down their arms? I mean, it might make things better on a moral level, but in terms of life or death, that’s how they protect themselves from the regime’s soldiers.

MS. NULAND: Ros, I think you’re putting words into our mouths. We have said all along that we want violence on all sides to stop, that this is not going to take Syria forward. But what we also make clear is that we lay the bulk of the responsibility at the feet of the regime.

QUESTION: Do you expect the council to vote on the draft resolution by Friday?

MS. NULAND: I’m not going to put a timetable on it. Obviously, as we see the violence increase, as we see the deaths increase, we want the council to act as soon as possible, but they’ve got some hard work to do in New York.

Michel.

QUESTION: Can I have a new topic?

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: On Egypt, I wonder – there were some conflicting reports overnight whether or not the Americans were taken off of the travel ban, and I wonder, are they still in the U.S. Embassy there? And have – has anyone in this building met with the Egyptian delegation that’s come to Washington?

MS. NULAND: Regrettably, we have not yet settled this situation. The American citizens that we talked about are still on the embassy compound. We are continuing to work with Egyptian authorities to try to resolve this case.

With regard to the Egyptian military delegation, as we said yesterday and the day before, this – delegations of this kind generally come from Egypt a couple of times a year. We do meet with them. Frankly, it’s another opportunity to underscore for them and for Egyptians in general our concerns about the situation with the nongovernment organizations.

They have – I think they arrived in Washington yesterday. They are scheduled to meet with Assistant Secretary for Political Military Affairs Andrew Shapiro and Assistant Secretary for Near East Jeff Feltman here at the Department. They’ll also be seeing folks at the Pentagon and they’ll be seeing folks on the Hill, as we understand it.

QUESTION: When are they meeting Feltman and Shapiro?

MS. NULAND: It’s either today or tomorrow. I’m not exactly sure, Arshad, but we’ll get that for you.

QUESTION: Can you give us a readout on that when it has happened?

MS. NULAND: We will. We will.

QUESTION: You don’t envision them having any problems leaving the country, do you? (Laughter.)

MS. NULAND: We do not.

QUESTION: No? Still on Egypt but not that subject – Justice Ginsburg was just there. I know that last week she and the Secretary had met, I presume, not to discuss any interests the Secretary might have on – in being on the Supreme Court; rather, to discuss this trip. Can you give us any detail about it, what the State Department in general thinks about visits like – of experts like these – she worked with Tunisia as well – to develop – to transitioning democracies?

MS. NULAND: Well, justices of the Supreme Court, over many years, have been very generous in participating in State Department-led programs to go see counterparts in other countries, particularly in countries where we are working together on reform of the judicial sector, particularly checks and balances on jurisprudence, writing constitutions, these kinds of things, and Justice --

QUESTION: NGO law.

MS. NULAND: NGO law as well, how the branches of government can work together. Justice Ginsburg has been a particularly active participant in those programs. She and the Secretary had a chance to talk before she went to Egypt. I don’t have the details on her schedule, but I think she was seeing senior members of the justice sector in Egypt, and I’m sure she would have had a chance to talk about how nongovernmental organizations are handled in the U.S. and in other democracies and the vital role they can play. But I don’t, I’m afraid, have a readout at the moment on her.

QUESTION: Okay. Well, then, less specifically about her trip, but – I mean, what is the value, or what have you seen is the value of trips like these to countries that are in this transition?

MS. NULAND: Well, this gives justices, folks who are writing legislation, folks who are working on court regulations a chance to talk to the most senior American justices and members of the Judicial Branch about their experiences of a lifetime of working on these kinds of issues, about various ways to solve the problems of checks and balances, et cetera, and it is a chance for some of these folks who have less experience in a democratic system to learn a little bit more about how we do things.

QUESTION: Okay. And do you know offhand – or maybe this can be gotten later – where – other places that justices, not just Justice Ginsberg but other countries – transitioning countries that they have visited, and what the actual program – what is the actual program under which they go?

MS. NULAND: Yeah. I mean, they sometimes go under ABA programs that we fund – American Bar Association programs. Sometimes they go under embassy invitation for specific justice programs that the embassies are managing under our Middle East initiatives on transition. When I was in Brussels, we had a number of justices come through to work with the European Union on some of its legislative issues, and particularly how the U.S. and the EU could cooperate to solve some of our efforts to coordinate our judicial system so that we are pulling in the same direction. So they go all over the world, not just to transitioning countries but also to some of our closest allies and partners.

QUESTION: Do you know, in this case of her, was it an invitation from the Embassy or was it another broader program, an ABA program or --

MS. NULAND: I don’t know. We’ll check on that for you, Matt. I don’t know what the specific program was.

QUESTION: Thanks.

MS. NULAND: Please.

QUESTION: A question on Uzbekistan: Are you able to comment on reports of the – reports out there today that the Administration waived a ban on nonlethal military assistance to Uzbekistan on a temporary basis? Are you able to confirm that and offer any guidance?

MS. NULAND: I am. Under the Foreign Operations and Related Programs Act of 2012, the Secretary of State has the authority to waive certain restrictions on assistance to the Government of Uzbekistan if she certifies that it is in the national security interest of the United States to do so, and also that it’s necessary to obtain access to and from Afghanistan for U.S. assistance to that country. The Secretary has issued such a waiver in this case. She made the determination on January 18^th and we put it forward to the Hill a couple of days later. It is a six-month waiver. This is the first time we have done this one. She’ll have to review again six months from now. And this is waiver authority that we have through 2013.

QUESTION: And there are some critics that will say that this sort of – this is giving the Uzbek Government a free pass on alleged abuses they committed. Is there any response to that sort of criticism for taking this action?

MS. NULAND: Well, we certainly reject the notion that anybody’s being given a free pass on human rights. As you know, the Secretary was in Uzbekistan in October, had a chance to work on the full range of our bilateral and regional issues, but also spoke very frankly to President Karimov, to members of his government, about our ongoing interest in support for human rights, reforming the system, our concern about individual cases. So this is part and parcel of our diplomacy.

She also spoke out very clearly the day before in Tajikistan about our specific concerns about the rights of minorities, the rights of children, the rights of women, about the court system, all of these kinds of things. So nobody is shying away from having the tough conversation. That said, we also have other interests and things that we need to protect in our relationship with Uzbekistan.

QUESTION: So you seem to be saying that this equipment, or whatever it is, is going to be used for the Northern Distribution Network. Would that be --

MS. NULAND: Yeah. Examples of the kinds of things that this waiver was given for – this will enhance the Uzbeks’ ability to counteract transnational terrorism and all – things like night vision goggles, personal protection equipment, global positioning systems. It’s defensive in nature, and it’s also supportive of their ability to secure the routes in and out of Afghanistan.

QUESTION: I’m sorry. I was under the impression it was weapons. This is all nonlethal stuff?

MS. NULAND: I don’t have exactly – I don’t – but beyond what I just gave you, examples of equipment – vision goggles, personal protection equipment – it’s all defensive in nature. With regard to lethal/nonlethal, let me get that for you, Matt.

QUESTION: But wasn’t the – I mean, there were restrictions in the law that --

MS. NULAND: On any.

QUESTION: Yeah, but they had already been – I guess I don’t understand, because while we were there --

MS. NULAND: Right.

QUESTION: -- this was a topic of discussion, and it was – maybe I was – a misimpression, but it was my impression that they were already getting nonlethal stuff.

MS. NULAND: I can’t speak to what --

QUESTION: There had been a decision almost a year ago on --

MS. NULAND: I think that whatever we had on the books had expired and needed to be renewed, but we can get you a brief on the precise details, yeah.

QUESTION: Okay. Yeah, please, because it came up. It was a topic of – I remember it being a topic of conversation, at least on the plane.

MS. NULAND: Well, one of the topics of conversation was that the Uzbeks were asking for more than we were giving and were concerned about their ability to protect the routes and concerned about their ability to be effective counterterrorism partners.

Please.

QUESTION: A change of subject?

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: India’s external affairs ministry today announced that India’s foreign secretary will be visiting U.S. next week. Do you know who he will be meeting in this building, and what --

MS. NULAND: I don’t. We’ll get that for you, yeah.

Anything else? In the back, please.

QUESTION: I don’t know if this has been asked earlier, but do you have a reaction to the new NATO report that has been leaked and mentions ISI links with Taliban?

MS. NULAND: Yeah. Let me just – first of all, I think NATO itself has spoken to this earlier in the day. So obviously, I’m not going to get into a classified report. NATO itself said it was not going to get into a classified report. But what I can do is sort of characterize this report in general terms because it’s one of a regular series. The context, as described by NATO, is that this is basically a summary of the views of those Taliban that we have in detention, so it’s a summary of what they think, what they believe to be true. So that’s just one source of information. And frankly, I think you may also have heard Foreign Minister Khar on this subject. She was quite eloquent about this when she was in Kabul earlier today.

QUESTION: They have dismissed the report today, but do you think such a report at this juncture, when the tension after the 26/11 attack is still lingering on, will further escalate the tension in the relationship?

MS. NULAND: Well, again, this is a classified report. It is part of a regular series. It shouldn’t have come out into the open. It was not designed for any purpose other than to help those in the field understand what Taliban detainees were saying, so it was in no way designed to impact on our ongoing efforts to get back on track with Pakistan, which continue.

QUESTION: And lastly, your counterpart at Pentagon this morning said that what has been mentioned about these links in the report is nothing new, and the U.S. has been saying this earlier as well. Do you agree with his statement that these links are still there? And do you intend to raise this with the Pakistani administration?

MS. NULAND: Well, as you know, the Secretary raised many of these issues when she was in Pakistan last fall. So from that perspective, obviously, this is not new – our concerns about safe havens, our concerns about whether together we are doing enough to go after these groups, our interest in cooperating with the Pakistanis to do more. So that’s the conversation that we’ve been having with some time – for some time, and the exact sort of – kind of cooperation we want to get back to as soon as we can.

QUESTION: Given the interest in the U.S. trying to apparently talk with the Taliban as part of an overall peace framework in Afghanistan, is the leaking of this document, one, curious? And two, does it give people pause about the efforts to win hearts and minds in Afghanistan?

MS. NULAND: Well, I think we’ve always said – and the Secretary said – that in the context of our larger strategy here, we need to fight, talk, and build at the same time. So it doesn’t change the fact that those Taliban who continue to take up arms against the state of Afghanistan, against innocents in Afghanistan, are going to be confronted – going to be confronted by Afghan security forces, they’re going to be confronted by NATO supporting those forces. So that continues.

At the same time, we support the efforts of the Afghan Government to create a real channel with those Afghans who are ready for reconciliation, and that’s what we’ve been working on.

Please, Said.

QUESTION: On Afghanistan, still?

MS. NULAND: Still on Afghanistan.

QUESTION: Can you – since Ambassador Grossman is back now --

MS. NULAND: He is.

QUESTION: -- can you give us an update on the talk portion of this strategy, where we are now?

MS. NULAND: Well, I think we’ve said a number of times as well that we are not going to get into the back and forth. Ambassador Grossman spoke about where he was when he was in Kabul at the beginning of last week. He’s made a number of trips since. But I don’t think we have anything further on that. He did do some interviews with the Pakistani press yesterday, I think, which I would call your attention to.

Please.

QUESTION: On Japan?

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: There’s a Japanese delegation coming tomorrow to speak about Iran sanctions. I’m wondering who they’re going to be meeting with here and kind of the scope of their talks.

MS. NULAND: I don't have the precise level of the delegation, but as you know, Under Secretary Sherman is leading the Department’s effort to consult with countries around the world on the new legislation, to work with allies, partners around the world, to try to reduce everybody’s dependence on Iranian crude. I don’t know whether she’s seeing this delegation herself or whether some of her team are, but we had pledged to the Japanese when Special Envoy Einhorn was there a couple of weeks ago that we would really do a roll-up-our-sleeves session with them on how we can move forward on this together. So my understanding is that’s what they’re coming to do.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Are you any closer to publishing – and I know it’s Treasury and not State, but you guys are involved in the process – in publishing the regulations on how the sanctions will be implemented?

MS. NULAND: We are working on it, Arshad. As you say, Treasury has the lead, so I would refer you to Treasury on the timeline.

QUESTION: Because you’ve got four weeks left now before it – the first set kick in.

MS. NULAND: Understood.

Please.

QUESTION: Assistant Secretary Campbell’s visit to Korea. And also you have another delegation that visit Russia. Do you have anything to share?

MS. NULAND: Well, first, with regard to Russia, our Special Envoy for North Korea Glyn Davies is in Moscow. He’s done consultations with all of the key players on the Russian side who are involved in the Six-Party Talks. Specifically, he and Ford Hart met today with Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Morgulov, with Ambassador-At-Large for Six-Party Talks Logvinov, Special Envoy for Trilateral Economic Projects Timonin, and MFA First Asia Department Mr. Kulik and their IAEA guy, Grigori Berdennikov. So very broad consultations in Moscow, obviously designed to ensure we all say on the same page with regard to our expectations of the DPRK before we could come back to the talks.

Assistant Secretary Campbell has done a full presser in Seoul, so I would refer you to that, but he saw his usual folks, both on the bilateral relationship and on DPRK issues, and he’s now on his way to Vietnam, or he just landed in Vietnam and has meetings tomorrow.

Yeah. Please.

QUESTION: Can we go back to Syria for a minute?

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: If that’s okay with everybody. I wanted to ask you about the status of the Embassy, if there’s anything new on Ambassador Ford in particular, about his activities.

MS. NULAND: Nothing new on the Embassy. As you know, we are continuing to press the Syrian Government to make the security upgrades that we think are necessary. We are not where we need to be yet. Ambassador Ford continues to maintain close contacts with a broad cross-section of Syrians and to continue to – I mean, obviously he’s been involved in recent days in making clear our view going into the Security Council and amplifying the Secretary’s messages in New York.

QUESTION: But there’s been no extraordinary measures, let’s say, in the last couple of days since the fighting has gotten closer and closer to Damascus, has there?

MS. NULAND: Well, you can be sure that I’m not going to talk about the precise security measures that we’re taking in Damascus or anywhere else, but --

QUESTION: No. I mean in terms of maintaining operations in Damascus.

MS. NULAND: The Embassy remains open. You saw that the Canadians today did announce that they were closing. Our operations are open, but our concerns remain.

QUESTION: Okay. But so we’re not likely to see the (inaudible) that was announced by the Canadians?

MS. NULAND: We’re not going to have any announcements today, if that’s what you’re asking, Said.

In the back, and then --

QUESTION: Just a clarification. When you mentioned the comments of Foreign Minister Khar and termed as – them as eloquent, which exact comment you are referring to? Because she also made a comment – I mean, these new allegations as old wine in a new bottle or something like --

MS. NULAND: Right. That was the line that I liked. She called it old wine and even older bottles, I think. She’s good with a turn of phrase.

Okay. Thank you every --

QUESTION: No, no.

MS. NULAND: Whoops. Sorry. There you go.

QUESTION: Are you aware of this case of this American concert promoter and his son who are – been detained in Angola under somewhat mysterious circumstances?

MS. NULAND: I am aware of the case. The Embassy has provided consular assistance to the Alloccos, and that continues.

QUESTION: Well, what’s the – there’s a petition calling for the State Department to get more involved in this case. Please don’t tell me there’s a Privacy Act issue.

MS. NULAND: A petition?

QUESTION: The guy has – the guy’s put out a YouTube video from his confinement, so if there’s a Privacy Act issue, then the law needs to be changed because – what exactly are you doing for them?

MS. NULAND: We have done all kinds of support for them as they move forward with the judicial process. We have seen them regularly. We have advised them on local laws and their responsibilities. We did not find, in this case, that Mr. Allocco met the criteria for refuge. However, we did bring him into the Embassy temporarily. My understanding is we gave him some clothes and some medicine, but we didn’t take him in for refuge.

QUESTION: Well, what’s your understanding of their legal situation?

MS. NULAND: Our understanding is that they have been charged with fraud in Angola, and we are obviously monitoring that case very closely. But with regard to the precise charges, I’m going to refer you to the Angolans.

QUESTION: Okay. And you said that – so they did ask – they did ask for refuge.

MS. NULAND: Correct.

QUESTION: And they were turned down.

MS. NULAND: Correct.

QUESTION: And this is different than in the – then the Egypt case how?

MS. NULAND: Because in this case – well, first of all, when we get into the Privacy Act issues, there were specific circumstances behind their request, and they have not given us a Privacy Act waiver to talk about the circumstances that led them to make this request, so I can’t get into it too much more in detail. I will refer you to them. This was their choice.

QUESTION: The – I’m sorry. You mean the – with the concert not – the rap star not showing up or something else?

MS. NULAND: There were other circumstances that led to this.

QUESTION: Is it your understanding that the money that was fronted has been repaid?

MS. NULAND: I don’t have any details on that. I would refer you to them and to the Angolans.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. NULAND: Okay. Thanks, guys.

(The briefing was concluded at 1:10 p.m.)

Saudi Arabia: Nongovernmental Organizations

Office of the Spokesperson

Washington, DC

Question Taken at the January 31, 2012 Daily Press Briefing

February 1, 2012

Question: Are there any U.S. funded NGOs working in Saudi Arabia?

Answer: The United States Government funds U.S. NGOs that operate through exchanges with Saudi governmental and academic institutions. In Saudi Arabia, we are implementing programming that strengthens ties between U.S. and Saudi governmental, academic, and civil society institutions. These projects help support those in the Kingdom who are working to expand economic opportunities, improve government responsiveness, and build the capacity of its citizens to contribute to their nation's future.

As the President reiterated in his State of the Union address last month, the United States stands for the rights and dignity of all human beings. Throughout the Middle East, the United States supports policies and organizations that promote strong and stable democracies, open markets, an active civil society, and the rule of law.

Syria: Assistant Secretary Feltman's Meetings at the United Nations (Taken Question)

Office of the Spokesperson

Washington, DC

Question Taken at the January 31, 2012 Daily Press Briefing

January 31, 2012

Question: Who did Assistant Secretary Feltman meet with in New York today? Please provide a readout of those meetings.

Answer: While in New York on January 30-31, Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs Jeffrey Feltman consulted with a range of senior officials, including some of our Security Council partners. The meetings were an opportunity to discuss the UN Security Council resolution on Syria and to get a better sense of how best to continue providing support to the Arab League as it works to find a solution to the ongoing situation.

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

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State

United Nations

New York City

January 31, 2012

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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