Victoria Nuland

Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC

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

12:56 p.m. EST

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MS. NULAND: Correct.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All right.

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

MS. NULAND: Please, yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Okay. Jill.

QUESTION: Can we talk about --

QUESTION: Other subject?

MS. NULAND: Yeah. Please.

QUESTION: Syria?

QUESTION: Sure.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah.

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

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

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

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

QUESTION: When is she meeting Davutoglu?

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

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

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

QUESTION: Right.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

QUESTION: Toria --

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

QUESTION: Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Go ahead.

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

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

Okay. Please, in the back.

QUESTION: Pakistan.

MS. NULAND: Pakistan. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Oh, wait.

MS. NULAND: I’m sorry.

QUESTION: Well, how about Nicole?

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

QUESTION: Please.

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

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

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

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

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

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

QUESTION: And how was that document handed over?

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

QUESTION: Could you say how many --

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

QUESTION: Well --

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

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

MS. NULAND: I could. I could.

QUESTION: And it is in Arabic?

MS. NULAND: Yes.

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

MS. NULAND: They did not.

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

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

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

MS. NULAND: Well, again –

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

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

QUESTION: Okay. So --

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

QUESTION: Right. Okay.

MS. NULAND: Okay.

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

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

QUESTION: Okay.

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

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

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

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Change of subject?

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

QUESTION: No, India.

MS. NULAND: India. Okay.

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

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

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

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

QUESTION: So I follow up --

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

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

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

QUESTION: Do you know --

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

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

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

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

QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.

MS. NULAND: Jill.

QUESTION: Another subject?

MS. NULAND: Yes.

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

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

QUESTION: Right.

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

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

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

Please.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

QUESTION: New topic?

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, please.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) – Japan?

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

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

MS. NULAND: Yes.

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

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

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

MS. NULAND: Well, the statement --

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

QUESTION: Well, yeah, in the direct meetings.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

QUESTION: Within Pakistan?

MS. NULAND: Correct.

Please.

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

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

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

QUESTION: Lord’s Resistance Army?

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

All right?

QUESTION: Wait.

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

QUESTION: I got two very brief things.

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

MS. NULAND: Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

QUESTION: Okay. And then back to Angola --

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

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

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

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

MS. NULAND: Excellent. Excellent.

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

MS. NULAND: Okay.

QUESTION: And --

MS. NULAND: Was that today or yesterday?

QUESTION: Friday.

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

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

MS. NULAND: Excellent.

QUESTION: -- for this news to reach here.

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

Thanks very much.

QUESTION: Thank you.

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

DPB # 26

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

New Report Highlights Humanitarian Threat from "Dangerous Depots"

Office of the Spokesperson

Washington, DC

February 3, 2012

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

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

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

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

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.)

Remarks With Kazakh Foreign Minister Yerzhan Kazykhanov Preceding Bilateral Meeting

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State

Treaty Room

Washington, DC

February 1, 2012

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I’m delighted to welcome my colleague, the foreign minister of Kazakhstan, a country with whom we have very friendly relations and work together on a whole range of issues, both bilaterally and regionally and globally. Kazakhstan has served in recent years as the chair of the OSCE, the chair of OIC, and has been very helpful in our efforts to stabilize Afghanistan. So I am pleased to have this opportunity to discuss at length some of the issues that we’re working on together.

FOREIGN MINISTER KAZYKHANOV: Thank you, Madam Secretary. This is my first visit as a foreign minister to Washington, and I’m looking forward for the discussion of our strategic partnership between our two countries, and I would like to thank Madam Secretary for inviting me. And in 20 years time, two countries covered a lot, and we are prepared to strengthen our cooperation in the future. I think that we will discuss today successful cooperation between Kazakhstan and the United States on nuclear nonproliferation and upcoming meeting between two presidents on the sidelines of Seoul Summit.

We also will cover issues of stabilization in Afghanistan and our logistics support to the Northern Distribution Network, issues of trade investment and energy partnership, of greatest importance, and as well as the topics of visa simplification procedures. And thank you again, Madam Secretary, for these wonderful opportunities to meet with you here in Washington.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you so much.

FOREIGN MINISTER KAZYKHANOV: Thank you.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you, Yerzhan.

FOREIGN MINISTER KAZYKHANOV: Thank you.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you all very much.

 

# # #

Remarks for the Atlantic Council Conference on Twenty Years of Kazakhstan's Independence and U.S.-Diplomatic Relations

Robert O. Blake, Jr.
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs

Washington, DC

January 31, 2012

It is an honor and a pleasure to join you today for this discussion and celebration of Kazakhstan’s twentieth anniversary of independence and the wide-ranging and deep cooperation between the United States and Kazakhstan.

The United States and Kazakhstan have enjoyed twenty years of dynamic and growing partnership. We have worked closely and cooperatively together, starting on December 25, 1991 when then-Secretary of State James Baker visited Almaty to meet with President Nazarbayev and establish diplomatic relations between our countries.

Twenty years later, we have accomplished much, but see great scope to do more. When they meet tomorrow, Secretary Clinton and Foreign Minister Kazykhanov will discuss how our two nations can strengthen further our strategic partnership in the years to come.

Cooperation on Nuclear Nonproliferation and Energy

From the very first days, our relations with Kazakhstan focused on integrating Kazakhstan into the world community and helping it to deal with the many challenges of a new nation. First among those was nuclear non-proliferation since newly independent Kazakhstan inherited responsibility for a broad array of nuclear weapons and other arms.

Many people feared in the collapse of the Soviet Union the potential for a new and increasingly dangerous era that could have triggered a wave of nuclear weapons proliferation, creating untold dangers, instability, and risks.

Thanks in part to our close cooperation that did not happen. Key to this outcome was President Nazarbayev’s firm decision to make Kazakhstan the first country voluntarily to relinquish nuclear weapons and protect stockpiles of other dangerous materials. Not only did Kazakhstan transfer those weapons out of Kazakhstan in a responsible way, but it ratified the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Since then, we have worked to reduce other risks of nuclear proliferation, including helping decommission the Soviet-era nuclear reactor in Aktau that produced weapons-grade plutonium, and moving tons of spent fuel, which could easily be used to produce nuclear weapons, to secure, long-term storage.

Today Kazakhstan remains a key player in non-proliferation cooperation as it meets the challenges of the 21^st century, both bilaterally with the United States and increasingly multilaterally.

It serves as a model to the world of how a country can gain -- not lose -- security as a result of ridding itself of nuclear weapons.

Energy is another important building block of our bilateral relationship. As the Soviet Union began to dissolve, U.S. energy companies took what, at the time, was an economic and political risk by investing in oil and gas development in Kazakhstan. The risk paid off, producing a partnership between a stable, responsible government and international energy firms with the necessary capital and expertise to help unlock Kazakhstan’s energy resources.

Early Reforms Spur Economic Growth and Investment

Again, President Nazarbayev recognized the challenge and opportunities for his young country and initiated macro-economic reforms that set the country firmly on the path toward a market economy. The decision was not an easy one, and the country went through a painful period of adjustment in the 1990s. However, these reforms created what is today one of the strongest economies in the former Soviet Union.

For twenty years, Kazakhstan has also attracted considerable international investment, particularly in the extractive industries, that has created jobs and prosperity. Kazakhstan stands out in the region for substantially reducing poverty and laying a solid foundation for the creation of a real middle class.

The Kazakhstani government’s wise decision to create a National Oil Fund has served to protect the country against the effects of the financial crisis and to help ensure oil revenues are invested for the future of Kazakhstan’s people.

To further diversify its economy and stimulate further economic reforms, Kazakhstan soon hopes to join the World Trade Organization and recently announced it will adhere to the principles of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s (OECD) Declaration on International Investments and Multinational Enterprises.

WTO accession and participation in the OECD will help and encourage Kazakhstan to make the structural changes necessary for it to take advantage of regional and global integration efforts, and to spur its own domestic output and exports.

The Bolashak Generation

Kazakhstan recognized economic success would rest on investments in education, particularly higher education. The Bolashak scholarship program has provided thousands of young Kazakhstani undergraduates and post-graduates education in high-quality universities around the world, including many in the United States.

The academic success of these young Kazakhstanis and Kazakhstan’s growing economic and regional weight made it of interest to American universities. It was no surprise, then, that the newly established Nazarbayev University in Astana has partnered with top- tier international universities, including Duke, Rensselaer and other U.S. institutions, to provide students in Kazakhstan with education that meets international standards.

The close partnership that both Nazarbayev University and the Kazakhstan Institute of Management have with top-ranked U.S. universities as well as with two Department of Energy national laboratories speaks volumes about the robust nature of the ongoing cooperation and government focus on investment in education and the development of Kazakhstan’s youth. The planned opening of a Carnegie International Institute for Peace program at Al Farabi University represents yet another example of advanced scholarly cooperation.

The United States has been fully supportive of Kazakhstan’s commitment to international education. We are pleased to host Kazakhstani students at our many excellent colleges and universities, and we look forward to Kazakhstan’s continued considerable investment in international education to complement the large investment we have made through our own professional and educational exchange programs, such as the Fulbright, Muskie, Future Leaders, and International Visitor Leadership programs.

A focus on education, technology, and innovation continues to be a priority in Kazakhstan. Kazakhstan was the first country in Central Asia to sign a bilateral science and technology agreement with the United States. Our bilateral science working group held its first meeting in 2011, and is now developing ideas for cooperation.

Kazakhstan Emerges as Leader in International Community

Progress on education and innovation are part of Kazakhstan’s welcome efforts to position itself as a leader in the international community. Kazakhstan has assumed a much more prominent role on the world stage as the 2010 Chairman-in-Office of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe and the Chair in 2011 of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation.

Kazakhstan increasingly is assuming an important role as a donor with considerable assets and expertise. It made a very significant contribution to stabilizing Iraq by sending troops to assist the coalition’s efforts with demining. Today, Kazakhstan is supporting ISAF in Afghanistan by facilitating ground transportation and over-flights. It is also contributing to U.S. and international efforts to stabilize and rebuild Afghanistan through its investment of $50 million dollars to educate in Kazakhstani universities Afghanistan’s next generation of leaders.

Additionally, last October, Kazakhstan delivered over 5,000 tons of food and other supplies to Turkey after the devastating earthquake in that country. We look forward to working with Kazakhstan as it develops its work through KazAID and other mechanisms.

At the Istanbul Conference last November, Foreign Minister Kazykhanov affirmed Kazakhstan’s commitment to improving regional cooperation, especially in support of Afghanistan’s stability. Regional leaders agreed on a set of ambitious confidence building measures and a process of regular consultation to ensure implementation.

At Istanbul, Kazakhstan also took a lead in supporting the New Silk Road vision, with projects such as constructing the Central Asia Regional Economic Cooperation transportation corridor across Kazakhstan that will link China with Europe, and a north-south highway linking Central and South Asia.

We welcome Kazakhstan’s ratification of an agreement with the Asian Development Bank January 16 to finance reconstruction of 790 kilometers of the CAREC transportation network that will connect Kazakhstan with its Central Asian neighbors, Russia, Azerbaijan, and Turkey, across the Caspian Sea.

Such transport and other networks will help spur the trade and investment that can catalyze the regional integration everyone agrees will be essential to helping Afghanistan move to a trade -- rather than aid -- based economy and expand opportunities for the citizens of Central Asia.

Political Reform

Despite’s Kazakhstan’s undeniable progress over the last 20 years, there remain important steps that must be taken to fully ensure Kazakhstan’s long-term stability and prosperity. President Nazarbayev has often spoken about the three goals he set for the country when Kazakhstan became independent: to build a truly sovereign and independent state, to jump start the economy, and to liberalize the political system.

Kazakhstan has advanced rapidly in pursuit of the first two goals, although the country still faces challenges with respect to economic diversification. But the third goal remains largely unmet, despite Kazakhstan’s stated commitments to reform and to uphold human rights and democratic principles.

At the OSCE Ministerial in Vilnius December 6, Secretary Clinton stated that even as the United States seeks cooperation with Kazakhstan and other Central Asian nations on Afghanistan, energy, and trade, we will continue to encourage our Central Asian partners, both governments and civil society, to pursue democratic reforms and improve respect for fundamental human rights.

We believe a prosperous, peaceful future for Kazakhstan – and an increasingly deep bilateral relationship between our two countries – will benefit from meaningful progress to institutionalize democracy and ensure respect for the human rights of all Kazakhstan’s citizens.

A more open and dynamic political system would reflect the maturity of the country, and provide the institutional basis for long-term stability, predictability, and development that the people of Kazakhstan deserve.

We hope that Kazakhstan’s newly-elected multi-party Mazhilis will shape a legislative process that reflects the needs and desires of all Kazakhstani people. Through transparency, lively debates, and public hearings, the Mazhilis can take bigger steps toward political openness by considering the opinions of all political factions and segments of society. Respect for freedoms of expression, association assembly, and religious belief is necessary to undergird social dialogue and vibrant democratic as well as economic development.

We also hear and support important voices from within and outside of the government of Kazakhstan calling for greater independence of the media and the judiciary, space for civil society to operate without undue hindrance, and an electoral system and laws to ensure fair elections that fully meet international standards.

President Nazarbayev has the opportunity today to demonstrate the same far sighted leadership to build democracy that he showed in renouncing nuclear weapons and initiating market reforms. The people of Kazakhstan will be the first beneficiaries, but Kazakhstan would also be a powerful example for the wider region.

Conclusion
 

In conclusion, over the past twenty years, the United States and Kazakhstan have developed a genuine and increasingly strategic partnership. President Obama and President Nazarbayev reaffirmed that strategic partnership in April 2010, declaring our two nations’ commitment to a shared vision of stability, prosperity and democratic reform in Central Asia and the broader region. A partnership is an ongoing process. I am confident that our foundation is solid, prospects are bright, and that it will continue far into the future.