Passage of Restrictive Communications Law in Ecuador

The United States is concerned by the Ecuadorian National Assembly’s passage last Friday of a Communications Law that could restrict freedom of the press and limit the ability of independent media to carry out its functions as a critical part of Ecuador’s democracy.

As recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression. The Inter-American Democratic Charter, signed by the United States, Ecuador, and 32 other countries in the hemisphere, establishes freedom of expression as an essential component of representative democracy. Active, independent, and responsible media is critical for informing the public.

While it remains to be seen how the new Communications Law will be applied in practice, it is important in a democracy that laws not have a suppressive effect on free speech, narrow the space for fair and unbiased reporting, or lead to self-censorship by the independent media. In solidarity with the Ecuadorian people and government, as well as with other governments and stakeholders in the region committed to freedom of expression, we underline the importance of ensuring that the independent media is able to do its work without fear of reprisal or sanction. Respect for the fundamental freedoms of citizens – including freedom of expression and of the press – is critical in guaranteeing the vitality of this essential component of representative democracy.

The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department.
External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.

• SYRIA
  • Decisions Made, Moving Forward / Upcoming Conference / Meetings with Russian Counterparts / G8 / Ambassador Ford / Secretary Kerry / Syria's Political Transition
  • A Few Issues Outlined in Communique / Issue of Assad / Conference Preparation Ongoing / Issue of Chemical Weapons Investigation / Improving Ground Situation for the Opposition
• JORDAN
  • Query on Syrian Airspace
• SYRIA
  • U.S. Aid Update / Agreement in Communiqué to Pursue a Transitional Governing Body in Syria / U.S. Continues to Consider All Options
• AFGHANISTAN
  • Taliban / U.S. Support / Afghan-led, Afghan-owned Peace and Reconciliation Process / Release of Taliban Statement / Qatari Statement / al-Qaida / Afghan Constitution / End Goal of the Process / Ambassador James Dobbins Travel
  • Taliban Talks / Taliban Detainees / Sergeant Bergdahl / Negotiations
• PAKISTAN/AFGHANISTAN
  • Secretary Kerry's Phone Call with Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif / Taliban Talks / Secretary Kerry's Involvement
• ISRAEL/PALESTINIANS
  • Middle East Peace Process / Secretary Kerry Deeply Engaged with Both Sides
• DEPARTMENT
  • Passenger Disturbance on International Flight / Former Employee for Department of State
• LEBANON
  • U.S. Concerned About Overflow of Violence into Lebanon
• DEPARTMENT
  • Ongoing DS (Diplomatic Security) Case / Department Aware of Investigations
• IRAN
  • Iranian Election is a Hopeful Sign / U.S. Congratulates the Iranian People
• DEPARTMENT
  • DS Case / DS Acting Director Starr / OIG Office Looking into Process / Issue Discrimination on Sexual Orientation
• RUSSIA
  • Query on the Duma's Adoption Ban / U.S. Reaction
• BRAZIL
  • U.S. Monitoring Events in Brazil

12:18 p.m. EDT

MS. PSAKI: Well, I have nothing at the top; my boss took care of that for me. So Nicolas, what is on your mind?

QUESTION: Could we start with Syria?

MS. PSAKI: We certainly can.

QUESTION: I’m sure we have listened very carefully yesterday to the President interview on PBS.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems to me that he was quite skeptical on any U.S. major military action in Syria. So could you tell us five days after the White House announcement what you are going to do in Syria in terms of military support to the opposition?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I don’t have any new announcements to make, and I certainly don’t want to parse the President’s words, but what I heard him say was that we’ve made some decisions – he has made some decisions after consulting with his national security team on the best choices moving forward. Those were announced last week. And moving forward, he is keeping all options on the table. These decisions aren’t easy.

I heard him say – or I read in the transcript that he said that there wasn’t a silver bullet, and I think that’s a really important point to make here. If the decisions were easy, we would have already made them. He would have already made them. But he is carefully weighing what is in the interests of the future of Syria, what is in the interests of the future of the U.S. role there, and that’s what he’s focused on now and is clearly consulting with his G-8 partners on the ground.

Jill.

QUESTION: A new subject?

MS. PSAKI: Well, do we – let’s finish Syria first.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. PSAKI: Any other on Syria? Go.

QUESTION: Yeah, the international conference, if there’s any readout about it. Any expectation that it will be held soon in a couple weeks?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I believe I said last week that we’re targeting July. But again, this is a case where we are – we have a series of meetings. There was one just a few weeks ago. Just next week, Under Secretary Sherman and Acting Assistant Secretary Beth Jones will meet with counterparts from Russia and from the UN to discuss everything from the agenda to the issues that still need to be discussed, invites, et cetera. So that will be happening just next week.

And we’re looking for an opportunity to do this at the right time when we’re not having a conference just to have a conference. We’re having it to bring both sides together and provide an opportunity for both sides to talk.

And I will also note that coming out of the G-8, this is something that the Russians have been clear that they also support. There are areas where we disagree, as we all know, on Syria and other issues, but we do agree that a political transition, the process of pursuing that, is the proper path moving forward in Syria.

QUESTION: Has Ambassador Ford participated in the meetings on Syria or in the G-8 meetings?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t believe he’s at the G-8 meetings. He is, of course, in close contact with his counterparts on the ground, as he always is as our Ambassador to Syria.

QUESTION: Where is he?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t know where he is at this particular moment, but he has a great deal of travel, he is often underway in all parts of the world, and is very engaged in close contact with his counterparts.

QUESTION: How come Secretary Kerry didn’t go to the G-8, the meetings on Syria at the G-8 since they were so important?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I know the White House has done an extensive preview and readout of this, and there are a number of topics they have previewed and read out that were to come up at the G-8. Secretaries sometimes go and sometimes they don’t, and as you know, the Secretary is planning his own big trip. That’s coming up soon. So – but I can assure you he’s in close contact with the President and the national security team about all the discussions that were happening – are happening at the G-8. And as you know, because I talked about it a little bit on Monday, he’s also been in close touch with his counterparts around the world about Syria and our path moving forward.

QUESTION: Now, on the statement --

QUESTION: (Inaudible) his own big trip that’s coming up soon, can you give us any kind of inkling about what exactly that is going to entail?

MS. PSAKI: Matt, we are still finalizing the details. I know I’ve said that a few times. But I promise as soon as they’re finalized, we will send them out broadly.

QUESTION: Okay. Do you think that that might – is there a chance that that could happen today?

MS. PSAKI: I’m very hopeful of that.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: Now which details were that? Which details --

MS. PSAKI: He’s talking about the Secretary’s next travel plans.

QUESTION: Okay. Now on the Syria issue, on the statement out of the G-8, could you – you know the statement came out, correct?

MS. PSAKI: The communique?

QUESTION: The communique.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Right. Okay. Now the communique does not mention the need for the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to step down, but it does mention that al-Qaida types should be forced out of Syria or should leave Syria, correct? Could you comment on that?

MS. PSAKI: I haven’t had an opportunity to review the entire communique. It’s lengthy.

QUESTION: Right, right.

MS. PSAKI: But I can give you some highlights of it.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. PSAKI: It endorses a Geneva process --

QUESTION: Right.

MS. PSAKI: -- including the step of pursuing agreement on a transitional governing body in Syria with full executive powers, formed by mutual consent. It calls on all parties to the conflict to allow access to the UN investigation team so that it can investigate reports of use of chemical weapons, and it confirms 1.5 billion in additional contributions to meet the humanitarian needs in Syria and neighboring countries, building on the U.S. announcement just yesterday of over 300 million in additional commitments.

Our position is the same. It has not changed. There’s no role for Bashar al-Assad in Syria. However, there is a future for those in the regime who are willing to accept the end of Assad’s reign and are willing to work for a better future for Syria. That’s been consistently our position publicly, every private conversation as well.

QUESTION: Okay. Now, the President was also very clear yesterday during his conversation with Charlie Rose on this issue, but why the communique does not include that? If you – it is something that you should agree with with the Russians – obviously, you are the two major players in this thing – why wouldn’t the communique include removing Assad from power?

MS. PSAKI: Well, again, there is broad agreement about a number of issues I just outlined in the communique. That may not be an issue we agree with our Russian counterparts on. There are a number of Western countries that do agree on that point.

But there is agreement with the Russians and with a number of our partners around the world that there needs to be a path to a political transition, that the status quo is unacceptable, and that what we need to be focused on is stability for the country of Syria and for the Syrian people.

QUESTION: Now, on the issue of the conference, are we likely to – let’s say on the meeting on the 25^th of June, which is next Monday, are we likely to know after that meeting time and place and who’s invited? I mean, at least we know Geneva.

MS. PSAKI: We’ll see. I’m sure we’ll read out for you what is decided in that meeting, but I don’t want to prejudge the discussions. But certainly, all of those items will be on the agenda.

QUESTION: I guess my question is that there were enough hurdles overcome where this – actually, this meeting can produce a timetable, correct?

MS. PSAKI: Well, again, this is part of the ongoing preparation for a conference. A political transition is the preferred outcome. This is a part of that process, and I don’t want to prejudge what will be decided out of this upcoming meeting.

QUESTION: I’m just curious about the line about the chemical weapons. Does the Administration think there’s still a need for a UN investigation into this, or – and if it does, why? You’ve already satisfied yourself that they have used them. Is this simply for the – are you still hoping to get the Russians on – angry enough at Assad that they’ll be more specific about what – that he needs to go?

MS. PSAKI: Well, Matt, we’re absolutely still focused on that, of course. And as I mentioned, we have briefed the Russians. It’s been discussed in a number of cases. But also, if the UN team is able to get in and do their own investigation, that’s further validity for the findings of the U.S. and others who have come out and stated their own findings.

QUESTION: Jen, is it possible that the arming of the rebels by the U.S. and others will be withheld until some clarity is on this political process, since that’s the favored one?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t – I wouldn’t tie the two together. I believe the President, or the President and his team, as well as the Secretary, have all said that these decisions are going to be made about what is best for the Syrian people and the future of Syria, and taking into account our own national interest here for the U.S. But improving the ground situation for the opposition is – the purpose of that is all a part of getting to a point where we’re moving to a political transition given that it’s everybody’s bottom-line goal here.

QUESTION: Jen, are you aware that five American fighter jets penetrated Syrian airspace – or this morning, based in Jordan?

MS. PSAKI: I have not seen that report, Said. I’ll have to look into it for you.

QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.

QUESTION: Jen, can you update us on the delivery of aid that was pledged in April, or anything since then (inaudible)?

MS. PSAKI: I did this a little bit yesterday, but let me provide you an update. So just as a repeat, 127 has been delivered; 123 is in the process of congressional notification.

QUESTION: Right.

MS. PSAKI: That can take some time, and components of it are being notified at different times. And then Congress typically has some time to review what has been proposed, and the specifics of the breakdown of the 123 is all being discussed as part of that process. So that is underway right now.

QUESTION: And the new aid that was announced yesterday?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have – the $300 million in humanitarian aid?

QUESTION: The 300, yeah.

MS. PSAKI: That, of course, will go through a process of working with Congress, but also determining the best way to get it on the ground. So it doesn’t usually happen overnight, but we try to do it as quickly as possible.

QUESTION: Jen, if you look at that statement, though, the communiqué, it is very weak. I mean, basically there’s nothing in there. There’s nothing – there’s no mention of Assad. Why did the United States sign onto it?

MS. PSAKI: Well, our position has been the same. We do feel – still think it is significant that there was agreement in the communique about pursuing a transitional governing body in Syria with full executive powers formed by mutual consent. That is the basis, and the fundamental basis, of a political transition. So we felt that was a significant agreement. There is still a disagreement, as we all know, that we have with the Russians on some issues. But having an international body like the G-8 signify that they agree on the path forward we felt was significant.

QUESTION: Jen, just to clarify, if there will be any hope about this UN investigation which will be going on on the ground, shall we assume that you will be waiting for the result of this investigation before taking any other action, like arming the rebels?

MS. PSAKI: I would not draw that conclusion. We’re continuing to consider, the President is continuing to consider all options. But of course, having the UN go and investigate and being allowed into Syria would certainly be a significant step.

QUESTION: Change topics?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I think someone else – Jill, go ahead.

QUESTION: The Taliban.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: The Secretary in fact just said, “Good news, very pleased with what’s taken place.” So what’s the good news? I mean, what realistically does the U.S. expect, hope from these talks?

MS. PSAKI: Well, let me just start by saying we’ve long said that this conflict will likely – excuse me – not be won on the battlefield, and that is why we support this office. But neither do we plan to let up on our fight against international terrorism in Afghanistan, or our support to Afghan forces who will very soon be in the lead for operations throughout the country. Our military and diplomatic efforts continue to be mutually reinforcing. Just wanted to say that at the topic.

But this is something that – as President Obama reaffirmed with President Karzai in Januaray, an Afghan-led and Afghan-owned peace and reconciliation process is the surest way to end violence and ensure lasting stability in Afghanistan and the region. And as you know, the Secretary, on his second trip as Secretary of State, also went to Afghanistan and also reaffirmed the belief that this was an important step. These statements represent an important first step toward reconciliation, the outcome of which must be that the Taliban and other insurgent groups break ties with al-Qaida and violence and accept Afghanistan’s constitution, including its protections for women and minorities.

But it’s important because it is a first step that hasn’t happened until today. And so, of course, that’s why it’s a significant announcement. Let me just review – because I know people are following this closely, but – what has happened today. So today the Taliban has released a statement that said two things: that they oppose the use of Afghan soil to threaten other countries, and they support an Afghan peace process. The U.S., of course, acknowledges, as is evidenced by our briefings and the Secretary’s comments, these statements for which we have long called and which fulfill the requirements for the Taliban to open an office in Doha for the purpose of negotiations with the Afghan Government.

The Qataris have also issued a statement announcing the opening of an office with the name Political Office of the Afghan Taliban. The statement also laid out the narrow purpose of this office. And finally, we would note that Qatar recognizes the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan as the legitimate Government of Afghanistan, and they enjoy full diplomatic relations.

QUESTION: What does it mean, a “narrow purpose of this office”?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I think it’s going to what I was stating, that this is a part of a step, this is an important first step. But again, there are – we’ve always said Afghan-led, Afghans talking to Afghans is an important part of our transition. But it doesn’t – it’s not the end of our transition, so this is starting the process.

QUESTION: And when you look at their statement, there is that line, “will not allow anyone to use the Afghan land to threaten anyone.” So that’s the line that you’re talking about.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: That’s not talking directly about the – about al-Qaida, but ultimately the U.S. wants them to very directly cut their links publicly with al-Qaida, correct?

MS. PSAKI: That is the end goal, yes.

QUESTION: So this is enough?

MS. PSAKI: This is an important statement. This allows us to get the process started. And as you know, there are some end goals in this process.

QUESTION: So just to be clear on Jill’s point, the Taliban are not required to disown, disavow, or disassociate themselves publicly with al-Qaida to have --

MS. PSAKI: That is a part of the end goal of the process.

QUESTION: Right. But to begin the process, to talk with them, they don’t have to do that? This is not a precondition for them participating?

MS. PSAKI: Correct.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Where in their statement does it talk about respecting the rights of women in the Afghan constitution?

MS. PSAKI: Well, that is respecting the constitution, which is an end goal of the process, is – has that included in it.

QUESTION: So that’s up for negotiation?

MS. PSAKI: No, it certainly is not. That’s something that we feel is vital.

QUESTION: Well, then, if that – but if it’s not – I don’t get it. If they haven’t agreed to respect the constitution, then it must mean that it’s up for negotiation.

MS. PSAKI: It’s not up for negotiation. That is the end goal of the process. This is just a beginning. The opening of the office is just a beginning of the process.

QUESTION: Okay. But, I mean, they have to come to that conclusion.

MS. PSAKI: Correct.

QUESTION: Well, then I don’t get why you’re so happy because they – I mean, they’re --

MS. PSAKI: I don’t – don’t indicate my --

QUESTION: Well, the Secretary said – I mean, “It’s good news, we’re very pleased at what’s taken place,” and I’m not sure I get – if they haven’t agreed to do the things that you want them to do, except for these – this one statement with the two parts of it – and – but that those are still the end goal of the – I’m not – it must mean that these are things that are up for negotiation. Otherwise --

MS. PSAKI: I don’t believe – they’re not up for negotiation. Those are – those were defined as the end goal of the process.

QUESTION: All right. So you’re hoping that the Afghans will convince the Taliban, their brethren, to respect the constitution and the rights of minorities and women in their conversations, which means that that is up for negotiation?

MS. PSAKI: It’s not up for negotiation. That is the end goal of the process of reconciliation. This is a first step in the process. I’m not overestimating or overstating what it means, but certainly, a first step is one farther step than we had just a few days ago.

QUESTION: But do they say in the statement that they renounce terrorism?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have the statement in front of me. We’re happy to get that around to everybody. But they – as Jill stated, the statement did state that they oppose the use of Afghan soil to threaten other countries, and they support an Afghan-led peace process.

QUESTION: And then there was – there’s some – I think some official said on background that there would be a meeting – a U.S.-Taliban meeting in the coming days.

MS. PSAKI: Let me give you --

QUESTION: Do you have any --

MS. PSAKI: It’s not yet scheduled. We’re in the process of scheduling it, but --

QUESTION: Is that – would that be Jim Dobbins?

MS. PSAKI: Correct. Let me give you an update on his travel schedule as well to help you along those lines.

Ambassador James Dobbins, Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, will be departing today for travel to Ankara, Turkey; to Doha, Qatar, and with onward travel to Afghanistan and Pakistan currently planned. The trip is primarily focused on reconciliation efforts. He will have meetings with a number of officials at each stop, and we’ll be reading those out, of course, after they conclude.

QUESTION: Do you know who from the Taliban is (1) going to be staffing this office, and (2) who he – Mr. Dobbins, Ambassador Dobbins – will see?

MS. PSAKI: Well, the meetings are still being scheduled, so I don’t have any update on who he’ll meet with and I don’t have the names yet of who will be participating at it.

QUESTION: All right. And presumably, just – and I just want to make sure of this, that this meeting, when – it will be in Doha, right? I mean, that’s why he’s going to Doha? Or will it be someplace else?

MS. PSAKI: Well, that’s where the office is, but again, he’ll have meetings throughout his travel, and he has onward travel planned to Afghanistan and Pakistan.

QUESTION: No, no, but – so he might meet with the Taliban in Afghanistan or Pakistan --

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any --

QUESTION: -- or Turkey?

MS. PSAKI: -- specifics on his planned meetings. I just didn’t want to understate who he’ll be meeting with and where.

QUESTION: Okay. All right.

MS. PSAKI: Jill.

QUESTION: And again, these are the first formal talks, right?

MS. PSAKI: With the --

QUESTION: With the Taliban.

MS. PSAKI: Afghan-Afghan, yes.

QUESTION: Right. Between the United States formally --

MS. PSAKI: Well, as you know, there was a time ago where we did talk with them.

QUESTION: Right.

MS. PSAKI: But this is, of course, a different step forward.

QUESTION: Were those considered formal talks, though, before? I mean, how historic is this? Is this the first formal talks for this --

MS. PSAKI: I’d have to look back and see how we defined them at the time, but this is certainly part of a process which is being led by Afghans speaking to Afghans as part of their efforts to move forward on a reconciliation process. The U.S., of course, has a stake here, and we believe it is important for the Taliban to begin, of course, meaningful discussions as soon as possible, both with the Afghans and with us. And the main dialogue we want to support is among Afghans, but there are some issues we, the U.S., want to discuss with the Taliban directly, most notably our concerns about Taliban connections to international terrorism.

And we are in Afghanistan, as you all know, because the attack against the United States on 9/11 was planned there by al-Qaida under shelter offered by the Taliban. An important focus for our meetings moving forward with the Taliban will be the need for them to completely and verifiably break with terrorism. So that is, of course, a priority of the U.S. as we look to proceed with our negotiations.

QUESTION: Jen?

MS. PSAKI: Go ahead.

QUESTION: When were with Secretary Kerry in Kabul back in March, he stood next to President Karzai, and President Karzai said that they had already started talking informally with the Taliban members. He laid out some of the end goals that you’ve enumerated here. Again, what has changed in the diplomacy between March and now in this press release?

MS. PSAKI: Well, there are several components. Obviously, this is an Afghan-led process, so I would point you to them on why these talks and why – are proceeding now, or the Taliban of course --

QUESTION: Well, you have the confidence now to do something we weren’t confident enough to do in March, so is there something on the way?

MS. PSAKI: Well, as you know, this is something that the President, President Obama, that Secretary Kerry have all said is an important step forward. We wanted to have the appropriate conditions to do just that. Again, there are several players in this, most importantly the Afghans themselves. And so they have decided to move forward with this. Obviously, the U.S. has a stake and has a role here, but again, it’s led by the Afghans.

QUESTION: But there wasn’t a specific gesture of goodwill or anything other than this Taliban announcement?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have anything further to read out for you on that point.

QUESTION: Jen, it is Afghan-led, but then it is correct that the United States will be the first people who will meet --

MS. PSAKI: Correct, mm-hmm.

QUESTION: But why is that? Why wouldn’t the first meeting be between the Afghans?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I mentioned a bit of the U.S. stake here and the issues we feel are vitally important to discuss. That will certainly be a part of that process. This is an Afghan process moving forward, and certainly will be Afghan-led and Afghan-focused moving forward. But as I mentioned, the U.S. has a stake. Obviously, the State Department, the White House, and others have been engaged in this process, the Secretary has been, and so that may be the order of meetings.

QUESTION: On the issue of Afghan-led, is that – does that mean that if Karzai, for whatever reason, decides not to go to these talks, that he can veto these talks between the United States and the Taliban?

MS. PSAKI: I’m not sure I would speculate on that. Obviously, everybody is engaged --

QUESTION: No. I mean, explain to us what --

MS. PSAKI: -- in moving this forward, Said. That’s where our focus is. As I mentioned, Ambassador Dobbins has some travel. We’ve seen some statements across the region, and we’re hopeful that these talks will move forward.

QUESTION: Is there any specific reason that – why Qatar has been chosen as a venue for these negotiations?

QUESTION: They’re always a venue for --

MS. PSAKI: Why the office is in Doha?

QUESTION: Yeah. Because of pick of Taliban or you were involved with the decision process?

MS. PSAKI: I’m not actually certain of the history there. I’m happy to look into that for you.

QUESTION: Because there were two different states who were competing to be venue. One was Istanbul.

QUESTION: Let her guess what the other country was. (Laughter.)

MS. PSAKI: Well, I would point you to the government of – that is funny, I don't know how to figure it out – I would point you to the Government of Qatar on this, but I’m happy to check if there’s any more – anything I can enumerate for all of you.

QUESTION: Can I just ask you, does this mean that the U.S. now regards the Taliban as a legitimate fighting group, a legitimate enemy, unlike enemy – before, it was – they were kind of – they were classified enemy combatants, or as non – they were non-state actors, obviously, but that they – but they weren’t regarded as legal enemies. Does this mean that that is now over? And then as a corollary to that, does the Administration believe that the Taliban have legitimate concerns about the way things are in Afghanistan right now, in terms of governance? Or do you think that President Karzai’s government – or regardless of who the president is – that the government that exists there right now is best for the Afghan people?

MS. PSAKI: Well, let me answer the first question first, as makes sense in order. This is the beginning of the process. There are steps that need to be taken. Obviously, I’ve outlined the U.S. stake here and what needs to happen. But we’re not going to judge the outcome.

As you know, we are – still have troops on the ground in Afghanistan. We still – our goal in Afghanistan continues to be to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al-Qaida to ensure that the country can never again be a safe haven for terrorists. We’re doing both at the same time, talking and winding down our fighting in the country.

On the second question – and just repeat your second question for me again.

QUESTION: Well, I’m just curious to know if the Administration thinks that the Taliban have legitimate concerns about the way that Afghanistan is being run.

MS. PSAKI: Well, Matt, I mean, the Taliban are obviously a key component here, and that’s why we believe that they should be – begin their negotiations and why this is an important step in that process.

QUESTION: Okay. But according to you, these are negotiations, but what is not negotiable in these negotiations is respect for the current constitution.

MS. PSAKI: Well, that is the end goal, the end plan, what we would like to see at the end of these negotiations. And that has been --

QUESTION: So then --

MS. PSAKI: -- that has been outlined and been clear for some time.

QUESTION: Okay. But then you don’t believe that the Taliban have legitimate concerns that need to be addressed in negotiations, or you do believe that they have legitimate concerns that can be – that should be addressed in negotiations? And if they do, what are those legitimate concerns in the view of the Administration?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I’ll let them outline their own concerns, Matt. But I mean, moving toward a reconciliation – our end goal here --

QUESTION: I understand that. But either you think that their concerns have merit or you don’t.

MS. PSAKI: Well, obviously we feel that a reconciliation process between all parties is important. I’m not going to validate one set of concerns over another. But in order to move toward a more stable Afghanistan, we feel this is an important part of the process.

QUESTION: I’m going to carry on with what Matt’s question is about – negotiating, the legality of it. I mean, in the eyes of the U.S., is Taliban a terrorist group?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I’m not sure how they’re defined at this particular moment.

QUESTION: Yeah.

MS. PSAKI: But the important thing here is that we’ve long said that moving toward a reconciliation process, of which they are a key part – the President has said this, the Secretary has said this – is an important part of moving towards a more stable Afghanistan. That’s why we support these efforts. That’s why we’ve been so engaged, why the Secretary has been so engaged, at every level of the government.

QUESTION: And how will the negotiations – I mean, surely the release of Bergdahl will be part of that, as well as surely the Taliban are going to be demanding the release of the Guantanamo Bay Taliban commanders. What is the response going to be on that?

MS. PSAKI: Well, let me first say the United States – and you asked me this question sort of but – has not made the decision at this point to transfer any Taliban detainees from Guantanamo Bay, though, of course, we expect the Taliban to raise this issue. As we’ve long said, we’ll make any such decisions in consultation with Congress and according to U.S. law. And as we talked about yesterday, we, of course, very committed to closing Guantanamo.

On the question of other issues we will raise, I talked about a number of them, but absolutely we will want to talk with the Taliban about the safe return of Sergeant Bergdahl. He has been gone far too long, and we continue to call for and work towards his safe and immediate release.

QUESTION: Do these talks have the backing of members of Congress, considering they want to block the transfer of those – the release of those Taliban commanders? I mean, is – would Congress not see it – I guess I could ask them, but would they not see this as negotiating with the enemy in a way?

MS. PSAKI: Well, there are several steps in this process we anticipate, of course. We’re at the beginning of the journey here, so to speak. And of course, consulting with Congress on every step will be a big part of this process, and we will venture to do that in the weeks ahead. And any decision and any part of the negotiation we will be in consultation with them.

QUESTION: I guess I’m just not clear on this whole negotiation, but you have a set endpoint. This is not a surrender, clearly. You don’t believe that there’s a – clearly a military victory here, so it’s not like Germany or Japan after the Second World War. So there is, in fact, a negotiation that has to go on.

But if you’ve already decided on what the end goal, the terms – obviously the end – the overreaching end goal is to have Afghanistan at peace and not a threat to anybody around it. But you – up and to that point there has to be negotiation to make it worthwhile for the Taliban. And if you don’t – if you say that – if you’ve already set out what the end goal is in terms of them having to respect the existing constitution exactly the way it’s written with the protections for minorities and women, then I don’t get how it’s a negotiation. Either you think that these are points that can be negotiated, that the Taliban have legitimate concerns that have merit and can be addressed in a negotiation, or you don’t.

MS. PSAKI: Well, our outcome and what we would like to see here, as you mentioned, has not been secret. We’ve laid this out very clearly, publicly and privately.

QUESTION: Well, I’m not saying that it is secret. I just don’t understand what they’re negotiating.

MS. PSAKI: Well, they’re negotiating how to reconcile their efforts on both sides.

QUESTION: Yeah. But the Taliban come in and the Afghans say you have to respect the constitution and every single thing that it means, and the Taliban say well, we don’t like this part or we don’t like this part. And that – but you’re saying that can’t be negotiated. So I --

MS. PSAKI: Well, Matt, clearly there are stakes from both sides that are prompting them to move back to the process here. I’m sure they will all have lots to say about that.

QUESTION: All right.

MS. PSAKI: But we feel it’s an important step forward.

QUESTION: Can I just go back to who exactly is going to be negotiating? Is it Ambassador Dobbins?

MS. PSAKI: He will be a part of that process, of course, as the Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan. He, of course, has a team, but that is the purpose of his travel, is to focus on reconciliation efforts.

QUESTION: Sorry. He’s going to be part of the Afghan-to-Afghan talks?

MS. PSAKI: No, no. He is a part of the U.S. having meetings with the Taliban, being a part of this process, of which we obviously have a stake.

QUESTION: Right. I understand.

MS. PSAKI: He is the primary person leading that effort.

QUESTION: But do you have anything to negotiate with the Taliban?

MS. PSAKI: No. That would be up to the Afghans to – if they wanted the U.S. to have a role in that. But it is Afghans talking to Afghans. As I said, the U.S. has our own stakes and our own issues that we want to discuss here moving forward.

QUESTION: And that would be mainly the release of Bergdahl and --

MS. PSAKI: Certainly he would be a part of that, as well as some of the issues I outlined earlier about the need for them to completely and verifiably break with terrorism.

QUESTION: But those issues are negotiable?

MS. PSAKI: Well, again, we’re going to sit down with the Taliban and discuss them. That’s part of what the – what Ambassador Dobbins will be doing.

QUESTION: But I don’t understand – okay, I don’t understand how you negotiate that. If you tell them they have to renounce terrorism, what’s the negotiation there?

MS. PSAKI: Well, again, Matt --

QUESTION: There’s not any – there’s no room for – you have to release our guy and you have to renounce terrorism, and that’s it. That doesn’t seem to me – there’s no negotiation. That’s ultimatum.

MS. PSAKI: All sides are coming to this with their own stakes.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. PSAKI: I’m sure they will have plenty to say. Those are what the U.S. is hoping to accomplish through the process.

QUESTION: Okay. And just to make it clear, Dobbins is not going to be in the Afghan-to-Afghan talks? Or is he?

MS. PSAKI: No. It would be up to the Afghans if they --

QUESTION: If they want him there.

MS. PSAKI: -- want us to participate. But he’s having meetings primarily focused on the reconciliation efforts.

QUESTION: Gotcha. And at part of his trip right now, does that currently entail attending or observing an Afghan-Taliban --

MS. PSAKI: This is so new, the meetings are still being scheduled. But I will – as we have updates, we’re happy to provide them.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Yeah, Jen, some of the wires are already reporting it’s happening on Thursday, that meeting. Can you tell us – if you can’t confirm that date, maybe you can – can you tell us at least what the access will be?

MS. PSAKI: The media access? I’d have --

QUESTION: Yeah. Will there be debriefs? Will there be any information shared from them?

MS. PSAKI: We will be reading out meetings as they complete. And I actually didn’t have – the meetings were still being scheduled as I came down here, so maybe they happened rapidly. But I’m happy to check if Thursday is accurate, and we can confirm that for all of you, if so, following the briefing.

QUESTION: Can we change topic?

QUESTION: Taliban?

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: When Secretary spoke with the Pakistan’s Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, was this an issue of discussion? Did he discuss with him this Taliban statement?

MS. PSAKI: Not that I’m aware of. That wasn’t the focus of the call. It was the issues that I outlined in terms of Pakistan participation, which I’m betting is where you’re getting at here. This is really a question, of course, for the Afghan Government. We’ve long said that we appreciate Pakistan’s public statements in support of Afghan-led reconciliation. We’ll continue to closely coordinate with Pakistan in support of these efforts.

QUESTION: And on – since the Taliban will be having talks with both the U.S. and Afghan Government, would U.S. be open to the idea of Taliban having talks with other neighboring countries like India or Iran? Because India had never had any talks or relations with the Taliban. Iran did had some.

MS. PSAKI: I don’t think we’re going to get ahead of the announcement today. And as – if there are updates to provide, we’re happy to provide them.

QUESTION: And several Taliban leaders are on a most-wanted list. Is the U.S. moving ahead in delisting them? That has been one of the conditions for the Taliban.

MS. PSAKI: Again, this is just the first step in the process. There is a journey to go here. So it’s significant because we are taking a step in the process, but there need to be negotiations, there need to be discussions. The U.S. will have some, Afghans will have some, but I’m not going to get ahead of what the end results will be.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Do you anticipate Secretary Kerry taking a direct role at any point in this process, or will it mostly be led on the ground by Ambassador Dobbins?

MS. PSAKI: Well, Secretary Kerry is deeply – has been deeply engaged in this effort and has – cares deeply about the outcome. In terms of what his involvement will be moving forward beyond this next trip, I don’t want to get ahead of where we are in the process.

QUESTION: Can we change topics?

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: I want to ask you about the Palestinian-Israeli peace process.

MS. PSAKI: Okay.

QUESTION: Yesterday there were statements made by – or the day before yesterday – the Minister of Housing, Naftali Bennet, saying that there is no chance whatsoever for a Palestinian state. And then the Palestinian negotiator, Saeb Erekat, came out and said this is actually official Israeli declaration of the death of the two-state solution. Could you comment on both comments?

MS. PSAKI: I’ll have to have you repeat the second one. Go ahead.

QUESTION: The second one – the Palestinian negotiator, Saeb Erekat, said that statement was an official Israeli Government statement, and it announces the death of the peace process and the two-state solution.

MS. PSAKI: Well, let me first say on the first statement that we’ve always known that people would have opposing points of views, whether they’re in the government or outside the government. That is not a surprise. The Secretary himself has spoken of that. That doesn’t represent the belief and the positions of the majority of the Israeli people, who of course support moving towards a peace process. And in terms of both sides talking back and forth, there are discussions that are happening. The Secretary has been deeply engaged with both sides. As you know, he speaks with Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas and Minister Livni on a regular basis. Those have been private for a reason, but I would caution you against reading into public comments back and forth that don’t reflect what’s happening behind the scenes.

QUESTION: So, are there any plans for the Secretary to travel to the region?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any update on that yet; I hope to have an update. As you know, he is hoping to and planning to return to the region, where he hopes to hold a series of productive meetings with Israeli, Palestinians, and Jordanian leaders. But these – the specifics of that I hope to have soon for you, believe me.

QUESTION: Jen. Sorry. So you don’t believe that the comments that the Housing Minister made to reflect the opinion of the – I think you said the majority of the Israeli people?

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Where exactly did you get your information about what the majority of the Israeli people want? This is a – I mean, they may want peace, but the majority of the Israeli are at least enough to elect a government, to twice put in place a Prime Minister who has been one of the most hostile to a peace process in many, many years. So --

MS. PSAKI: What I was referring to, Matt, was the fact that most people would like peace in Israel. And that is simply what I was stating. And so that one official’s comments don’t reflect the will of all people in the country.

QUESTION: Well, I don’t think that what – the official didn’t say that they didn’t want peace. He just said that there shouldn’t be a Palestinian state, or the Palestinian state was impossible. I’m – you think – is it your – is it the Administration’s opinion the majority of the Israeli people want to see a Palestinian state?

MS. PSAKI: I think the people know what needs to happen in order for there to be a peaceful outcome here. I wasn’t intending to get into every aspect of the negotiation, just to convey that the majority of the Israeli people do want peace.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. PSAKI: Still on Middle East peace?

QUESTION: No, no, another subject.

MS. PSAKI: Okay.

QUESTION: Can you – what can you tell us about this unruly passenger on that international flight (inaudible)?

MS. PSAKI: I can confirm for you that he is a former employee for the Department of State, and he ended his time at the Department of State in 2006.

QUESTION: Is there any further detail about him, that he was acting very strangely?

MS. PSAKI: Not that I’m aware of. And it’s unlikely that would be any update, coming, of course, from the State Department, since he is no longer an employee.

QUESTION: And I’m sorry, what did he do? What was his job?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any details on that specifically. He was an employee of the Department of State up until 2006.

QUESTION: Jen. On Lebanon, there were clashes today in south Lebanon between Hezbollah and a Sunni group. Do you have anything on this?

MS. PSAKI: We, of course, have seen those reports, as we have unfortunately many times in this briefing room. We are very concerned about the overflow. I would express our concern about the overflow of violence into Lebanon, the increase in sectarian – of sectarian violence around this conflict, and this is certainly an example of that.

QUESTION: As you know, a long-serving DS agent has filed a lawsuit against Hillary Clinton in her official capacity as the Secretary of State. And discovery evidence in that case that was obtained by Fox News suggests that two high-ranking DS officials gave sworn testimony that was evasive, at best, or maybe even knowingly false, at worst. Do you have any comment on that?

MS. PSAKI: Well, let me give everybody a bit more of the context here. One, this is an ongoing case, which of course we wouldn’t speak to, but you’re also referring to a few lines, as I understand it, from a multi-hour, closed-door deposition, which I have – is likely taken out of context. And of course, given its ongoing litigation, we wouldn’t speak to it further, but clearly we are aware of investigations that have gone on, that are going on. As I’ve stated many times from here, we are fully supportive of those and take every accusation seriously.

Let me just say one more thing on the larger context of the last two weeks. We deeply regret the inappropriate release of Department employee names, especially given the privacy, due process, and fundamental fairness rights and interests of all employees. Public trial by innuendo is hardly appropriate or helpful to ensuring a fair and partial adjudication, and we hope that those reacting to sensationalized reporting, many of whom should know well the rights afforded to those accused of mixed conduct from personal and professional interactions with law enforcement, will not trample those rights in a rush to judge.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Iran, please?

MS. PSAKI: Iran? Sure.

QUESTION: The newly elected President Rouhani spoke yesterday I think about the need to heal old and deep wounds with the United States. Do you have any comment?

MS. PSAKI: Can you – I’m sorry – can you say that one more time? I couldn’t hear you over --

QUESTION: He spoke about the need to heal the old and deep wounds with the United States. Do you have any comment?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I spoke to this a bit yesterday and said that, of course, his election is a potentially hopefully sign. We congratulate the Iranian people for demonstrating the courage to make their voices heard in this election, but we’ll see what happens moving forward, and time will tell.

QUESTION: Can I go back to the previous thing – your statement on the deeply regretting the release of the names?

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Is there any action that you can or are taking about the fact that this – that these documents came to light or were publicized or were given out?

MS. PSAKI: I’ll have to check with our legal team on that.

QUESTION: Yeah. So it’s two parts.

MS. PSAKI: Okay.

QUESTION: One is, is there anything you can do. And two, if there is, are you doing it?

MS. PSAKI: Okay. I’m happy to check on that for you, Matt.

QUESTION: Thanks.

MS. PSAKI: Go ahead.

QUESTION: Does Secretary Kerry still have full faith and confidence in DS Director Starr and Executive Director Mahaffey?

MS. PSAKI: Well, again, these individuals – I don’t – I think – but Mr. Starr has been – is Acting Director. He works closely with him, knows him well. He takes every issue and every allegation of misconduct seriously. But let me just remind you of something I said a few – I guess 10 days ago. There are thousands – I guess almost 2,000 – DS agents serving in some of the most difficult places around the world. They go through a rigorous process to get into their positions, and leadership in Diplomatic Security overseas, all of these individuals who are proudly serving around the world. If there is an allegation of misconduct, of which I’m not aware of for those two individuals, we would certainly take a look at that, as we would in any case. But again, bringing up names and litigating people’s reputations in the press is something that has been concerning to us to date.

QUESTION: Sorry. Litigating people’s reputations?

MS. PSAKI: Discussing, Matt. Litigating, I don’t mean in a legal court room. I mean, in the public forum.

QUESTION: Well, you could make the argument that if these allegations are false and were proven to be false, then it’s doing – it’s more than litigating. It’s – it may border on libel. But I – is it – can you – are we still where we were before, that some of the cases – some of the cases that were in that memo are still being investigated? Or have they all been closed?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any update on that. But the larger point and why I can’t speak to the specific cases is that, as we mentioned, the OIG office, and as they have said, are looking broadly into the process related to these cases. We welcome that and we look forward to their report.

QUESTION: But are there any of those allegations that are in that memo that you can say were – are false?

MS. PSAKI: I’m not going to speak to specific cases, given there’s an ongoing --

QUESTION: I’m not asking for a specific --

MS. PSAKI: -- investigation looking into. There are certainly a range of inaccuracies that were in that initial memo, as I’ve spoken to from here before.

QUESTION: Okay. And is there any update on when that outside investigation or --

MS. PSAKI: I don’t. I would point you to the IG’s office for that, because they are conducting their review.

Okay. Thanks. Oops, sorry, go ahead, Matt.

QUESTION: I’ve got two very brief ones. One, does the Administration take any position or have any feelings about this move by the Duma to ban adoption by gay couples?

MS. PSAKI: I believe – let me see – this happened about a week ago, is that right?

QUESTION: Yeah, but it’s – I think it’s moving ahead. Did you already answer it? If you already have, then --

MS. PSAKI: I don’t believe I have. Let me see if I have something for you. Of course, we remain – the United States, of course, opposes any legislation that discriminates against people due to their sexual orientation or gender identity. We place great importance on the protection of the human rights and fundamental freedoms of all people, including lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender persons around the world.

QUESTION: All right. So that – and that applies – that statement applies domestically, as well, right?

MS. PSAKI: Certainly, Matt, you’re familiar with what our federal situation – what our state laws are here.

QUESTION: I’m familiar with the Defense of Marriage Act, yes. So anyway.

Okay. And then the second brief one was Brazil.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Do you have any comment, concern about the growing protests in Brazil?

MS. PSAKI: I do, just give me one moment here. Well, we of course are monitoring the events in Brazil, as would be expected. Peaceful demonstrations, as are going on there, are part of what democracy is all about. Citizens expressing their views and engaging government leaders about the issues that matter to them is what is, of course, taking place in this case.

Thanks, everyone.

QUESTION: Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 1:16 p.m.)

DPB # 101

The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department.
External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.

Celebrating the 10th Anniversary of the Kennedy-Lugar Youth Exchange and Study Program

The U.S. Department of State is celebrating the 10^th Anniversary of the Kennedy-Lugar Youth Exchange and Study (YES) Program. The YES program was started in the in the wake of 9/11 to bring youth from Muslim communities around the world to the U.S. for a year-long secondary school exchange. To date, over 6,000 high school students from more than 45 countries have participated in the YES program. In 2009, the Department of State began the YES Abroad program, to send American students abroad to countries including Bosnia-Herzegovina, Egypt, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mali, Morocco, Oman, Thailand, South Africa, and Turkey. Both programs promote democracy, civic engagement, and national security by building long-lasting ties with the next generation of young leaders.

During their stay, YES international exchange students live with a volunteer American host family, engage with their communities, attend high school, share their culture, develop leadership skills, and learn about American society. Current participates come from around the world, including Albania, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Egypt, Gaza, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Israel, Jordan, Kenya, Kosovo, Kuwait, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Macedonia, Malaysia, Mali, Morocco, Mozambique, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Suriname, Tanzania, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, West Bank, and Yemen.

Over 850 current students will join alumni, host families, and NGO-partners at events at the Department of State in the coming weeks to celebrate the 10th anniversary of the YES program. On June 20, the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs will host a formal reception at the Ronald Regan Building with remarks by Ambassador Adam Ereli, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Educational and Cultural Affairs, and John Milewski, managing editor and host of Dialogue at the Wilson Center.

Follow the celebrations using #KLYES10 on Twitter.

Media inquiries please contact Anna Griffin, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, at eca-press@state.gov.

The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department.
External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.

Special Envoy for North Korean Human Rights Issues Ambassador Robert King and Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Deputy Assistant Secretary Daniel Baer Travel to Brussels

Special Envoy for North Korean Human Rights Issues Ambassador Robert King will be in Brussels June 19-21. He will participate in the European Parliament Subcommittee on Human Rights’ Exchange on the Human Rights Situation in North Korea on June 19. He will be joined by Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Daniel Baer for meetings with officials from the European Parliament, European Union, and countries that share our deep concerns about the deplorable human rights situation in the DPRK.

The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department.
External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.

Secretary Kerry to Release Annual Trafficking in Persons (TIP) Report

On Wednesday, June 19 at 3:30 p.m., Secretary of State John Kerry will release the 2013 Trafficking in Persons (TIP) Report during a ceremony at the U.S. Department of State. As required by the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, the TIP Report assesses governments around the world on their efforts to combat modern slavery. The 13^th annual TIP Report includes narratives of 188 countries and territories. At the rollout event, Secretary Kerry will also honor the 2013 TIP Report Heroes, men and women whose personal efforts have made an extraordinary difference in the global fight against modern slavery. The event will be attended by members of the diplomatic corps, nongovernmental and international organization representatives, and anti-trafficking activists.

Remarks will be open to the press.
Pre-set time for cameras: 2:15 p.m. from the 23rd Street Entrance Lobby.
Final access time for journalists and still photographers: 3:00 p.m. from the 23rd Street Entrance Lobby.

Media representatives may attend this event upon presentation of one of the following: (1) A U.S. Government-issued identification card (Department of State, White House, Congress, Department of Defense or Foreign Press Center), (2) a media-issued photo identification card, or (3) a letter from their employer on letterhead verifying their employment as a journalist, accompanied by an official photo identification card (driver's license, passport).

Instructions for embargoed access to the report will be available, to members of the press only, on Tuesday, June 19 at 8:15 a.m. in the State Department’s Press Office (Room 2109). The entire report is EMBARGOED until the end of the Secretary’s rollout event, approximately 4:00 p.m. The report will then be available to the public on www.state.gov/j/tip.

The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department.
External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.

Press Briefing Announcement Regarding Great Lakes Special Representative

SECRETARY KERRY:　 Good morning, everybody.

QUESTION:　 It’s a late morning.

SECRETARY KERRY:　 Good afternoon.　 (Laughter.)

I’m happy to spend just a few minutes with you today and I apologize that I have to run over to the White House quickly after this, but I wanted to be able to focus personally on an important addition to our team here at the State Department; an individual who is going to provide, I believe, a very important focus on a long-troubled region.

As everybody here knows, the suffering in the Great Lakes region of Africa and the ongoing crisis in the eastern part of the Democratic Republic of the Congo continues to trouble all of us greatly.　 We are convinced that we have to help the parties find a path to a lasting peace, to a permanent cessation of hostilities, and to the disarmament and demobilization of M23, accountability for human rights abuses, and finally, a breaking down of the barriers that are standing between humanitarian aid and the civilians who need it.

For the President and for me, this is a high-level priority and it needs to be met with high-level leadership.　 And that’s why today, I’m pleased to announce the appointment of my former colleague in the United States Senate, Russ Feingold, as the new United States Special Representative for the African Great Lakes region and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Russ and I served together in the Senate for some 18 years.　 I have a lot of respect for a lot of qualities of Russ – his intellect, his courage, his passion – but with respect to this mission, chief among those qualities that are important right now is his expertise on Africa.　 In the Senate, when Russ Feingold addressed the issues of Africa, the Senate listened.　 He chaired the Africa subcommittee when I was chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, and I think my predecessor as chairman, the Vice President Joe Biden, would agree with me that Russ Feingold was the Senate’s leading advocate and expert on Africa.　 I’m very grateful that he has agreed to come back to government and to apply the expertise that he gained those years for the Obama Administration and for the State Department.

Russ will be coordinating with me and with the Bureau of African Affairs to shape our strategy on the many challenges in the region – cross-border security; political, economic, and social assistance issues; and many other issues.　 I mentioned some of them earlier – M23, the violence, the need to build confidence and capacity in the region.　 He will also work very closely with the United Nations Special Envoy to the Great Lakes region, Mary Robinson, and he will work specifically to ensure the prompt and full implementation of the UN’s Peace, Security, and Cooperation Framework.

I want to take this opportunity to thank Ambassador Barrie Walkley for all that he has done, working hard to further peace and security in the Great Lakes and the D.R.C.　 He has served with great distinction as the Special Advisor on the Great Lakes and the D.R.C. since December of 2011.

I want to emphasize that the stakes in this part of the world – and this was brought home to me in many of my conversations when I was in Addis Ababa for the 50^th anniversary of the African Union – the stakes are very significant, and it is absolutely vital that we do everything possible in order to move things in the right direction and make the right choices.　 I am committed, as the President is committed and as is Russ Feingold, to focusing intensely on this challenge.　 And I can’t think of anybody better than Russ Feingold to take on the challenge.　 I’m happy to once again call him my colleague in government service.

So with that, I’ll turn the podium over to Jen Psaki for her briefing, and I can’t unfortunately take any questions now.

QUESTION:　 Not on the Taliban?

SECRETARY KERRY:　 But a bunch of you will have a chance to have at me in a few days on that.　 It’s good news.　 We’re very pleased with what has taken place.　 Thanks.

The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department.
External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.

Initial Design Team Shortlist Announced for New U.S. Embassy in Beirut

The Department of State’s Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations (OBO) has shortlisted six design teams for the new U.S. Embassy in Beirut, Lebanon.

The shortlisted teams are:

Diller Scofidio + Renfro

Mack Scogin Merrill Elam/AECOM

Morphosis Architects

Rafael Viñoly Architects

Steven Holl Architects

Yazdani Studio

Thirty-nine firms responded to the public notification for prospective offerors to compete. This initial shortlist of six offerors will assemble their technical teams and submit detailed information on their organization and qualifications for the Stage 2 evaluation.

The shortlisted submissions presented a diversity of projects with a high level of design excellence, innovative site and landscape designs, and strong sustainability experience.

The new Embassy site is located in Awkar, approximately 11 kilometers north of the city center and in close proximity to the existing Embassy. The new Embassy complex will include a chancery, support offices and utility buildings, a parking structure, Marine residence, Representational housing, staff housing, access control facilities, and a community center.

This project was solicited under OBO’s Excellence in Diplomatic Facilities initiative, a holistic approach to project development and delivery which seeks to utilize the best methods, technologies, and staff abilities to produce facilities that are outstanding in all respects.

OBO’s mission is to provide safe, secure, and functional facilities that represent the U.S. government to the host nation and support our staff in the achievement of U.S. foreign policy objectives. These facilities should represent American values and the best in American architecture, engineering, technology, sustainability, art, culture, and construction execution.

For further information, please contact Christine Foushee at FousheeCT@state.gov or (703) 875-4131, or visit www.state.gov/obo.

The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department.
External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.

Bottom Line Diplomacy: Why Public Diplomacy Matters

Thank you, Andrew, and congratulations to CSIS, on 50 years of strategic insights and bipartisan policy solutions.

As spring is about to turn, formally, to summer, in just a few days, we all should turn now to books, beaches, and blue skies. Now you might be wondering what those wonderful images have to do with public diplomacy and the start of a speech. Well--if you happen to go down to Ocean City, Maryland, or Rehoboth Beach, Delaware, or many resort towns, you’ll run into young people working summer jobs and speaking English with accents from Belfast to Belgrade.

They are here through one of the State Department’s cultural exchange programs known as Summer Work Travel. But they are actually part of a larger community – tens of thousands of students, teachers, researchers and business professionals – that comes to the United States at all times of the year to experience American culture. And they are one example of what I want to focus on today—the major dividend that we, as a nation, get, from engaging with people around the world and the often overlooked impact on our society of having international citizens spend time in our country and our citizens going abroad.

Take, for example, the dividend that comes from the hundreds of thousands of international students who study each year on U.S. college campuses – undergraduate and graduate. Those nearly 765,000 foreign students contribute $22.7 billion to the U.S. economy, making higher education among our top service sector exports. Now that is not the only reason we bring students to America. There is a value much greater and much deeper than just financial. But at a time of measurement and evaluation, metrics, and quantitative proof of concept, this economic contribution is worth noting.

I mention this because – as I take leave as Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs – I want to make Americans more aware of what the State Department does, --specifically public diplomacy- how much real value it brings to jobs overseas, jobs here, education, entrepreneurship, travel, tourism, and a healthy and robust trade and investment climate in both directions.

I have come to think of the work I do as “bottom line diplomacy” because the allocation of resources is an important part of any equation – not only because of our continuing economic recovery but because we need to justify public expenditure to our only governing board – the American people. And we have clear results that demonstrate value.

But let me make something clear: Bottom line diplomacy isn’t about reducing everything to how much it costs. It’s the opposite. It’s about expanding our perspective so we see – and reap – the long term benefits for our own citizens. In other words, bottom line diplomacy is the fusion of economic statecraft and public diplomacy.

It understands that – for example – when our educational advisors in 170 countries provide millions of aspiring foreign students with accurate, comprehensive information about our colleges and universities, they’re not just helping people build their own prosperous futures. They’re bringing economic benefit to the U.S. economy.

Standing up for workers’ rights and high labor standards, more broadly shared economic opportunity, and human rights is both right and moral, but it is also smart and strategic. Studies show that when we build inclusive economies, safeguard freedoms, invest in education, and encourage opportunity, people become more healthy, productive, democratic, empowered, and prosperous. They are more likely to become viable economic, trade, social, political and strategic partners, enhancing security and prosperity for all.

That equation draws a direct line between our foreign policy, economic priorities and our public diplomacy as a way of building prosperity and protecting our national interests. When Sen. Lindsay Graham referred to public diplomacy as “national security insurance,” I know exactly what he meant.

Through economic statecraft, for example, we work with international institutions—including the G8, ILO, IFI, and OECD – to forge open, free, transparent, and fair markets. But as we do that, our public diplomacy is working to create the conditions for economic growth by reaching out to and supporting people as they build better futures.

Bottom line diplomacy, then, is about building and strengthening the hyphen between the flow of money and the productive index of people.

We know, for example, that when we make engaging women an integral part of our foreign policy, the economic benefits are enormous. Again, studies have long confirmed this. Unlocking the economic potential of 50 percent of the world’s population through engagement with women and girls is a hallmark of this Administration and this State Department and it pays dividends. Through programs such as Tech Women, economic partnerships such as The Middle East Respond Fund, through our U.S.-Middle East Partnership Initiative, economic assistance programs, Partners for a New Beginning, WeAmerica, and other programs, our support extends to aspiring businesswomen and civil society leaders.

Global engagement opens doors that open minds – especially young minds. And some of our most effective outreach to young people comes from our own American young diplomats. Let me pause for a moment and reflect on Anne Smedinghoff, a young State Department colleague who became the first diplomat to die in Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan in April. On her final day, Anne was opening very big doors. She was working to support an educational program to promote literacy in Afghanistan. She was delivering books to young Afghans when she was killed. In her memory, today, I would like to announce the Anne Smedinghoff Award for Public Diplomacy Excellence for first and second tour Department of State officers. This award keeps Anne’s spirit alive by recognizing outstanding officers who open the doors of engagement, understanding, and opportunity.

To open doors in today’s globalized economy, you have to use social media, which is why we spend so much time building up our social media capabilities at State from virtual exchanges to an active online presence to online English language teaching.

Through social media and traditional public diplomacy we build skills for entrepreneurism. As we learned from the Arab Spring, the lack of economic opportunity for young people can lead to frustrated and disenfranchised youth who lack optimism in the prospects of their future. And so we engage online, both to create positive alternative scenarios and to use online media to counter negative scenarios like violent extremism which costs lives and treasure.

Public diplomacy today is about the movement of ideas. Through our Global Entrepreneurship Program, we identify promising entrepreneurs, train them, and link them with mentors and potential investors. And because support of their host governments is crucial to their future success, we advocate robustly for supportive economic policies and regulations.

We also engage citizens through our cornerstone American Spaces program. American Spaces offer each Embassy gathering places to connect with young people, foster new ideas, help foreign students pursue studies in the U.S. and promote English language learning—giving our contacts overseas the medium to engage in trade internationally—with the U.S. and other countries.

In October 2012, we joined the Youth Livelihoods Alliance, a multi-sector global initiative that aims to address the challenges of youth unemployment and increase opportunities for young people’s economic participation. The United States is also investing up to $2 billion in the creation of open online educational and job training resources.

Through our own Economic Public Diplomacy Innovation Fund, we are encouraging embassies to intersect with entrepreneurs and economic stakeholders, so we can advance investment, training, and economic engagement.

One last area of work I want to tell you about. The State Department team has pulled out all stops to support President Obama’s Travel and Tourism strategy, to encourage more travel to the United States, with brings with it clear benefit to the U.S and the American people -- more American jobs, expanded engagement with foreign publics, and strengthened economic statecraft. The Department of Commerce just released some very encouraging figures: Due at least in part to our efforts, travel and tourism to the United States rose by seven percent over the last year. Part of that effort came from public diplomacy.

I will miss my work at the State Department where, on any given day, the breadth and depth of our capabilities are palpable.

• Secretary Kerry emerging from a bilateral meeting with a world leader.
• Students from Libya, Tunisia, or Egypt, or religious scholars from Chad visiting my office
• Community leaders from Latin America and the Caribbean meeting with Department officials to look for ways to improve the safety of all citizens in our hemisphere.
• Translators delivering our messages to Arab, Chinese, Urdu, Russian and other audiences.
• Regional bureaus communicating with embassies around the world. Experts communicating with critical audiences around the world via video feeds and CO.NX links.

The message is clear: We are proactive and responsive in the fast-breaking, constantly evolving global conversation of the 21^st century – and we are not stopping.

Thank you.

The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department.
External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.

Remarks at the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) 10th Anniversary Celebration

Thank you very, very much everybody. What a pleasure to be here. This is a really great celebration. This is special. And if anybody here – I know you’re here because you are touched by it – but what a wonderful thing to celebrate the 10-year anniversary of this remarkable intervention that represents the best of the human spirit, and also I think in many ways, the best of American leadership. It’s something we can really be proud of, and we can be possibly not prouder at all of any effort by any individual than the remarkable effort, the amazing job of developing the PEPFAR programs and taking on one of the greatest health challenge crises of our time. I cannot thank enough the leadership of Ambassador Eric Goosby, who has been spectacular in this effort. (Applause.) Thank you. Thank you.

And I want to thank Tatu. Thank you so much for being here with us. I couldn’t be more pleased than to welcome you and your daughter, Faith, here to the State Department. I think you are an inspiration to everybody in this room and to everybody who knows your story, which everybody will learn more of. But you’re a living example of the impact and meaning of this program, and we thank you for coming here to share with us.

Also, when it comes to vision and leadership, I’d be remiss if I did not recognize Dr. Tony Fauci. Tony has been there since the very beginning, and he has taught us all that if we follow the science, we can truly achieve an AIDS-free generation. And I’m not sure there would be a PEPFAR today if it were not for the leadership of Tony, and we owe him all our thanks, so thank you very much. (Applause.)

And I know full well after 29 years on the Hill that without the right senators and congressmen and women behind this kind of effort, it doesn’t happen. And when this started up, it started up with a lot of courage by individuals who were willing to step up. It didn’t exactly have the unanimous consent not only of the people in the Congress initially, but in the country. So I want to thank Senators Mike Enzi and Ben Cardin for their leadership, and thanks for being here today; I know you’re going to hear from them. And I also want to thank my good friend and colleague Senator Johnny Isakson and the other members of Congress who are here. We salute you all for coming and sharing in this celebration, and that is what it is.

Everybody knows that as you look at Congress today, not every day produces the kind of exceptional bipartisan cooperation that created the celebration we’re here to enjoy today. This is one issue where I can happily say that partisanship has really almost always taken a backseat. And in fact, the success of this effort shows what can happen when you reach across the aisle and you do wind up working together.

I want to thank Richard Nchabi Kamwi for – he’s the Health Minister from Namibia – I want to thank him for being here with us today. Namibia has been hugely impacted by this disease, but through the Minister’s efforts, and our partnership with his country, we are seeing extraordinary progress.

And to everyone else here, I know that so many of you here are the stakeholders in this effort and you’ve worked hard on it, and I thank you for what you’ve done and I welcome you here at the State Department on this tremendous occasion.

I want to acknowledge one person who, sadly, is not here today, and that’s Michael Taylor Riggs. Michael was a former congressional staffer whose hard work and dedication helped to make PEPFAR a reality. And as many of you know, Michael passed away last month at the age of 42. And we miss him, and we thank him for his leadership. And while we celebrate today’s anniversary, I think all of us are thinking of Michael as well as the millions whose lives this terrible disease touched: the mothers and fathers who lost children, the children who were left orphaned, the friends and loved ones left behind, the communities that were devastated, from San Francisco to Soweto.

I met a number of these young people who were affected by this disease when Teresa, my wife and I, visited the Umgeni Primary School outside of Durban. And I’ll never forget the visit, walking around these mud huts with a grandmother who was coughing badly from HIV infection, and young kids whose – the only – the gap between them was generations wide. And we saw these orphans who were robbed of their parents, who were forced to take on the burden of adulthood at the age of 13, 14, 15, and caring for their younger siblings.

We were heartbroken at hearing what these children had been through, and you couldn’t help but feel this agony and this total disruption of the way life is supposed to be. But we were also inspired. We saw in their faces the amazing resilience of humanity, and it said something about all of us, and to all of us as well. Because when we all looked lost, when this disease appeared to be unstoppable, history will show that humanity and individual humans rose to the challenge. Action was taken. Innovations were discovered. Hope was kindled, and generations were saved.

The success of PEPFAR, as well as efforts by the entire global community, including the great work done by the Global Fund, represents in truth a victory for the human spirit. And with the Global Fund replenishment happening this year, now is the time for all donors to join with the United States to support and strengthen the fund. The fight against HIV and AIDS shows what we can accomplish when we make the effort together, join hands, overcome the ideology and the politics, and really dedicate our hearts to win.

None of this was easy, and frankly it’s really worth remembering for a moment how bleak things looked at a certain point in time. A decade ago, when the world finally began to reckon with the full magnitude of this crisis, many experts thought it was too late, and with nearly 30 million people infected with HIV/AIDS in 2002, an entire generation seemed lost. When I looked at the enormity of the challenge at that point in time, candidly it was hard not to be overwhelmed to some degree, and perhaps even a tiny bit pessimistic.

But I also felt that we had to do something, and so did many of my fellow senators, I am so happy to tell you, especially Bill Frist and ultimately Jessie Helms. I was proud to serve with Senator Frist as a founding co-chair of the bipartisan HIV/AIDS taskforce, a group that was instrumental in helping us to be able to prepare and lay the groundwork and pass the first AIDS legislation in the United States Congress – unanimously, I might add, in the Senate, thank to Jesse Helms’ and Bill Frist’s efforts – so that that was signed by President Bush in 2003. That translated ultimately into PEPFAR.

This landmark legislation created the world’s largest and most successful foreign assistance program, and today a disease that seemed unstoppable is in retreat. Globally, new HIV infections have declined nearly 20 percent over the past decade. In Sub-Saharan Africa, both the number of new infections and AIDS-related deaths are down by almost one-third over the last decade. Last year alone, PEPFAR supported HIV testing and counseling for nearly 50 million people, and while just 300,000 people in low and middle income countries were receiving anti-retroviral treatment 10 years ago, today PEPFAR is directly supporting more than 5 million people on treatment.

Because of these successes, I am honored to make a very special announcement today, an announcement that we could literally only have dreamed about 10 years ago. Thanks to the support of PEPFAR, we have saved the one millionth baby from becoming infected with HIV. That is a remarkable step. (Applause.)

And as you know, preventing mother-to-child transmission has been a central pillar of our fight against this disease, and just this month we reached the truly landmark moment on the HIV/AIDS timeline. Imagine what this means – one million babies, like Tatu’s daughter Faith, can grow up happy and healthy, go to school, realize their dreams, break out of this cycle, maybe even have sons and daughters of their own, free from the burden and the fear of HIV.

That is not the only good news. I’m also pleased to report that in 13 countries, we have now passed a programmatic tipping point. Today, more people are newly receiving treatment than are newly infected. We are at this point, thanks to the combined and coordinated efforts of all partners in the fight of global – against global AIDS. That is what has brought us to this moment.

But in order for more countries to pass this tipping point and keep going in the right direction, we still need to reach those who are at the greatest risk of HIV infection. That’s why last July, the United States announced the creation of a new $20 million fund to support key populations, people who are too often stigmatized, at risk, and neglected. And that means particularly men who have sex with men, it means people who inject drugs, and it means sex workers. And it’s my pleasure today to announce that the recipients of this funding, Cambodia, Ghana, Nepal, Senegal, Swaziland, Zimbabwe, and two regional programs, are going to have the benefit of this going forward.

This has been a decade of remarkable progress, my friends. But obviously, our work is not done. Millions still become infected every year and millions are still dying. But we can now say with confidence something we could perhaps only have dreamed of before, as I said, and that is we can achieve an AIDS-free generation, and that is within our grasp now.

So to get there we’re going to have to stay at it. Under President Obama’s leadership, we have redoubled our efforts. Through PEPFAR, the U.S. now directly supports three times more people on antiretroviral drugs today than we did in 2008.

Where we once saw a situation spiraling out of control, today we see a virtuous cycle beginning to form, with more people receiving treatment and fewer people passing on the virus. Fewer infections means it is now easier to actually focus treatment efforts. And with fewer people sick and dying, we are seeing healthier, more productive populations. That’s the virtuous cycle. The economies of Sub-Saharan Africa are growing at a substantial rate, and a generation is now able to look to the future with hope.

As the progress continues, PEPFAR, over its next decade, will gradually evolve as our fight against this disease evolves, and that is going to happen both by necessity and by design. Achieving an AIDS-free generation is a shared responsibility and it is going to be a shared accomplishment. That is why PEPFAR is working to gradually and appropriately transfer responsibilities to host countries. This means that PEPFAR will shift from merely providing aid to co-investing in host countries’ capacity.

Ten years after this program began, rest assured that the commitment of President Obama, the State Department, myself, this country’s commitment to fighting HIV/AIDS is as undiminished as our work is unfinished. Our commitment has only been strengthened by the progress that we’ve made and the lives that we’ve saved and this story that we are able to tell today. This story compels us to continue.

What has been achieved here is a lesson for all of us. And I think it is, in fact, a lesson that people should believe in humanity. To never doubt what we can achieve is one of the lessons of today, to know that we can do the remarkable, that we can find solutions to what seems to be unsolvable, that we can overcome the insurmountable and we can leave politics and ideology at the wayside in order to choose life and possibilities for people everywhere.

Because of this faith, because of this program, because of your efforts, because a mother like Tatu could live to see her child grow up to change the world – that is why we will continue

Thank you. Thank you, Eric. Thank you, senators and congressmen and women. And thank you, all of you who have worked at this extraordinary effort. It’s a story worth telling. Appreciate it. (Applause.)

The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department.
External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.

Recognizing the 10th Anniversary of the U.S. President's Plan for Emergency AIDS Relief (PEPFAR)

Today, Secretary Kerry marked the 10^th Anniversary of the creation of the historic U.S. President’s Plan for Emergency AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) by announcing that the millionth baby will be born HIV-free this month due to PEPFAR-supported prevention of mother-to-child transmission (PMTCT) programs. The Secretary also announced that a new PEPFAR analysis shows that there are 13 countries that have reached the programmatic “tipping point” in their AIDS epidemic.

 PEPFAR Background

Through PEPFAR, as of September 30, 2012, the U.S. directly supported more than 5.1 million people on antiretroviral treatment (ART). This number is up from 1.7 million in 2008 – a three-fold increase in only four years.

In FY 2012, PEPFAR programs supported antiretroviral drugs (ARV) to prevent mother-to-child transmission for more than 750,000 pregnant women living with HIV. Thanks to this effort, an estimated 230,000 infant HIV infections were averted in 2012 alone. PEPFAR also supported HIV testing and counseling for more than 46.5 million people in 2012.

 One Million Babies Born HIV-Free

This month, the one-millionth baby will be born HIV-free because of PEPFAR support – something unimaginable ten years ago when the program began. Antiretroviral drugs can prevent mother-to-child transmission of HIV. The earliest PMTCT regimen decreased the likelihood that a mother would transmit HIV to her baby from 35 percent (with no PMTCT intervention) to 24 percent. Today, we have far more efficacious regimens and we have learned how to implement them more effectively. For example, under Option B+, the same combination of ARV medications used to treat adults living with HIV will be offered to all HIV positive pregnant women for life, reducing the likelihood that a mother will transmit HIV to her infant to less than five percent. In addition, Option B+ has the distinct advantages of maintaining the mother’s health, providing lifelong reduction of HIV transmission to uninfected sexual partners, and preventing mother-to-child transmission in future pregnancies.

Successful implementation of this approach across countries with high HIV burdens can help achieve the commitment made by President Obama on World AIDS Day in 2011 for the United States to support six million people on ART and provide antiretroviral drugs for 1.5 million pregnant women living with HIV by the end of 2013.

13 Countries Have Reached the Programmatic Tipping Point in Their Epidemic

One way of measuring progress toward the goal of an AIDS-free generation is to compare the number of annual new adult HIV infections with the annual increase in adults on treatment. By reducing infectivity through effective treatment and rapidly increasing coverage of ART, it is possible to bring the number of annual new adult HIV infections below the annual increase in adults on ART – thereby achieving the programmatic “tipping point.”

When the Obama Administration released the PEPFAR Blueprint for Creating an AIDS-Free Generation last World AIDS Day, seven countries were at this programmatic tipping point. According to a new PEPFAR analysis, 13 countries are actually at this tipping point.

This remarkable progress is thanks to the combined and coordinated efforts of all partners involved in the fight against global AIDS. Through PEPFAR, we are firmly committed to help countries in moving toward and beyond this tipping point. But we cannot do it alone. This is a shared responsibility.

PEPFAR Key Populations Challenge Grants

At the International AIDS Conference last July, Secretary Clinton announced the creation of a $20 million Key Populations Challenge Fund (KPCF) to support country-led plans to expand high-impact comprehensive package of HIV prevention, treatment, and care services for key populations, which include men who have sex with men (MSM), people who inject drugs (PWID), and sex workers (SW). HIV disproportionately impacts key populations. For example, some studies have shown that MSM were 19 times more likely to be living with HIV than people in the general population; and that SW were 13.5 times more likely to be living with HIV when compared to other females of reproductive age in the general population. Globally, among PWID, 16 million individuals report injection drug use, and an estimated three million PWID are living with HIV.

Secretary Kerry announced today that six countries (and two regional programs) will be awarded funds. The countries are Cambodia, Ghana, Nepal, Senegal, Swaziland, and Zimbabwe. The regional programs include PEPFAR’s Asia and Central American regions. These funds will be leveraged as PEPFAR’s works hand-in-hand with partner country governments and civil society to strengthen sustainable programs and interventions for key populations.

PEPFAR Heroes Award

As part of the 10^th anniversary commemoration, PEPFAR is launching the “PEPFAR Heroes: Giving Hope, Saving Lives” contest. The contest seeks to highlight outstanding individuals who have demonstrated extraordinary commitment and passion in serving people and/or communities living with and affected by HIV, and to convey the partnership of the American people with the people of partner countries in creating an AIDS-free generation.

The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department.
External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.

Seychelles National Day

On behalf of the government and the people of the United States, I congratulate the government and people of Seychelles on your twentieth anniversary on June 18.

As you celebrate this day, the United States looks back with you in pride on the long and productive relationship between our nations. We also look forward with you in hope for the continued success and development of Seychelles.

We appreciate the strong and effective role Seychelles has played in advancing maritime security in the region. Your nation’s cooperation in combating piracy, especially in the incarceration and trial of suspected pirates, has led to a measurable reduction of this threat.

Our shared values of ethnic and religious tolerance, our common belief in the importance of a coordinated approach to regional challenges, and our mutual interest in closer economic and cultural ties will continue to unite us in the future.

The United States stands by you as a friend and partner. We wish all Seychellois a joyous National Day.

The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department.
External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.

• DEPARTMENT
  • Cliff Sloan Named Special Envoy for Guantanamo Closure
  • Transfer of Detainees / Moratorium on Yemen
  • Number of Detainees Remaining
• IRAN / SYRIA
  • Aid to Assad Regime / Foreign Fighters / Path Forward in Syria
• IRAN
  • Iranian Leadership / Election / New President / Role of Supreme Leader
  • P5+1 Proposal / Nuclear Portfolio / Sanctions
• D.P.R.K.
  • Denuclearization / Negotiations / Six-Party Talks
  • Meeting between United States, Japan, and South Korea
• CUBA
  • Cuban Democracy Act of 1992 / Direct Mail Service / Technical Discussions with U.S. Postal Service
• TURKEY
  • Protests / Calls for Calm and Restraint / Reports of Excessive Force
  • Contact with Foreign Minister Davutoglu
• SYRIA
  • Russia / G8 Discussions on Syria
  • Political Transition / Expansion of Size and Scope of Support / Chemical Weapons
  • Humanitarian Aid
  • International Humanitarian Law / Extremist Elements
• CHINA
  • Chen Guangcheng / NYU
• PAKISTAN
  • Secretary Kerry Call with Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif

1:33 p.m. EDT

MS. PSAKI: Hi, everyone. We have some great colors in the second row. I love it. (Laughter.)

Okay. Before we get started, I just have one item at the top. As many of you have seen and written about, the Secretary has appointed Cliff Sloan[1] to the position of Special Envoy for Guantanamo closure. This decision or this announcement reflects the Administration’s commitment to closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. As the President recently stated during his speech at NDU, the continued operation of Guantanamo is not efficient, effective, or in the interests of our national security. Special Envoy Sloan brings a wealth of experience as an accomplished litigator and pragmatic problem-solver, a skillset that will prove valuable as he serves as the lead negotiator for the transfer of Guantanamo detainees abroad and manages the multitude of diplomatic issues related to the President’s directives to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, implement transfer determinations, and conduct a periodic review of those detainees who are not approved for transfer.

With that, let’s get to what’s on your minds.

QUESTION: Well, I will defer to my colleague whose last briefing is today.

MS. PSAKI: It is. It’s Brad Klapper’s last briefing today.

QUESTION: I’ll miss you.

MS. PSAKI: We’ll miss you. (Laughter.) We’ll miss the ascot.

QUESTION: Just on Guantanamo, beyond being inefficient and ineffective, what is the current feeling about the legality of holding people years and years without bringing them to a military commission or finding a new home for them?

MS. PSAKI: Well, clearly given the President’s recent statements on how important it is to close Guantanamo, to move detainees, to take steps, this is something the Administration feels strongly about. This is one step of that process, of course. As you know, there will be other officials that Mr. Sloan will be working with across the government to accomplish this goal. But this just shows a renewed focus on this effort and renewed commitment to delivering on the President’s directive.

QUESTION: And just – I think when the first time the President said he hoped to close it was by January 23^rd, 2010, I think. Is there any timeline for when you hope to accomplish this now?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have a timeline for you, but I can tell you that, clearly, when the President of the United States talks about something in his speech, when we’ve taken follow-up steps like appointing this official to work here at the State Department, this is something we are committed to and we will be driving moving forward.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: On the same issue --

QUESTION: The President listed – the President lifted the moratorium on transfers to Yemen. Can you talk about what conversations either Mr. Sloan or other people in this building have had with the Yemenis about them accepting their people?

MS. PSAKI: Well, he’s just starting, so I don’t want to get too ahead of what he can already accomplish within just a few – I guess he started today, I believe – I’ll check on that for all of you. You know that the reason that we made the decision we did on Yemen was that, of course, its circumstances had changed on the ground from when we had put the moratorium in place to begin with. But I don’t have any updates on forward-looking action. Of course, that will be a part of his interesting portfolio moving forward.

QUESTION: Could you tell us how many or who among your Western allies actually practices administrative detention endlessly?

MS. PSAKI: I will defer to you, one of the historians in the room on that.

QUESTION: Okay, I – no, I’m not. I’m just like – England, Germany, in Europe and so on. We know Israel practices that. For years and years people are under – but any of your other Western allies do that?

MS. PSAKI: Said, I can speak to what our position is and what our approach is, but I encourage you to speak to other through the course of the afternoon.

QUESTION: All right. Just a quick follow-up. If and when Guantanamo is closed down, do you believe that the practice of administrative detention will end, will cease because everything will be done on U.S. soil?

MS. PSAKI: Well, again, this is obviously a key step, something the President, the Administration is committed to, the Secretary is committed to, and Mr. Sloan and the work he’ll do, we’re very hopeful about his success in the months ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS. PSAKI: Still on Guantanamo?

QUESTION: Yes. Jen, why was it necessary to appoint Mr. Sloan? I mean, wasn’t the process underway? Weren’t there attempts going full-bore to do this? Or did it get bogged down?

MS. PSAKI: Well, as you – a little bit of the history here, which I know many of you are familiar with. But Dan Fried, who was overseeing this process up until about January, and he was moved over to oversee sanctions, and kind of be the coordinator on that, which is significant and a very important role, and we had high-level professional staff, of course, working on this in the interim. But given Mr. Sloan’s background as somebody who has been a successful litigator, has been a negotiator, he’s argued before the Supreme Court, he’s worked closely with Congress and a number of the key players here, we felt, the Secretary felt, and the President certainly supported our efforts to name a high-level official like this to lead the charge moving forward.

QUESTION: So on the appointment, does that mean that the State Department will be the sole entity that will see this thing through?

MS. PSAKI: No, there will also be an official at the Department of Defense --

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. PSAKI: -- and that had been previously announced – not the individual, but the fact that there will be one – and of course they’ll be working closely with the President and the White House to deliver on his promise.

QUESTION: Jen, could you confirm or give us the figures of how many people are still left in Guantanamo --

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: -- how many of them are Yemenis approved for transfer, and how many of them are detainees not approved for transfer?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I – what I can give you is that today, 166 detainees remain at Guantanamo, down from 242 when President Obama took office. As a reminder, prior to that during the Bush Administration, several hundred detainees were transferred. So obviously this is a process over the course of several years. I don’t have anything – let’s see – I don’t think I have anything else specific for you on Yemen and how many they have approved. I can check on that for you, or you may want to connect with them as well.

QUESTION: And how many of the 166 are not approved for transfer at all?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any other specific breakdowns for you. I know there have been various reports about that.

QUESTION: And are there any particular countries that you’re in touch with? I mean, many of the countries – many countries have already taken in detainees: Palau, Albania, all those big countries on the international scene. (Laughter.) Which other countries are you trying to persuade now to take in, say, maybe around a hundred of these detainees who are approved for release, other than Yemen?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have anything new to update you on. Obviously he’s just taking his role there. Our team has been working on this, of course, as you know, over the course of years, but I expect once he’s underway we’ll have more of an update for all of you.

QUESTION: And what’s the new plan for the remaining detainees who are not approved for transfer?

MS. PSAKI: Again, I think that’s something that will be discussed and worked through our Administration’s process. I mentioned that the President and, of course, an official from DOD will be working with Cliff Sloan on this effort, and they will encumber to do that in the short term.

QUESTION: And do you know how many are there from Afghanistan? Besides Yemen? Do you have --

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any specific breakdown of numbers for all of you, no.

QUESTION: Does Mr. Sloan have a timeline to get the job done?

MS. PSAKI: I have – I don’t have any timeline for you either.

QUESTION: Does he intend to go to Guantanamo to see the hunger strike?

MS. PSAKI: Again, I think he is just starting his position, so we’ll let him get his badge and figure out where everything is before we start giving an update on all of his progress.

QUESTION: The Iranian election?

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: I know you issued the statement on the weekend, but since then, the new President, Mr. Rohani, said that President Assad should stay in power until 2014. Were you disappointed by his statement or does it fall into kind of expected kind of rhetoric from Iran?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I wouldn’t say it’s a surprise. We have a number of differences with Iran and the leadership there over Syria and the path forward. We have expressed on a number of occasions our concerns about their recent aid to the regime and the influx of foreign fighters, specifically Hezbollah. So there remain a number of differences of opinion on the path forward in Syria.

QUESTION: Are you aware of anywhere where you and Iran see eye to eye on Syria?

MS. PSAKI: I am not. I should say --

QUESTION: Okay. So it’s more than just a number of differences; you basically are diametrically opposed.

MS. PSAKI: We have some – I should say, Matt, thank you for – I’ll add an adjective just for you – significant disagreements on the path forward in Syria.

QUESTION: Jen, though, on other subjects – that aside – this might be a good sign overall. Is the U.S. going to push for some type of diplomatic – or have a new diplomatic push? Do you – are you more optimistic that you can get something done?

MS. PSAKI: Well, you saw this weekend the White House Chief of Staff, Denis McDonough, say that this is a potentially hopeful sign. That’s something, of course, the Secretary agrees with. However, there are a number of steps that the leadership in Iran needs to take in order to abide by their international obligations. The P5+1 is ready to meet with Iran when Iran is ready to respond substantively to the balanced proposal put forward by the P5+1 in Almaty. We haven’t seen a substantive response yet, so – but again, I’ll just – the reason there were a number of promises that were made during this election. The question is: What happens moving forward? And we will see, but as you know, the Supreme Leader holds the nuclear portfolio and the leadership – we have not had expectations leading up to this election that that would change.

QUESTION: And on your statement – you issued a statement saying that if Iran or Mr. Rohani adheres to his international obligations then they will find a willing partner with the United States and so on. What issues will you tackle first? Is it the sanctions? Is it the nuclear file? What will you tackle first?

MS. PSAKI: I’m not going to negotiate here, as fun as that would be. There is a team; as you know, the P5+1 have met on three occasions. There were technical talks as part of that. Where it has left is that – oh, sorry, twice. I added one by accident – twice – they’ve met with the Iranians in recent months. That’s what I was referring to, the meetings in Almaty.

Where it is is what I just stated, which is that the – Iran, the ball is in their court to respond with a substantively balanced proposal on how to move forward. These negotiations have been private. Again, they’ll – we’re waiting for that and we’ll see what they present, and if they present something.

QUESTION: I remember I asked you about the possibility for Mr. Rohani last week, before – a day or two before the elections --

MS. PSAKI: When you wanted me to endorse a candidate. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Well, no, I didn’t want you to endorse, but I wanted to see – to gauge your reaction if, in fact, Mr. Rohani gets elected, and your response was that actually there would be no change; they are basically all cut of the same cloth. I mean, those were not your words, but basically. So is there now, like, a backtrack and perhaps looking at it from a broader prism?

MS. PSAKI: Well, he doesn’t take office until August.

QUESTION: She’s not allowed to use the word prism. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: That’s what I – I take that from a different perspective. (Laughter.)

MS. PSAKI: He does not take office until August, so it’s too early to say what his policies will be. We look forward to him and are hopeful that he will fulfill the campaign promises he made to the Iranian people, such as expanding personal freedoms, releasing political prisoners and improving Iran’s relations with the international community. But time will tell.

QUESTION: But you do see this as really a surprise. I mean, a great number of Iranians went out to the polls and voted for him, basically in a show of defiance. Do you see it that way?

MS. PSAKI: Well, we certainly congratulate – and I know we said this in – the Secretary said this in his statement this weekend – the Iranian people for demonstrating the courage to make their voices heard in this election. And reports from Iran indicate that the voting was calm and orderly, and the indications of fraud that marked previous Iranian presidential elections were not immediately evident. But again, time will tell, and we have a couple of months before the new President takes office. And as you know, and as I mentioned, there are a number of dynamics at play here, including the role of the Supreme Leader, and we’ll see what happens moving forward.

QUESTION: Can I just ask you -- a logistic?

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: We said – well, many officials said before the elections that it would be difficult to really get a process going with Iran on the nuclear issue. Now the elections have happened and we have another delay of maybe six, eight weeks, until the president – the new president takes office. Would you like to have talks immediately when he and his leadership team is installed, because this time – this is a lot of months we’re losing here in the process. How fast do you want to do this?

MS. PSAKI: Well, we’ve been open for months, even before the election, to continuing the discussions as a part of the P5+1 process if they were to respond with a balanced proposal, substantively with a balanced proposal to the proposal that was put forward. So we’ll see if that is something that happens. But in terms of the timeline, I don’t have any – if that happens in a couple of weeks, great. If – but again, they know what they need to do, the ball’s in their court, and we’re waiting for that.

QUESTION: But if the ball’s in their court and nothing is happening, that’s essentially to their advantage, correct? They’re not stopping with their nuclear program in the meantime, so the longer they drag this interregnum out and then this period where you’re waiting for a response, they get closer and closer to their goal.

MS. PSAKI: Well, there are some stakes, as we all know, for the Iranians as well, including the impact of sanctions on the economy. You’ve seen the comments that Mr. Rouhani has made about that. You’ve seen him talk about his focus on the economy. All these are tests, and we’ll see what their response is.

QUESTION: But you’re not going to be offering any amended offer to the new Iranian leadership; your old offer stands and now when he gets in, he can respond to it and hopefully in a better way; is that correct?

MS. PSAKI: That’s correct. Nothing new on that front that I can report.

QUESTION: So do you have, or will you have maybe in August, any parting comments for your friend President Ahmadinejad?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t know. You’ll have to talk to us in August, Matt.

QUESTION: You’ll wait until August? Okay. So nothing today?

MS. PSAKI: We’ll wait till August. It’ll be something to get excited about in the hot summer month here in Washington.

QUESTION: Excellent.

QUESTION: Jen, what do you say about the reports today in The Wall Street Journal that the negotiations could resume by August?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I’m not sure if that was hooked to the fact that he’s taking office in August. Our conditions, or what we’re waiting for, remain the same and what I just outlined. So the ball is in their court, we’re waiting for a substantive response to the balanced proposal put forward in Almaty, and we’ll see what happens.

QUESTION: But Jen, if you believe that the Supreme Leader, the Ayatollah Khamenei, calls the shot, what makes you hopeful that any change or any progress is going to happen on the nuclear file?

MS. PSAKI: Well, again, it’s a new president. It is a new – he has made – talked about a number of aspirations. We’ll see if he delivers on those when he takes office. But you’re right, the Supreme Leader does have control over the nuclear portfolio, and beyond that we’ll just see if this is an opportunity for a reset there.

QUESTION: Does the U.S. --

MS. PSAKI: Internally I mean, not with us.

QUESTION: Does the U.S. intend to write to him and/or extend a invitation, formal invitation saying we’re keen to talk about this?

MS. PSAKI: Not that I’m aware of. As you know, our policy has been very consistent on this. We’ve been open to talks, open to negotiations in coordination with our P5+1 partners. But there have been a number of meetings in recent months, and we’re in the same place where we were, which is we’re waiting for a substantive response to our proposal.

QUESTION: Other subject?

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Iran?

MS. PSAKI: Oh, Iran? Go ahead.

QUESTION: Yes. From what Mr. Rouhani was saying today in his press conference, it doesn’t seem like much has changed in the stance. He was saying – he was asked whether he would be willing to suspend uranium enrichment. He said the time for that has passed, referring to the – the question was related to the 2005, when he was involved in that. And he also basically set out some conditions for talks, which is the same as before – respect for Iran’s rights and that the West has to recognize Iran’s rights openly – and a lot of the same. So do you see this – do you think we’re going to get anywhere, and how much of a time are you going to give this new president?

MS. PSAKI: Well, again, our position remains the same: The ball is in Iran’s court; they know what they need to do, which I’ve outlined a little bit here. So I can’t predict whether they’re going to do that or not. I can just point to the fact that Mr. Rouhani has talked about his own aspirations for Iran. You’re right, he has talked about – his position has been very similar and consistent on the nuclear program. But again, we’re waiting for a substantive response, our position hasn’t changed, and certainly we’re not responding to new conditions.

Still Iran? Another subject. Okay.

QUESTION: Yes. As far as the statement – as the State Department knows, did Vladimir Putin steal the Super Bowl ring? (Laughter.)

MS. PSAKI: I think this is an issue between him and the team or the – I guess it is the president of the team or the owner of the team.

QUESTION: The owner.

MS. PSAKI: Not something I’m going to wade into. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: But it is the team from the Secretary’s home state and city.

MS. PSAKI: It is. It is. Well, he --

QUESTION: Does he have an opinion on it?

MS. PSAKI: I can confirm he was rooting for them when they won. But beyond that --

QUESTION: Really? Hmm.

MS. PSAKI: Hmm. Surprising, I know. It’s a breaking news alert on the wire.

QUESTION: Uh, no. Yeah, it’s just that the Patriots aren’t exactly the most loved team. Can we go to --

MS. PSAKI: Not if you’re in Boston.

QUESTION: Right. But if you’re from Buffalo, it’s --

MS. PSAKI: Fair enough, fair enough.

QUESTION: Listen, can I ask you about this North Korea --

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: Do you see anything different about this than the other – the hundreds of other times that they have said, hey, let’s get together for high-level talks?

MS. PSAKI: Well, there have been a number of times, as you reference, so – but you’re right, our position --

QUESTION: Dozens if not hundreds.

MS. PSAKI: And the – dozens if not hundreds. So if – depending on how far you go back. So the international community has been very consistent and clear that North Korea must verifiably end its nuclear problem, and to achieve the goal of denuclearization North Korea must engage in authentic and credible negotiations that produce concrete denuclearization actions. So is it different than that? No, we haven’t seen evidence of that. And that is what we’re waiting for.

QUESTION: And is it still the U.S. position that you’re open to bilateral talks with the North Koreans but only as part of the Six-Party process?

MS. PSAKI: Correct. But the key piece here is that they need to take credible steps to move towards concrete denuclearization.

QUESTION: But – so you’re saying you’re willing to meet them --

MS. PSAKI: We’re working in --

QUESTION: You’re willing to meet them --

MS. PSAKI: We’ve always said --

QUESTION: You’re willing to see them outside the Six-Party process?

MS. PSAKI: We’ve always said, Matt, that in coordination --

QUESTION: Right.

MS. PSAKI: -- with our partners of the Six-Party Talks we would be open to that, but they need to take those steps first. And as you know, and I mentioned this on Friday but now there’s a different context, that the United States, Japan and South Korea are, of course, meeting later this week in talks led by Glyn Davies and will – this will, of course, be a big topic of conversation.

QUESTION: All right. And then if there’s nothing else on North Korea, I just want to nail down the postal talks with Cuba.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Do you expect anything out of this round or is this really not – is this just – in other words, if these two days of talks are a success, there won’t be direct mail service immediately, I presume, but maybe I’m wrong, so could you --

MS. PSAKI: That’s a good question on the timeline. Just to give you a little bit of history here, the Cuban Democracy Act of 1992 states that, quote, “The United States Postal Service shall take such actions as are necessary to provide direct mail service to and from Cuba.” So this is – as you mentioned, on June 18^th and 19^th – well, you didn’t mention the dates, but so everybody knows, representatives from the Department of State and the United States Postal Service will meet with representatives from the Government of Cuba for a technical discussion on reestablishing direct transportation of mail. The reason we’re doing this is because it’s, of course, good for the Cuban people. This is something we feel is good for us. But it’s not meant to be a signal of anything or indicate a change in policy.

QUESTION: Syria?

QUESTION: Are those talks here or in --

MS. PSAKI: In terms of the exact location, I’m not sure if they’re at the Department of State or if they’re just somewhere else in the --

QUESTION: Could we go to Syria?

QUESTION: Well, can we --

MS. PSAKI: Well, let’s finish Cuba.

QUESTION: Are those talks exclusively on the mail service?

MS. PSAKI: That is with the United States Postal Service. That’s their purview.

QUESTION: But I’m saying is it mainly about the – is there anything going to come up about Mr. Gross?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t want to predict. There are issues that are, of course, raised on both sides. As you know, this is an issue that has been raised at the highest levels from the United States, but given these are talks with the Postal Service, I would expect that will be the focus.

QUESTION: You don’t consider that the highest level?

MS. PSAKI: Well – Brad, having fun on your last day? (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Just one more. I mean, is the U.S. Postal Service in any kind of position to make any kind of deals or agreements with Cuba? I mean, this is an organization that is essentially going broke, and I’m just curious. Is --

MS. PSAKI: Well, I think that’s combining two different things, in my opinion. This has been – we have had – I read off the Cuban Democracy Act of 1992.

QUESTION: Right.

MS. PSAKI: So they’re simply allowing mail to travel, which is – I would assume provides them with more revenue, with more stamps used.

QUESTION: Considering that – well, all right, exactly. So in other words, this could actually help the Postal Union’s budget if they are able to --

MS. PSAKI: I don’t want to go too far on it, but – I don’t want to go too far, Matt, but it’s more people using their services.

Jill.

QUESTION: Jen, a clarification on that too. What is the genesis of this? I mean, how did these talks actually come about? Who asked for them?

MS. PSAKI: Well, this is something that the U.S. has felt would be a positive step for the Cuban people. We felt it was in our interests. In terms of who specifically asked for it, I don’t have that level of detail, but it’s just something that we felt it was – it would be positive moving forward.

QUESTION: But basically, the U.S. asked for it?

MS. PSAKI: I would have to check on that for you, but it’s something, again, that we are very supportive of and we are, of course, helping direct here.

QUESTION: Isn’t it a continuation of the talks from 2009 that were on the same subject?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I don’t know if I’d call it a continuation because it’s been a number of years, but yes, it’s on the same subject, and we’re hopeful that we’ll be able to move things forward.

QUESTION: Syria?

QUESTION: Can we just do Turkey very quickly before we go to Syria? Because I think Syria’s going to take a lot --

MS. PSAKI: Yeah, absolutely.

QUESTION: Has the Secretary been in touch with Davutoglu or anyone else? Can you just sort of update us on what the Department’s been saying, who they’ve been talking to about --

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: -- Gezi Park? And more specifically, how concerned are you, is the Secretary, about Turkey’s ability to be helpful in Syria given their own internal problems at the moment?

MS. PSAKI: Well, first, let me say that the Secretary spoke with Foreign Minister Davutoglu on Saturday. As you all know, they speak regularly. Often the thrust of their conversations is about Syria and their close cooperation, our close coordination on that issue. That was the same with this call as well.

In terms of where we are, we remain focused on calling on all parties to ease tensions and to resolve the situation through dialogue, taking into account views from across the political spectrum. We also continue to urge all sides to exercise restraint and avoid violence. On the ground, of course, our Ambassador and high-level Embassy officials are in very regular contact with Turkish officials about this issue and our concerns, but also how we can move forward.

In terms of how it will impact, the Secretary speaks with Foreign Minister Davutoglu regularly, as you know, because I think there’s at least one or more calls a week I end up mentioning in here. And that’s an issue that they are a close partner on, they’re a close ally on. The Secretary and the Foreign Minister have actually also become close friends. And we remain confident that they can continue to work with us on that issue, and they have indicated that they have every desire to do that.

QUESTION: Jen, on Turkey --

QUESTION: The Deputy Prime Minister today said that they might bring in the army to bring calm back. Are you aware of that?

MS. PSAKI: I have not seen those reports, but I should – I would be remiss if I didn’t add that of course, we remain concerned about any reports of activity including police brutality, including violence. There were some reports over the weekend about the prosecution of medical professionals who were treating injured people. All of these are great – all of these reports are greatly concerning and we’re very focused on monitoring closely.

QUESTION: Do you – you said that the conversation was largely about Syria, but did the protest come up and did he – did the Secretary speak about your calls for restraint?

MS. PSAKI: Well, he’s spoken about them publicly and privately in the past. I’d have to look closer at the content of the call, but it was really focused on Syria, and specifically calling him to give him an overview of the announcement we made last week.

QUESTION: Okay. But I – well, I am curious because it would seem that immediately or in the hours after this phone call happened, the Turks launched another huge crackdown and arrested a couple hundred other people with more violence. So if it did come up, it would seem that it didn’t really have any impact on how the government is responding to this.

MS. PSAKI: Well, there are a number of officials, including the Foreign Minister, who have called for calm in this case, which we’ve continued to encourage. He has provided in the past his overview or his view of what’s going on on the ground. The Secretary has shared his opinion in response. But of course, we’ve seen the reports this weekend. I referenced some of the reports of medical professionals being arrested. I talked a little bit last week about media professionals being detained. All of this is very concerning. And we, of course, deplore the use of excessive force in any of these cases.

QUESTION: How this perception of U.S. Administration on Turkey has been because of this – all this mass demonstration?

MS. PSAKI: How has our perception of --

QUESTION: Yes, about – in terms of both government and the society.

MS. PSAKI: Well, I don’t know if I can speak to all of society. I can say that we, of course, as we’ve said many times here over the past couple of weeks, have been concerned about the reports of excessive force. It’s unfortunate that in the past couple of days, or over the past couple of weeks, we’ve seen reports, as I mentioned, of medical professionals, of media officials being detained, and that’s something that we’re greatly concerned about.

But there are – Turkey is a NATO ally. We work with them on a number of issues. We’re in close contact at the highest levels, as I mentioned the call from this weekend. And we’re hopeful that we can – this can be resolved with calm and by an encouragement of restraint in Turkey.

QUESTION: I want to give a statistic about the incident, Jen.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: During – over the last 18 days since the clashes has began in Turkey, you made 17 different statements on the incident: three written statement from White House, NSS spokesperson; three major remarks, one, I mean, Vice President Biden, the other one by the Secretary Kerry; and 12 Q&As in the daily briefs in White House and State.

MS. PSAKI: Well, I think you’re one of the people who’s asked me questions that I’ve answered.

QUESTION: Are you disappointed with the reaction of Turkish Government?

MS. PSAKI: Of the government? I’m not going to speak to that. Look, we are focused on calling for calm, on calling for restraint. We remain a close ally of Turkey, of course. I’ve outlined and spoken in a number of those occasions, when you and others have asked, about concerns we have had. And we haven’t held back in that regard in any way.

QUESTION: Are you a close partner --

QUESTION: One more, please. And also, these statements are actually – are – I mean, the Turkish (inaudible) are troubled with these statements, and they are accusing, especially European Union and other foreigners, to interfering the domestic policy. What are the limits of a U.S. Ambassador, for example, who is working abroad, in terms of this interference within the domestic policy of other country?

MS. PSAKI: What are the limits?

QUESTION: Yes.

MS. PSAKI: Well, the Ambassador is calling for the same things publicly and privately that we and the Vice President and the Secretary and others up and down the government have been calling for. Now, being on the ground is something entirely different. Working closely with counterparts he’s known for a number of years is certainly different. But one individual can’t change what’s happening on the ground. He can just continue to add to the chorus of people who are calling for restraint and calling for calm in handling this moving forward.

QUESTION: His argument was that calling for – that his suggestion was that Turks feel that calling for restraint is an interference in their domestic affairs. Do you see it that way or not?

MS. PSAKI: We do not. We would reject – and I’ve seen some of these reports – the accusations that U.S. groups or individuals are responsible for the protests or responsible for elevating them in Turkey in any way. We are consistent about calling for freedom of speech and freedom of expression and acceptance of that, as well as expressing concern when there is – there are reports of excessive force used, and the need to look into that and to encourage common restraint in anywhere – anywhere, whether it’s Turkey or whether it’s another country.

So this is an issue, you’re right, that has been ongoing. But we remain in close contact with Turkey at several levels. We remain focused on working on issues with them that we can, including Syria. But again, we would like to see an ease of tensions and a resolution of what’s happening on the ground.

QUESTION: Can I ask you --

QUESTION: The Secretary has talked about Turkey being an admirable example of both a democracy and a Muslim-majority nation, kind of that that’s the future he would like to see for other nations. Does he believe that Turkey is acting in an exemplary fashion?

MS. PSAKI: Well, we’ve seen – he doesn’t group everybody into one grouping here. We’ve seen a number of officials come out and call for calm and call for restraint. He’s still hopeful that this can be resolved through a dialogue, which the Prime Minister and others have called for and have met with people, and we’ll see what happens moving forward. Of course, we have been concerned; the Secretary’s been concerned about reports on the ground. But that doesn’t change the fact that they are a close ally. We work closely with them, and we will continue to moving forward.

QUESTION: So based on your last couple of answers, I’m going to – I presume, and please tell me if I am presuming correctly or incorrectly, that you do not share the Prime Minister’s view that this is the result of some outside conspiracy of terrorists and people trying to overthrow the government. And I would also – tell me if that’s right – and I would also presume that you would not share his view that international news organizations are giving his country a bad rap or ruining the country’s image abroad. Would you agree with that, or do you think the government itself is doing a pretty good job of giving itself a bad image abroad?

MS. PSAKI: Well, Matt, let me specifically take the second one; I’ll speak to all of it. But I’ve said in here a couple times, but let me just reiterate: We’re very troubled by any pressure being placed on journalists or media organizations, public statements that are made criticizing the freedom of the press. That’s something that – and as well as journalists being detained. We’ve seen reports of that as well in Turkey.

We believe and still believe – and we said this, I think, on the first day – that the vast majority of people here are peacefully protesting, expressing their rights to freedom of speech. We are not on the ground. There will be investigations into what happened on the ground. So we don’t know all of the entities of it, but that’s how it started, and we still feel the vast majority of people are doing just that.

QUESTION: Okay. And you’re confident that the Turkish authorities have the political will to do a thorough and complete investigation? And I ask this fully cognizant of the fact that the – their – Turks’ investigation into the flotilla, Gaza flotilla incident, was not met with joy and rapture from this building or anywhere else in Washington.

MS. PSAKI: We do.

QUESTION: You do?

MS. PSAKI: And we’ll have them look into it. And if we need to speak to anything, I’m sure we will.

Still on Turkey?

QUESTION: Yes.

MS. PSAKI: Okay.

QUESTION: A follow-up. A pro-government newspaper suggested that this whole thing was planned in American Enterprise Institute with the help of Jewish lobby and the Armenians, of course. Would you care to comment on that? Do you believe that this is possible at all?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I think I’ve already commented on it, maybe not that specific. I did see the report, and we absolutely reject the accusations that U.S. groups or individuals are responsible for or have elevated – or escalated, I should actually say, the protests in Turkey.

QUESTION: You keep urging calm to both sides. Is your official position – do you think that both sides are using equal amount of violence?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t think I’ve said to all sides. I think I’ve said we urge calm moving forward. There’s clearly cases where – when journalists are detained or doctors are detained or there are reports of brutality. That’s not coming from the side of the people who are peacefully protesting. We have seen some incidents or some reports of violence or escalation from all sides. So certainly we would encourage that from all sides, but I’m not equating them.

QUESTION: President Putin said today that he rejected the option of no-fly zone for in Syria.

MS. PSAKI: Oh, we’re on Syria now. I said, oh, he’s speaking to Turkey.

QUESTION: Yeah. Well, I mean, it’s relevant, all in the region. Is this something that falls into your options? Because you still now did not articulate the vision actually of no-fly zone. Is this something that you agree or disagree with him on that?

MS. PSAKI: Well, nothing has changed since Friday when I said that all options remain on the table, aside from no boots on the ground. I’m not going to outline what that means, but I’ll just repeat – because it’s still accurate – that reports that the President has decided on a no-fly zone or there’s an imminent announcement would be inaccurate.

QUESTION: But the fact he rejected it, that means he shooted down already one option of yours. I mean, you don’t have room for maneuvering if he already rejected --

MS. PSAKI: Well, we have some disagreements with the Russians about how to handle things moving forward. We also have some agreements with the Russians. But the President, as you know, is at the G-8 in Northern Ireland. Part of the agenda there is – and part of the discussion – it will be certainly about Syria. And he’ll be discussing with his counterparts at the highest levels, so I don’t want to get ahead of that and the White House reading out of those discussions.

QUESTION: And one last thing on Syria. President Assad gave an interview to a German newspaper, and he said that Europe will pay the price for arming the rebels, and I guess by implication that will go to United States. Do you take his threat seriously, or is this part of the ongoing rhetoric that the President has been giving?

MS. PSAKI: Well, let me just say first that there is one area that I believe we continue to agree with President Putin on, which is that a political solution, a political transition, is the preferred outcome here. So there is – and I believe he also made comments this weekend around that issue. So that remains our focus. We’re still working with the Russians on that. And obviously Foreign Minister Lavrov is the main point person on that.

In terms of the other component of this, which is of course the ground game, as you know, we made the decision to – or the President made the decision, of course supported by the Secretary, to expand the size and scope of support for the opposition and, of course, consider additional options moving forward, in part because of the incident of CW use, but also what has happened on the ground in recent days. And we know we need to strengthen the opposition. We need to make sure that they are in a place where they are able to defend themselves on the ground and also to stand up for the Syrian people. So that’s the reason why those decisions were made. We’re also working with them on the political path, as you know. And I would defer to the Europeans, but I believe they’ve spoken to it in the same regard.

QUESTION: Well, I mean, my question is do you take his threat seriously, when he said they will pay the price for that. I guess by implication he’s saying that they funded some terrorist organizations that will go back and --

MS. PSAKI: Well, I’m not sure what he meant by it. I would – I don’t want to speculate on what he meant and respond to that, so I would suggest you ask them what he meant by that. But that’s just our decision-making process here.

QUESTION: On the no-fly zone, did you find out for us whether it requires a United Nations Security Council resolution?

MS. PSAKI: I didn’t get an update on that.

QUESTION: I – more than likely it would require a UN Security Council resolution, which the Russians are certain to veto.

On the aid to Mr. Salim Idris --

QUESTION: You didn’t answer --

MS. PSAKI: I know. He’s answering his own questions. It’s a Q&A. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: No, I mean, because I asked you – you would like to know --

QUESTION: (Inaudible) invading Iraq doesn’t require a UN Security Council resolution, but that --

QUESTION: That’s true. I take it back. Okay. So on the military aid – now that General Salim Idris is the focal point for dispensing the military aid, will he also be the focus point for dispensing all types of aid, including financial and humanitarian and all that?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t want to get ahead of future aid we’ll provide, but just so you understand, aid is provided to a range of resources in Syria. A lot of it is done through the coordinating body that worked underneath the SOC. That’s where it’s gone. Now, the next tranche of aid, the 123 million that’s been in the process of being notified to Congress, part of that will go to the SMC directly. The size of how much will go to the SMC directly is part of what is being discussed with Congress.

QUESTION: Could you comment on a report in the Washington Post that there are already two secret bases, one in Turkey and one in Jordan, to train and to funnel through the military aid as quickly as possible, perhaps in a matter of like six weeks or so?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have anything for you on that.

QUESTION: On the SMC – part that 123 going to the SMC, will that – some of that now go towards direct military – or to --

MS. PSAKI: It always had. So I would separate that. You should separate that from the announcement last week. That was announced in Istanbul, when the Secretary announced we were doubling our aid, so to 250. The 123 is the second half. 127 is already in train on the ground. So the 123 is being notified. I think some people – Matt and others – asked last week how long it takes. It really varies, but Congress has a certain amount of time to respond and review, typically a couple of weeks once they’ve been through the notification process. There are different components of this that are being notified progressively over time.

QUESTION: Were you able to find out what the break – kind of the breakdown was of the 123 and what – in terms of what is actually being notified? Like is it 60 and X and 30 and Y and --

MS. PSAKI: It’s being discussed and the exact breakdown with Congress right now, so it’s not as if they’re saying here’s exactly how it will be broken down. It’s being discussed, and there are different components of it that are being notified at different times. So as soon as that’s through that process, we’ll be able to – and it’s decided – we’ll be able to announce that.

QUESTION: And you think that will take still a couple weeks?

MS. PSAKI: The process typically is that once they’re notified of each component they typically have a couple of weeks to review it.

QUESTION: All right. Can we move on?

QUESTION: I have one.

MS. PSAKI: Syria.

QUESTION: President Putin made a very strong comment about the opposition. And it’s different hearing from Lavrov and hearing from Putin. You’re hearing from the man himself, and he’s talking about the flesh-eating opposition. It would appear that he has a completely different view of the opposition than the United States does. Isn’t that the case?

MS. PSAKI: That is true, but let me just lay out for you here what he’s talking about. We expressed our strong condemnation at the time of that appalling behavior he referred to and have been very clear that all sides in this conflict must abide by international humanitarian law. In fact, we also have raised this – had raised this, of course, with the opposition, and in fact, an SMC unit had previously ejected this individual that he was referring to because of his history of brutality even before that video came out.

So that’s an important context about his comments. And we remain – we do feel, as we’ve spoken about many times, there are extremist elements of the opposition, which is why we’ve decided to direct military aid through the SMC and why we’re so focused on working with the moderate components.

QUESTION: Right. But in your talks with the Russians, I mean, do they see that division that there are, let’s say, good opposition and bad opposition? Because it would appear that they think the opposition are pretty bad.

MS. PSAKI: Well, they’re referring to some extremist components of this. I am not aware of a conversation about this specific case we’ve had, but it was well publicized and well talked about at the time.

QUESTION: I thought he was a moderate.

MS. PSAKI: So it seems he was referring back to – hmm?

QUESTION: I thought he was a moderate, this – the flesh-eater?

MS. PSAKI: Well, the individual may have been, but he was ejected --

QUESTION: I mean, he’s not in – he’s not al-Nusrah.

MS. PSAKI: He was – but he was ejected from the SMC prior to the video even being released.

QUESTION: Right. Are you aware that eating human flesh or human organs from a dead body is a violation of international humanitarian law? Is it? I don’t know, but you seemed to say – you suggest that it was. And there were – there are cases where a cannibal has not been prosecuted. I know that. If you look at "Alive in the Andes" and that kind of thing, sometimes --

MS. PSAKI: Matt, you are testing my international law knowledge, but I think anybody who saw --

QUESTION: I’m sure the Legal Adviser’s Office would love to weigh in.

MS. PSAKI: -- anybody who saw that video --

QUESTION: I’m not suggesting it wasn’t disgusting. I’m just wondering if it was an act – if that is actually a violation of humanitarian law.

QUESTION: Whatever it is, is very disgusting. But I want to ask you about the weapons. So the 123 is all nonlethal?

MS. PSAKI: That’s correct.

QUESTION: Right.

MS. PSAKI: Yes, that’s what the Secretary announced in Istanbul – communications equipment, trucks, things along those lines. And a portion of it will go the SMC.

QUESTION: And then going forward on the weapons, does that all have to get congressional approval every time something gets sent?

MS. PSAKI: I still have nothing more to add for you on that, but I can tell you that we work closely with Congress in every aspect of aid we would provide. I have to go very shortly here, so --

QUESTION: All right, I’ve got two really brief ones.

MS. PSAKI: Okay.

QUESTION: One on China and Chen Guangcheng.

MS. PSAKI: Yeah.

QUESTION: Are you aware of any pressure the Chinese put on NYU or even on the – or if there was a – there were conversations between this government, this Administration, and the Chinese about his NYU stint?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I know NYU has spoken to this. Not that I’m aware of.

QUESTION: I’m asking if there was any government or --

MS. PSAKI: Not that I’m aware of, Matt. I mean, as you know – and Matt’s referring, I think, as we all have seen, to Chen Guangcheng, who it was announced would no longer be at NYU. He was on a one-year fellowship there. Just as a reminder, NYU provided generous temporary support, including housing and a host of other support, to him. But I know NYU has spoken to this, and I would otherwise refer to them on conversations or other specifics.

You said you had one other?

QUESTION: Yeah, one other one briefly.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: There were reports in the Pakistani media yesterday or maybe today about a phone call between the Secretary and Prime Minister Sharif or Prime Minister-elect Sharif.

MS. PSAKI: Yep.

QUESTION: Can you tell us about that?

MS. PSAKI: Yep, I can. Secretary Kerry called Prime Minister Sharif yesterday to congratulate him on his party’s success and his election as prime minister. They’ve, of course, spoken about that before. The Secretary noted that he looks forward to working with the Prime Minister and his government as we continue our cooperation in support of a more stable, secure, and prosperous future for Pakistan and the region. And they discussed how they share a strong commitment to further consolidate and strengthen relations between our two countries on the basis of mutual trust and respect.

QUESTION: Did they talk about any upcoming visits?

QUESTION: Or non-visits?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any update on that for you. But the Secretary has said, and I’ve said on his behalf, he’s very much looking forward to traveling to Pakistan, and I wouldn’t be surprised if he mentioned that to the Prime Minister as well.

QUESTION: And did they talk about energy issues, anyone --

MS. PSAKI: That’s the range of topics I have. They certainly may have. I know that’s a big issue, of course, for the Pakistanis. If there’s anything else to update you on, I’m happy to provide that.

Let me just do the one in the back here.

QUESTION: I’m sorry, I just wanted to go back to North Korea very, very quickly. I’m wondering if they had reached out to the United States about meeting before they had made their public announcement and if you had already made a formal response to them.

MS. PSAKI: Not that I’m aware of. They made a very public statement and a public announcement, so not that I’m aware of beyond that.

I have one thing before we go. So since this is Brad’s last briefing, we got him a little something here just to embarrass him. This is a two-parter, so hold, please. Brad’s already embarrassed and he’s, like, trying to think about how to escape. So just so he doesn’t forget his roots, we want him – (laughter) – it doesn’t have to be us, it can be any of you, too. (Laughter.) So this is --

QUESTION: The cameras are off, right? (Laughter.)

MS. PSAKI: Oh, I don’t know. This is for you, Brad.

QUESTION: No, they’re still rolling.

MS. PSAKI: And then I have one other piece. So when I checked with your colleague on this – but as you may or may not know, Brad’s going to be a dad soon and so we got a little something for the baby, too. (Applause.) This is not partisan or biased; it’s super – (laughter). So thanks, everyone. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:24 p.m.)

DPB # 100

[1] Mr. Sloan will begin work at the State Department on July 1.

The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department.
External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.

Pride at State: Secretary Kerry Speaks on LGBT Policy and Personnel Issues

Secretary Kerry will make remarks at the Department of State’s Pride at State event at 1:30 p.m. on June 19, 2013. This will be the Secretary’s first speech on LGBT policy and personnel issues. Following his remarks, he will answer questions submitted by State Department employees currently assigned overseas.

The Secretary will be joined by Congressman John Lewis and transgender activist Mara Keisling, who will also speak.

Judy and Dennis Shepard of the Matthew Shepard Foundation will be guests of honor at the event. Director General Linda Thomas-Greenfield and Acting Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor Uzra Zeya will also attend.

The event is organized by Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies (GLIFAA), the officially recognized employee resource group representing LGBT employees of the Department of State, USAID, and the other foreign affairs agencies.

The event will be open to the press.

Pre set for video cameras: 12:00 p.m. from the 23rd Street Entrance Lobby.

Final access time for journalists and still photographers: 1:00 p.m. from the 23rd Street Entrance Lobby.

Media representatives may attend this event upon presentation of one of the following: (1) A U.S. Government-issued identification card (Department of State, White House, Congress, Department of Defense or Foreign Press Center), (2) a media-issued photo identification card, or (3) a letter from their employer on letterhead verifying their employment as a journalist, accompanied by an official photo identification card (driver's license, passport).

For further information, please contact Aaron Jensen at JensenAW@state.gov or (202) 647-0516.

The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department.
External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.

27th Annual World Food Prize Laureate Announcement

Secretary of State John Kerry will deliver the keynote address at the 2013 World Food Prize Laureate Announcement Ceremony. World Food Prize Foundation President and former U.S. Ambassador to Cambodia Kenneth Quinn will announce the winners of the 2013 World Food Prize in a ceremony on Wednesday, June 19, at 12:40 p.m., in the Benjamin Franklin Room of the U.S. Department of State. Under Secretary for Economic Growth, Energy, and the Environment Robert Hormats will host the event.

This year marks the 27^th anniversary of the World Food Prize, which recognizes individuals who have advanced human development by improving the quality, quantity or availability of food in the world. Each year, more than 4,000 institutions and organizations around the world are invited to nominate candidates for the prize. The World Food Prize Laureates will be awarded the Prize during a ceremony on October 17, during the Borlaug Dialogue international symposium in Des Moines, Iowa, which is attended by over more than 1,000 people from more than 65 countries each year. The prize includes a cash award of $250,000. This marks the 10th year the State Department has hosted the Prize announcement, highlighting the administration’s dedication to improving lives; counteracting suffering; and focusing on the role that science, technology and policy play in reducing hunger and under-nutrition. The World Food Prize is guided by a distinguished Council of Advisors that includes former Presidents Jimmy Carter and George H. W. Bush. For more information on the World Food Prize, go to www.worldfoodprize.org.

This event is open press.

Pre set for video cameras: 11:15 a.m. from the 23rd Street Entrance Lobby.

Final access time for journalists and still photographers: 12:00 p.m. from the 23rd Street Entrance Lobby.

Media representatives may attend this event upon presentation of one of the following: (1) a U.S. government-issued identification card (State Department, White House, Congress, Defense Department, Foreign Press Center), (2) a media-issued photo identity card, or (3) a letter from their employer on letterhead verifying their employment as a journalist, accompanied by official photo identification (driver’s license or passport).

The event will also be available via live webcast, at http://video.state.gov; video clips will be available after the event at www.stateondemand.state.gov.

Media inquiries for this event may be directed to:
Kerry Humphrey, Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs, (202) 647-0677 or EPPDMedia@state.gov, or

Office of Press Relations, U.S. Department of State (202) 647-2492

The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department.
External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.

The Philippines Joins G8 Global Partnership as 26th Member

The U.S. Department of State congratulates the United Kingdom, 2013 Chair of the Global Partnership Against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction (GP), as they welcome the Philippines as the 26^th member of the GP. The Philippines’ membership marks an important expansion of Southeast Asian representation in the GP, a subsidiary body of the G8, which addresses nuclear and radiological security, biosecurity, chemical security, and scientist engagement, as well as facilitates the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1540 through cooperative projects.

The Global Partnership, now 26 members, began at the 2002 Kananaskis G8 Summit as a 10-year, $20 billion initiative to prevent terrorists or states that support them from acquiring or developing weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Since then, the Global Partnership has grown to include 26 members and has allocated more than $21 billion world-wide to enhance WMD security to include locking down vulnerable weapons and materials, destroying Russian nuclear submarines and chemical weapons, export controls, and engaging with scientists and other technical experts with knowledge and experience dealing with these items. At the 2011 G8 Summit in Deauville, leaders agreed to extend the GP beyond 2012 and to make it truly global. The membership of the Philippines is an important step in this progress.

For more information about the Global Partnership, please go to the Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation’s website: http://www.state.gov/t/isn/.

The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department.
External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.

Indiscriminate Bombing Kills UN Peacekeeper in Sudan

The United States strongly condemns the shelling of the Joint Border Verification and Monitoring Mechanism (JBVMM) interim headquarters today in Kadugli, Sudan’s Southern Kordofan state reportedly by elements of the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement-North (SPLM-N), which killed one United Nations Interim Security Force for Abyei (UNISFA) peacekeeper from Ethiopia and wounded two others.

We extend our deepest condolences to the loved ones of the UNISFA peacekeeper, and also to the Government of Ethiopia, which has lost three UNISFA peacekeepers already this year. We also wish a speedy recovery to the other two peacekeepers wounded in the attack.

We call on all parties to stop conducting military activities in areas occupied by non-combatants, such as Kadugli, and we stress that attacks on UN peacekeepers may constitute war crimes. The use of indirect fire against civilian targets by the SPLM-N and the Sudan Armed Forces (SAF), along with indiscriminate aerial bombardment of civilian areas by the SAF, violate international law, and have resulted in civilian deaths and widespread displacement.

This tragic event underscores the need to immediately restart the African Union High-Level Implementation Panel (AUHIP)-facilitated direct talks between the Government of Sudan and the SPLM-N to allow for immediate and unhindered humanitarian access and the cessation of hostilities in the Two Areas. These talks are an important first step toward resolving the conflict between the SPLM-N and the Government of Sudan, and are intricately linked to the resolution of a number of remaining issues.

The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department.
External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.

Secretary Kerry to Host World Refugee Day Event

On June 20, 2013, Secretary of State John F. Kerry will host a special event in recognition of World Refugee Day, highlighting the challenges refugees face around the world and honoring their bravery and resilience in working to overcome them.

The event will take place at 10:00 a.m. in the Benjamin Franklin Room at the Department of State.

The program will include remarks by Secretary of State Kerry, Assistant Secretary for Population, Refugees, and Migration Anne C. Richard, and UN High Commissioner for Refugees Antonio Guterres via video link from Za’atri Camp, Jordan.

Musicians Cheick Hamala Diabate and Diamond White will also perform. During the event, actress and the “Voice” of the International Refugee Committee, Sarah Wayne Callies will read an excerpt from her blog “My Travel Journal.”

The musical performances and remarks will begin at 9:30 a.m. and will be open to the press. Pre-set for cameras: 8:45 a.m. from the 23rd Street entrance lobby. Final access for writers and still photographers: 9:30 a.m. from the 23rd Street entrance lobby.

Media representatives may attend this event upon presentation of one of the following: (1) A U.S. Government-issued identification card (Department of State, White House, Congress, Department of Defense or Foreign Press Center), (2) a media-issued photo identification card, or (3) a letter from their employer on letterhead verifying their employment as a journalist, accompanied by an official photo identification card (driver's license, passport).

@StatePRM will be live tweeting from the event. #RefugeeDay2013

PRESS CONTACTS:

Deb Sisbarro, Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration
PRM-Press-DL@state.gov
U.S. Department of State, (202) 453-9339

Office of Press Relations
U.S. Department of State, (202) 647-2492
Or visit www.state.gov/j/prm.

The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department.
External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.

Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues to visit Sub-Saharan Africa Training Academy

Ambassador Stephen J. Rapp of the Office of Global Criminal Justice, U.S. Department of State, will visit the Mass Crime Scene Investigations Training in Gaborone, Botswana. The two-week training, hosted by the Department of State-sponsored International Law Enforcement Academy (ILEA), began today and will focus on critical skill building in the area of rapid law enforcement responses to mass crimes scenes. Ambassador Rapp will visit during the final days of the training.

This training, the first of its kind to be offered in Sub-Saharan Africa, includes a multi-national delegation of twenty-eight law enforcement officers from Sub-Saharan Africa. Class participants are mid and senior-level law enforcement investigators from Kenya, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Uganda, and Rwanda. The curriculum will be administered by the Institute for International Criminal Investigations and entails classroom training and field work.

The Department of State, Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs partners with the Government of Botswana at ILEA Gaborone. The ILEA opened in 2001 in order to provide regional training for Sub-Saharan Africa. Since its opening over 6,700 law enforcement officials from 34 countries have trained at ILEA Gaborone.

All press inquiries should be directed to Gary Shaw (ShawGJ2@state.gov). For more information on the Office of Global Criminal Justice, visit our website and visit our Facebook and Twitter pages.

The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department.
External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.

Result of the Iranian Presidential Election

We have seen the announcement by Iran’s Interior Ministry that Hassan Rouhani has been declared the winner of the country’s 11th presidential election.

We admire the courage of the Iranian people who went to the polls and made their voices heard in a rigidly controlled environment that sought to limit freedom of expression and assembly. We remain concerned about the lack of transparency in the electoral process, and the attempts to censor members of the media, the internet, and text messages. Despite these challenges, however, the Iranian people have clearly expressed their desire for a new and better future.

President-elect Rouhani pledged repeatedly during his campaign to restore and expand freedoms for all Iranians. In the months ahead, he has the opportunity to keep his promises to the Iranian people.

We, along with our international partners, remain ready to engage directly with the Iranian government. We hope they will honor their international obligations to the rest of the world in order to reach a diplomatic solution that will fully address the international community’s concerns about Iran’s nuclear program.

The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department.
External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.

Terrorist Attack on Camp Hurriya in Iraq

The United States strongly condemns today’s brutal, senseless, and utterly unacceptable rocket attack on Camp Hurriya that killed and injured camp residents.

At the highest levels, we have personally urged the Government of Iraq to render all possible medical assistance to the victims and ensure the safety of the camp’s residents, consistent with its commitments and obligations. We’ve also called on the Government of Iraq to investigate this attack and bring the terrorists responsible to justice.

We are consulting with the Government of Iraq and the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI) to ascertain the full extent of this unprovoked terrorist attack.

No matter the circumstances, on this point we remain absolute: the United States remains committed to assisting the Government of Iraq and UNAMI in implementing the December 25, 2011 agreement to quickly relocate the residents of Camp Hurriya outside Iraq. We must find a permanent and long term solution that ensures their safety.

The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department.
External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.

Readout of Secretary Kerry's Call With Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari

Yesterday Secretary Kerry called Iraqi Foreign Minister Zebari to discuss recent developments in Iraq and the region. The Secretary thanked the Foreign Minister for his efforts to help organize a unity meeting of Iraq’s political and religious leaders at the end of May and the meeting between Prime Minister Maliki and KRG President Barzani on June 9. He noted that he was encouraged by the positive tone of these meetings and urged Iraqi leaders to build on these steps by continuing direct dialogue and taking concrete action to address political differences. The two agreed on the importance of a unified approach against violence and the need to address legitimate grievances peacefully and in a manner consistent with the Iraqi constitution.

The Secretary and Foreign Minister also discussed Iraq-Kuwait relations and the Secretary noted that he was impressed by the recent progress the two nations have made toward resolving remaining UN Chapter VII issues. The Secretary stated that this was a clear example of determined and persistent diplomacy paying off. He assured the Foreign Minister that the United States would continue to work to help Iraq improve relations with other neighbors in the region.

The Secretary and the Foreign Minister also discussed the situation in Syria. The Secretary reaffirmed that the United States continues to work aggressively for a political solution with the goal of a second Geneva meeting, but that the use of chemical weapons and increasing involvement of Hizballah demonstrates the regime’s lack of commitment to negotiations and threatens to put a political settlement out of reach. The Secretary expressed our concern about the increasingly sectarian nature of the Syrian conflict on both sides, including atrocities committed in recent days in Qusayr and in Deir EzZor. In that light, the Secretary noted his appreciation for the Foreign Minister’s statement on June 11 discouraging Iraqis from joining the fight in Syria. The Secretary further urged that Iraq take every possible measure to help end the military resupply of the Assad regime and thereby increase the pressure that will be necessary to advance a political solution.

The Secretary mentioned that he looks forward to seeing the Foreign Minister in Washington under the auspices of the Joint Coordinating Committee established by the Strategic Framework Agreement. We will work with the Government of Iraq to find a date for this important meeting to take place in the coming months.

The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department.
External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.

Re-Election of Ambassador William Lacy Swing as Director General of the International Organization for Migration

The Department of State welcomes the re-election of Ambassador William Lacy Swing as Director General of the International Organization for Migration (IOM) by acclamation. Ambassador Swing has dedicated his career to public service on behalf of the United States and the international community. He has ably led IOM over the past five years, strengthening IOM’s emergency response, its management of complex humanitarian migrant and refugee movements, and further developing IOM’s role as the leader of policy and programs related to global migration. The United States wishes Ambassador Swing and IOM continued success and looks forward to close cooperation in the years to come.

The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department.
External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.

Iceland's National Day

On behalf of President Obama and the people of the United States, I congratulate the people of Iceland on your National Day this June 17.

The American people join the Icelandic people in celebrating our long history as friends, NATO Allies, and partners. We are working together to ensure our common defense, enhance commercial ties between our countries, and sustainably develop the Arctic while protecting its pristine environment.

Iceland is a leader when it comes to the promotion of human rights around the world, including in its advocacy for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) rights. It also makes important contributions to emergency and humanitarian assistance for civilians fleeing the conflict in Syria.

Protecting universal rights is at the very heart of our shared diplomatic values, and together we remain committed to advancing these rights and equality for all.

On this special day, I would like to thank the people of Iceland for their friendship and commitment to our common values.

The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department.
External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.

Land Transparency Partnership Announced Between U.S. and Burkina Faso

The United States is pleased to announce a partnership with the Government of Burkina Faso to strengthen efforts to improve land governance and increase transparency in land transactions. In recognition of the central role that good land governance plays in achieving economic growth and food security, and in response to intensifying competition for land and natural resources and a lack of access to land administration services in rural areas, the Government of Burkina Faso undertook a multi-year stakeholder consultation process in order to develop a new land policy framework.

Under this framework, and with support from the United States Government through the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), Burkina Faso adopted a new Rural Land Tenure Law in 2009 that recognizes customary tenure practices, allows formal registration of a range of land rights, and decentralizes authority over land administration.

The partnership launched today will build on progress already achieved in implementing elements of the Rural Land Tenure Law and the Voluntary Guidelines for the Responsible Governance of Land, Fisheries, and Forests in the Context of National Food Security (VGs). The VGs, endorsed by the Committee on World Food Security in May 2012, promote secure tenure rights and equitable access to land as a means of eradicating hunger and poverty, supporting sustainable development, and enhancing the environment.

The United States and Burkina Faso will work together to reduce land conflicts in rural areas, increase the recognition of household rights to land, and enable local land use planning for the equitable allocation and use of natural resources. The partnership will also encourage shared learning, enhanced program coordination, and identification of gaps in policy, regulations and practical tools, with a particular emphasis on gender and transparency in land transactions.

The partnership will focus on two primary activities: (1) establishing and operating a national land observatory; and (2) building capacity for tracking transparency of land transactions. The land observatory will monitor and support the land reform process through research and facilitating policy assessment and dialogue to identify further legal, regulatory, procedural and operational adjustments. It will provide a venue for sharing the results, tools developed and lessons learned from the MCC-supported project and others. The observatory will also encourage sustainability and improved performance of the new rural land institutions and promote adherence to principles outlined in the VGs. As part of its ongoing activities, the land observatory will promote gender equity so that both men and women are included in land tenure reform.

Through the partnership, the Government of Burkina Faso will be encouraged to identify and pilot a cost-effective approach to recording, organizing, and storing documents and information related to land rights and transactions in order to improve the security of existing land rights, increase transparency, and improve the efficiency of land administration.

This partnership will be in coordination with other G-8 partners, the African Union Commission (AUC), and multilateral and regional organizations, to strengthen efforts to improve land governance and increase transparency in land transactions. The partners will build on current projects under the MCC Compact with Burkina Faso. That compact includes a Rural Land Governance Project ($59 million) that is implementing many elements of Burkina Faso’s New Alliance Country Cooperation Framework and the VGs. The partnership will also build upon ongoing African land and agriculture development initiatives, including the Land Policy Initiative and the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP).

Good governance and transparency in land transactions is a priority for the G-8 this year, and this partnership represents a key outcome of the United Kingdom’s leadership on this issue. Robert D. Hormats, the Under Secretary of State for Economics, Energy, and the Environment will travel to London, England on June 15, 2013 to announce the Partnership with officials from Burkina Faso.

For more information please see link to partnership document: http://www.state.gov/e/enr/rls/ot/210630.htm.

The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department.
External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.

• SYRIA
  • Chemical Weapons / Red Line Has Been Crossed / Broad Goal to Strengthen the Opposition / Continuing to Look at Additional Options
  • President Obama will Discuss at G-8
  • Secretary Kerry Discussing with Counterparts / Calls
  • Congressional Notification of $123 Million in Nonlethal Aid / Assistance Updates
  • Foreign Fighters
  • Continuing to Work with Russia
  • Reports of Syrian Military Defectors
  • Information-Sharing with Syrian Opposition
  • Geneva 2
• DEPARTMENT
  • Process for Reviewing DS Agent Applicants
  • Ambassadors' Security Details / Travel
• ISRAEL/PALESTENIANS
  • Middle East Peace Process / Arab Peace Initiative
• D.P.R.K./JAPAN/R.O.K.
  • Glyn Davies Meetings with Japan and South Korea to Consult on D.P.R.K. June 18-19
• TURKEY
  • Secretary Kerry Call with Turkish FM this Afternoon

1:32 p.m. EDT

MS. PSAKI: Hi, everyone. How are you? Sorry for the delay. You’ve now had not one, but two briefings from my good friend Ben Rhodes over at the White House, but I bet I know what’s on all of your minds.

QUESTION: Indeed.

MS. PSAKI: So let’s kick this off on a Friday.

QUESTION: So, Syria – Friday.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: And yes, two briefings from Ben Rhodes, and I have to say – I hope I’m not alone in this – there is still quite a lot of confusion. So the United States has agreed to increase its support and aid to Syria, including direct military assistance. Are you able to help us in any way explain exactly what is meant by that?

MS. PSAKI: I cannot. Let me give you just an overview. This is not going to answer that exact question, but just so everybody here understands: We have assessed that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons. The President has assessed, and the Secretary of State, of course, agrees that the red line has been crossed. We do not believe the opposition has acquired or used chemical weapons. This assessment was made through multiple independent streams of information. The POTUS took – the President, excuse me – took deliberative, decisive action in response to crossing of the red line. He said it would change his calculus, and it did. He has authorized the expansion of our assistance to the SMC, the Supreme Military Council.

I’m not able to provide details of what we will provide. That is consistent with, of course, what my colleagues over in the White House have said. But it is a different scale and scope of what we have provided in the past. We have a range of additional options available, so this is where we go from here. And we’ll continue to look at what advances our goals of a transition to post-Assad Syria, and is in line with the national interest.

QUESTION: Why the reluctance to spell out in – not in absolute detail, but in greater detail what this expanded assistance is going to consist of?

MS. PSAKI: I just don’t have additional details I can provide.

QUESTION: Did you have an opening? And can I make a plea that the announcement about the briefing starting be louder? Because this is the second day in a row I have heard absolutely nothing.

MS. PSAKI: We will make sure it’s louder, with a louder voice.

QUESTION: Was there no – there was no opening? You didn’t have anything at the top?

MS. PSAKI: I just gave – Jo asked just --

QUESTION: No, no, no. You didn’t have anything at the top?

MS. PSAKI: I did not have an opening at the top.

QUESTION: All right. Okay.

QUESTION: Does --

QUESTION: When you say – hold on – I’m just curious, though – this is what you – when you say, “This is where we go from here,” where is the “where”?

MS. PSAKI: Well --

QUESTION: Because that seems to be the question you’re not answering.

MS. PSAKI: Well, I’m happy to answer it. I’m glad you asked. The President has made clear – the White House has made clear --

QUESTION: Well, don’t – what you just told her, because that didn’t answer the question. I want to know when you say, “This is where we go from here,” what are the American people supposed to understand as where “where” is?

MS. PSAKI: Well, give me an opportunity --

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. PSAKI: -- to answer, and then you can follow up as always, as I’m certain you will.

QUESTION: Maybe.

MS. PSAKI: So I gave an overview of what happened over the last 12 – 24 hours, I suppose. That’s how I started in response to Jo’s question, and said I was not able to provide more details, of course, than the White House has provided. Where we go from here is that there has been a decision to consider additional options. The President has decided – the Secretary of State supports that, of course – to continue to consider additional options. The President, as you know, is headed to the G8 next week and will be meeting with a number of his counterparts, where this will be a part of the discussion, along with a number of issues, of course. And that’s where we’re going. The same options remain on the table that we have discussed – not boots on the ground, but all of the other options that we have been discussing, and I can assure you they will be considered in the time ahead. But we’re not on – we’re on our own timeline here. So we’re – we’ll continue to discuss it, and we’ll go from there.

QUESTION: All right. Well, I understand what you’re saying, but when you say you consider – you continue to consider additional options, wasn’t the announcement yesterday that there has been a decision to expand what – from where --

MS. PSAKI: Yes, and this --

QUESTION: -- where you had been before --

MS. PSAKI: Exactly.

QUESTION: -- and where you had been before was direct --

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: -- what I – direct – no – direct military assistance to the SMC, which could include night vision goggles, body armor, in other words, defensive supplies. There has been a decision – is it correct there has been a decision to expand from that?

MS. PSAKI: Correct.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. PSAKI: As you’ve all written.

QUESTION: All right, well, then --

MS. PSAKI: And I said that at the beginning.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. PSAKI: So I was just --

QUESTION: All right.

MS. PSAKI: -- what I was trying to get at is that we’re continuing, beyond that, to consider additional options.

QUESTION: Beyond the – yesterday’s expansion --

MS. PSAKI: Beyond – exactly.

QUESTION: -- the announcement of expansion yesterday.

MS. PSAKI: Exactly.

QUESTION: Okay. All right. So when you --

QUESTION: There’s an ongoing discussion between the White House and the Congress on – I mean, regarding the Syria crisis. Would be a no-fly zone an option on the table?

MS. PSAKI: Well, again, all options remain on the table aside from boots on the ground. There has been reports that a no-fly zone has been decided on. Those are incorrect. But certainly in the range of options, that is included in the range of options.

QUESTION: But that decision was made before the proof of using the chemical weapons by the regime.

MS. PSAKI: Which decision?

QUESTION: Now, the President said --

MS. PSAKI: Just to clarify.

QUESTION: -- the President said that when we will have these proofs, this would be a game-changer.

MS. PSAKI: Correct.

QUESTION: So what are the options right now? That was before.

MS. PSAKI: That is correct. All options remain on the table aside from boots on the ground. So there’s a range that have been out there, discussed; I’m not going to outline them from here, but those remain under consideration. The President will be at the G-8 next week. The White House has made clear he’ll be discussing this.

Let me tell you, too, that the Secretary has also been in consultation since yesterday with a number of his counterparts as well. So he’s spent a great deal of time on the phone. This morning alone, he’s spoken with U.K. British Foreign Secretary Hague, French Foreign Minister Fabius, Foreign Minister Lavrov, and EU High Representative Ashton to update them and discuss with them the latest findings. We have been briefing a number of these countries, of course, throughout the week. And later this afternoon he’ll speak with Turkish Foreign Minister Davutoglu.

QUESTION: Jennifer, could you --

QUESTION: And do you know what – Ban Ki-moon has said that no military solution to this conflict – he doesn’t seem to support this, and saying that it could lead to further disintegration of the country. Would any kind of action by the U.S. and its allies need Security Council clearance?

MS. PSAKI: No, but let me be clear. A political solution is the preferred solution. A political transition is what we are all focused on moving toward. That is where the Secretary is, that is where the President is; that’s what we’re focused on. And there are a number of factors that led to the announcement yesterday and the ongoing consideration of additional options, including what’s happened on the ground that we’ve talked about quite a bit in here the past couple of weeks with the influx of foreign fighters, the impact of Iran and Hezbollah, as well as, of course, crossing the redline on chemical weapons.

But in terms of decisions made by each government, each government will make decisions. Of course, traditionally, broadly speaking, actions by the UN Security Council which we’ve supported, as you know, many times on Syria, are always helpful in making the case.

QUESTION: And Jen, just one more thing. What is the goalpost after the G-8? What kinds of questions is Secretary Kerry trying to – asking his allies, and what kinds of issues do you need to come out with to be able to clear the way either to a peace conference or to further military action?

MS. PSAKI: Well, the broad goal here we all have is to strengthen the opposition on the ground, but also their political organization, increase their effectiveness and their cohesion, connect with and coordinate with other partners around the world. So that’s part of what the Secretary will be doing during his discussions. As you know, he’s done quite a bit of travel and had quite a few phone calls with many of these same individuals in a coordinating effort.

We are still working towards planning a conference, and there still will be a meeting planned for next week to move forward in discussing all of the outstanding issues with that.

QUESTION: Jen, you said that the Secretary spent a great deal of time on – excuse me, spent a great deal of time on the phone with these foreign ministers. The conversations were all about Syria? Or there were other issues as well?

MS. PSAKI: There – I – this was the main purpose of the conversations. Of course, there are always other issues that may come up, but that was the main purpose of the calls.

QUESTION: And can you give us roughly an idea of how long these calls were?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have that in front of me. I’m happy to get that to you. The point I was making, Matt, was not necessarily these four specific calls, but just in general that he has spent a lot of time talking with his counterparts about Syria.

QUESTION: Right. No, I understand, but these are pretty – these are four pretty key people, or five --

MS. PSAKI: They are, absolutely.

QUESTION: -- including – five if you include Davutoglu. So I’m just wondering if you could characterize what the conversation was about with Hague and Fabius and Ashton and Lavrov --

MS. PSAKI: It --

QUESTION: -- and what he’ll – did he tell them what the President had decided? Is that the idea?

MS. PSAKI: Well, we’ve been providing information and in touch with many of these allies throughout the week. So this was a conversation following the official announcement.

QUESTION: Right. Okay. But – so did he tell them more than what was discussed – than what the White House said yesterday, or right now what the White House is saying?

MS. PSAKI: Well, again, there are many private conversations that happen --

QUESTION: Yeah.

MS. PSAKI: -- that are more in-depth than what is shared publicly for obvious reasons.

QUESTION: And I’m curious to know about the conversation specifically with Foreign Minister Lavrov because, as you are aware, the Russians have reacted rather negatively to this whole thing, and it sets a – it sets the stage for a rather contentious meeting between the President and President Putin when they do meet. Did they – did either – well, did the two men, Lavrov and the Secretary, did they talk about the upcoming meeting between the President, and did they express hope that it would be --

MS. PSAKI: That call was happening just as I was coming down, so I don’t have any update on their conversation. This was the purpose of it, but I’m happy to see if there’s more detail to provide to you.

QUESTION: Do you --

MS. PSAKI: And certainly – and just to – let me just make this last point. They have discussed the meeting between President Putin and President Obama in the past and I would be surprised if that wasn’t a part of the conversation today.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: You said that it was determined through multiple independent streams of sources that they used chemical weapons. Are those independent streams that the United States of America obtained directly?

MS. PSAKI: Again, there’s part – our focus and our efforts, as well as working with our allies. I’m not going to get into more of a level of detail than that.

QUESTION: But could you tell us that – whether the United States was able to obtain this evidence independently, which means independent of everybody else? Or was it dependent on, let’s say, what the French provided?

MS. PSAKI: I’m not going to get into that level of detail. There are obviously a number of factors that go into any intel assessment.

QUESTION: Okay. And also it says that the use was over a period of two years, so to speak, or over the past two years. Were there, like, periods of time when these uses were, let’s say, more than other times and with people killed – apparently between 100 and 150, all in one attack, all in several attacks; two in each attack. Could you give us --

MS. PSAKI: Well, we’ve talked about four specific dates. I don’t have more information than that to provide to you at this time, and if I do, I’m happy to. But that’s what I have available at this time.

QUESTION: Okay. On providing weapons, it is said that it is mainly small arms and so on. Now, I want to go back to some of the aid that you guys have already promised back in April, which include trucks, goggles and, like, night vision and so on, which have not been delivered thus far, two months later. So if you decide to give weapons now, do you have any idea how long that will take – weeks or months?

MS. PSAKI: Well, in any process we would be closely coordinating with Congress. I don’t have any update for you on the timing of how long. I do have an update on Margaret’s question from yesterday in that the next step on the $123 million, which was the other part – what was announced in Istanbul – we’ve started the congressional notification process this week. So that is ongoing.

QUESTION: And on the no-fly zone, do you have to have a Security Council resolution or not for a no-fly zone?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have the details on that, but it’s a hypothetical because --

QUESTION: And do you – right. And do you expect that the Russians and the Chinese would actually veto a no-fly zone?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t want to anticipate the actions of others, but --

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Jen --

MS. PSAKI: Go ahead.

QUESTION: Because you said Secretary Kerry spoke with several of his counterparts --

MS. PSAKI: He did.

QUESTION: -- this morning. Is he planning to speak with any of his Arab counterparts?

MS. PSAKI: Any of his --

QUESTION: Arab counterparts?

MS. PSAKI: He has regular conversations, and I should have said --

QUESTION: No, today?

MS. PSAKI: He may. Those were the calls that have happened and were scheduled, but I expect he’ll be making calls through the course of the weekend.

QUESTION: Who? With whom?

MS. PSAKI: So as we have updates, I’m sure we can provide those.

QUESTION: Do you have an idea with whom?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have other scheduled calls right now, but those are being scheduled as we speak.

QUESTION: I just want to – on the – you said the notification to Congress on the $123 million has begun?

MS. PSAKI: Yes.

QUESTION: So on all of it?

MS. PSAKI: Yes.

QUESTION: Okay. And that is – can you remind me? My memory isn’t as good as it used to be.

MS. PSAKI: That is the --

QUESTION: What is the hundred and twenty – is that the armor and the – or is that --

MS. PSAKI: That is the piece, exactly, that includes direct aid to the SMC in the form of forms of equipment that we have consulted with them on they would need.

QUESTION: Beyond the food and the medical --

MS. PSAKI: Correct. Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Jennifer?

QUESTION: All right. So that hardware, military hardware, although nonlethal, is being notified now?

MS. PSAKI: Correct.

QUESTION: Do you – can you be more specific about what, since it has begun, what exactly it is that’s going? Like, is it goggles, body armor and armored vehicles? Or is it something else?

MS. PSAKI: There were a range of options, including trucks and communications equipment. I don’t have any greater level of specificity than that at this point.

QUESTION: Okay. But it’s not classified, right, though?

MS. PSAKI: No.

QUESTION: Right. Okay. Well, since Congress is being notified, could you endeavor to --

MS. PSAKI: Yes, absolutely.

QUESTION: -- since they won’t be upset?

MS. PSAKI: Certainly not.

QUESTION: If they’ve already been notified, they won’t be upset if we know about it too. Thank you.

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: Jen?

QUESTION: Is it --

MS. PSAKI: Oh, Margaret?

QUESTION: Jen, can you explain whether it’s a priority in this building or within the U.S. Government that there be perhaps more balance in the field in Syria headed into the Geneva conference? I know you can’t speak about timing, but at least that premise that the parties who we hope come to the table in Geneva, that they be more on an even level, the opposition and the Assad government.

MS. PSAKI: Well, I just wouldn’t tie the two together. They are parallel paths. So clearly the conditions on the ground and the fact that they have been worsening for the Syrian people and for the opposition has been one of the factors – as I mentioned, the influx of Hezbollah, influx of foreign fighters – as has the use of chemical weapons been a big part of our decision-making process.

Geneva, we still want to happen when the time is ripe and when it is the best opportunity to bring both sides to the table. There are a number of factors that go into that. Certainly what’s happening on the ground is a part of that, as you’ve seen the opposition talk about, but also the opposition needs to elect leadership; that’s a step they need to take. We need to make determinations about everything from the agenda to the participation. And all those pieces are still being worked through.

QUESTION: And on that point about getting the opposition to be more cohesive, what are some of the legal restrictions on arming rebels in a country whose government we still officially recognize diplomatically?

MS. PSAKI: I’m not a lawyer, so I don’t have any legal rundown here. If there’s something we can get from our team or from our friends across the street, I’m happy to provide that to all of you.

QUESTION: Because it would help, clarity-wise, if there is the need, per se, for that opposition cohesiveness to be then a government inside the country that we could help out a bit more.

MS. PSAKI: If there is a clear legal document, I’m happy to provide that to all of you.

QUESTION: On the issue of --

QUESTION: And also can I ask how confident this Administration is that the chemical weapon stocks, which we’ve now known have been used, are actually secure? Or are they in danger of being – of floating around the country being used by extremist groups?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I don’t have anything new on that. Obviously, as you know, the movement – the transfer was also a redline, but what we have discussed here is the use as being the crossing of the redline. That’s always something we’re focused on and we are concerned about given what could happen if they were moved and were made into – or made it into bad hands. But I don’t have anything new or kind of any new analysis on that.

QUESTION: So you’re not sure if they are secure?

MS. PSAKI: No, what I was saying is we’ve long said that we believe they are. The crossing, the transfer of them would be of concern. I don’t have anything new or anything I can announce or say about whether that is a concern at this point.

QUESTION: But I thought the point was they already were in the bad hands.

MS. PSAKI: Well --

QUESTION: Otherwise this whole exercise is completely pointless. (Laughter.) Why would you be opposing Assad and wanting him to go if you didn’t think he was bad?

MS. PSAKI: The use of, the transfer of --

QUESTION: You’re talking about the terrorist groups?

MS. PSAKI: Yes.

QUESTION: Jen.

QUESTION: So you believe they’re secure, but you’re not in a position to say whether they’ve been transferred to other groups?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any information to believe that. But again, I just don’t have a new update on that.

QUESTION: Jen, on the aid --

QUESTION: When the U.S. draws a redline and when a country crosses the redline, what the consequences would be?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I think the White House has made very clear that the consequences are that it has changed the President’s calculation; that’s long what they have said, that it would change his calculation. They talked about their decision to expand assistance to the SMC – military assistance. And beyond that, I just can’t discuss the scale and scope of what that means.

And of course, beyond that, as I mentioned at the top, we’re considering additional options. There are a number of factors that lead into that decision-making process. Of course the use of chemical weapons is part of that, as is the situation on the ground. And the reasons why we are where we are, which is, as I’ve mentioned a few times, Iran’s impact and the influx of foreign fighters. And that’s all part of the decision-making process as we look forward.

QUESTION: Do you have an example from the past that the United States drew a redline and a country crossed and what the consequences --

MS. PSAKI: I would leave that to you, all the historians in the room.

QUESTION: On the --

QUESTION: To remember or to see what will happen maybe in Syria, to see what the consequences would be?

MS. PSAKI: Take a look. We can discuss it again on Monday.

QUESTION: Jen, on the issue of foreign fighters. Today or yesterday, the President of Egypt, President Morsy, who is your ally, said that he cannot stop Egyptian volunteers from going to fight alongside the opposition. And this also comes at a time when there are many calls from many mosques for volunteers to go and fight alongside the opposition. You do consider that to be foreign fighters, correct?

MS. PSAKI: Correct.

QUESTION: So would you discourage Mr. Morsy, your ally, from making such calls?

MS. PSAKI: We certainly would.

QUESTION: Jennifer, what are the certain outcomes or geopolitical implications that the U.S. Government is waiting for to happen before jumping and interfering in Syria?

MS. PSAKI: Well, we’re already very involved in Syria. And I know I outlined what exactly we’ve done.

QUESTION: I mean in a different way, like more military way. That’s the way that I’m talking about.

MS. PSAKI: Well, I think over the course of the last 24 hours it’s been clear that we’ve made a decision to authorize the expansion of assistance to the SMC in a different way. And I can’t, again, talk about the scale and scope of that, but let me just point that out.

Beyond that, there are a number of factors; we’ve talked about them today quite a bit. The President is going to continue to consult with his counterparts when he’s at the G-8 next week. The Secretary is in ongoing conversations with foreign ministers representing a number of the key nations who have had a – significant stakes in Syria. But I can’t give you a timeline or give you a prediction of what will happen next. Just to assure you that this is a major focus and it will be a major topic of discussion in the Administration.

QUESTION: So no further steps before the G-8 summit?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have anything for you before the G-8 summit. I think the White House --

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MS. PSAKI: -- let me just finish – White House made very clear that the President will be consulting with his allies and his counterparts at the G-8 summit, and the Secretary will be having these ongoing discussions, and I’m sure they will be discussing Syria with other members of the national security teams – team on countless occasions in the weeks and months ahead.

QUESTION: Just some housekeeping, Secretary Kerry’s not traveling with --

MS. PSAKI: He is not.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Did he invite other non-members of G-8 summit, like Ashton or Davutoglu, to discuss this issue?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I mean, the Secretary spoke with Lady Ashton this morning. I don’t – I’m not – I don’t know all the participants in terms of additional participants with the G-8.

QUESTION: What is the timeline of the Congress notification that you mentioned? I mean, how long it takes?

MS. PSAKI: It started this week. It’s ongoing. I don’t have an update on when it will be completed.

QUESTION: Ninety days, or I mean what --

MS. PSAKI: But it usually doesn’t take that long. So I don’t have an update on when it will be completed, though.

QUESTION: You had delivered, first tranche, an amount of $8 million without a notification. And the Syrian support group was a facilitator. This is the difference that why you are making such a notification for this time?

MS. PSAKI: Well, we consult closely with Congress on all of our aid. I’d have to check on that point that you just made to make sure it’s accurate. But we have delivered – 127 is in train. This is the next stage in the process for the 123, and we’re working and focused on it.

QUESTION: But the first tranche also was including some goggles, some food for the soldiers. I mean the content is not too different, I think. And that – but the last time – and it happened at the end of April. But the facilitator, as I said, was Syrian support group. This time maybe you will deliver this aid directly to the SMC. That’s why you need a notification?

MS. PSAKI: Well, this aid, in addition to part of the aid that was in the 127 is going directly to the – a lot of it is going directly to the ACU, the coordinating body of the SOC – that’s a lot of acronyms – and the 123, a portion of that will go to the SMC. And part of that is being in – discussed right now with Congress.

QUESTION: Can you give us an idea of just in general how long it takes from notification to stuff actually arriving?

MS. PSAKI: I can. I’m not sure there’s a standard or an average --

QUESTION: I know. I know. It depends.

MS. PSAKI: -- but I can talk to our Congressional team --

QUESTION: But can you find out?

MS. PSAKI: -- and see if I can give you a better sense of that.

QUESTION: Because – is it correct or incorrect that all of the 127 million is actually – the original 127 million is already there, right? It’s not all there; it’s still – some of it’s still in transit?

MS. PSAKI: It’s in transit, but the way that works is sometimes it’s in an account and hasn’t been spent on the ground.

QUESTION: No, I understand, but it’s – but that was notified to Congress weeks and weeks ago.

MS. PSAKI: It was.

QUESTION: So it can take a significant amount of time --

MS. PSAKI: It can.

QUESTION: -- for stuff to get --

MS. PSAKI: It can.

QUESTION: -- actually show up on the ground.

MS. PSAKI: It can.

QUESTION: So if there’s an – if there’s any way to, just in a general sense --

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: -- find out how long it will take now that it’s been notified on the 127 --

MS. PSAKI: I’m happy to talk to our --

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS. PSAKI: -- Congressional folks and see if I can get you a better sense.

QUESTION: Could I --

QUESTION: Is there (inaudible) so far, I mean, from the Congress?

MS. PSAKI: Not that I’m aware of, but again, these are just ongoing consultations.

QUESTION: Could I ask you on the feeling in this building or by analysts, was that – the use of chemical weapons, was that experimental, considering that it was sporadic and the low – the relatively low number of casualties and so on when compared against the enormity of 92,000 killed, 100 to 150? Did they use it experimentally, or did they use it for strategic military gain?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I can’t get into their minds, but I think we’ve been pretty clear about their use.

QUESTION: Right. But do you feel it was used for – to gain strategic advantage?

MS. PSAKI: Again, I can’t get into analyzing why they did. Obviously, we’re concerned that they did, and that’s why we’re taking action.

QUESTION: Given Russia’s reaction --

QUESTION: Can I – just one – sorry, just – do you think – is the feeling, as you look forward and explore these additional options, that you would first try – that the U.S. would first try looking at a diplomatic solution to try to be fleshed out at the G-8 before it moves on to the military solution?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t want to get into that level of detail. I mean, I think at the same time, we’re pursuing parallel paths here, and that’s been ongoing for months unrelated to the G-8, right? So we’ve been considering additional options for some time. It wasn’t that this decision was made in the matter of the last 24 hours. This has been something that the national security team and the President have been discussing for weeks, and I know the White House has said the President decided before this week, long before this week.

So – but my point is that we’re still pursuing both a political option, a diplomatic option, while also taking steps – additional steps, obviously, and considering additional steps – to aid on the ground. The preferred solution here is still a political transition and a political solution. But we know that the ground – events on the ground have worsened in the past couple of weeks, and there have been a number of factors that have led to the decision that we discussed last night and today.

QUESTION: And how much was the assault on Aleppo, part of the President advised by the Secretary – how much was that part of the play going into his decision to take this next step?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I’m not going to get into, of course, discussing internal deliberations or read out high-level discussions. There were a number of factors that led into this. There were four incidents of chemical weapons use discussed as part of this report and part of this statement that was released last night. But again, there are changing conditions on the ground. I think there’s no question there has been a rise in sectarian violence, a rise in violence impacting neighboring countries. And all of this, of course, leads into the thinking and the decision-making process.

QUESTION: So one thing: We have a source – a Gulf source saying that the Saudi Foreign Minister had met with the French, and – this week to discuss setting up a no-fly zone, but – that the measure is expected to go ahead, but the timing’s not set. Are those discussions being had with the U.S. as well? I mean, is the possibility of a no-fly zone part of those additional measures?

MS. PSAKI: Well, we discuss a range of options, and we’re considering a range of options. And what I was saying earlier was just there had been some reports that the President had decided on, or was – there was an impending announcement on, and that is incorrect.

QUESTION: Jen --

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm. Correct.

QUESTION: Do you think that the U.S. Government deserves credit for pursuing diplomatic solutions and sanctions, or it didn’t do enough to balance the crisis between what – the crisis in Syria between the regime and rebels?

MS. PSAKI: Well, we’re not looking for credit. We’re looking for a resolution that will help the Syrian people and bring an end to the suffering. We have taken a number of steps. As you know, we are the largest provider of humanitarian aid. We made an announcement just two days ago about sanctions and efforts we’re trying to make to help return some basic --

QUESTION: Is it enough?

MS. PSAKI: Is it enough? Well, look, we’re continuing to consider other options, and we’re focused on bringing an end to the brutality that’s happening in the country. We’re focused on both a political solution mainly – that’s where we want to go – but we’re also focused on providing assistance and helping on the ground, and we – the Secretary wakes up every day focused on this and wanting to continue to discuss it.

QUESTION: Given Russia’s reaction to this latest development, what are you doing in your interactions with them to prevent this whole situation from escalating into basically what amounts to a proxy war between the two nations?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I mentioned this a little earlier, but we have briefed the Russians regarding our chemical weapons information and assessment. The Secretary --

QUESTION: But they flatly rejected that.

MS. PSAKI: Let me just finish. The Secretary is speaking with, or was speaking with, the Foreign Minister as I was coming down. And of course, we all know the President has a meeting with President Putin next week. And part of the case that will be made is about all of the evidence and the reasons why we are so confident in the assessment that was released by the White House on chemical weapons use yesterday, but also why it is so important and why it is in the interest of the Russians to continue to move towards a political solution. And that’s what the focus will be.

So, we will continue pressing. We know they are an important partner now. They have been. That’s why the Secretary’s been working with the Foreign Minister. And we’re going to continue to apply the necessary pressure to hopefully move towards a productive result.

QUESTION: You are aware that Mr. Rhodes’s Russian counterpart called the evidence completely fabricated?

MS. PSAKI: I am. That’s why I said we’re – brief them, we’re continuing to discuss with them, and the President will be meeting with President Putin next week.

QUESTION: And he also said that don’t make the same mistake as happened with Iraq. I mean, you are saying that – you said you’re confident in the assessment that was made yesterday.

MS. PSAKI: Absolutely. The President is, the Secretary is. And let me just remind you the Secretary and the President, in a different role, of course, were there for the debates around Iraq. And as you all have asked about why this is taking so long and why we don’t know more, part of the reason is because they both felt, as did members of the national security team, it was so important to nail down the facts and feel confident in them before making a further assessment. So that’s why we reached where we were yesterday.

QUESTION: Sorry, the President was around for the debate over the --

MS. PSAKI: Well, I said in a different role. He wasn’t the President then. He was speaking out against the Iraq War. But he was paying attention to it, and the Secretary was in the Senate.

QUESTION: But he wasn’t even – yeah, but the current President was not in the national government in any branch of it.

MS. PSAKI: He was not; in a different role.

QUESTION: So as a state senator in Illinois, he really got into the weeds on this?

MS. PSAKI: He did. He was vocal on it. But I was making the point that the Secretary --

QUESTION: Here’s the --

MS. PSAKI: -- and the President both watched the debate.

QUESTION: You’re confident that the presentation that you made yesterday won’t go down in history in the same way that former Secretary Powell’s presentation to the UN General Assembly did?

MS. PSAKI: Correct. That’s why we did our due diligence to nail down the facts before --

QUESTION: All right.

MS. PSAKI: -- making any further assessment.

QUESTION: Are there any plans – it’s very new and now, but are there any plans at some point to make some of that assessment or all of that assessment publicly available?

MS. PSAKI: Not that I’m aware of. I mean, this is an intel assessment. If that changes, we’ll let you know. AFP will be the first to receive the information.

QUESTION: Doubt that highly. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Turkish media have reported today that 73 Syrian military officers, including seven generals and 20 colonels, have crossed the border with their families, seeking refuge in Turkey. Do you have any idea about these reports? Are there --

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any independent confirmation of that. I know there are a number of people – tens of thousands of people – who are moving across borders in different directions from Syria. Obviously that’s something we’re very concerned about, why we’ve provided aid to a number of those countries to help with that burden. And we’ve been in touch, of course, with the UN about it as well. But I don’t have any independent confirmation of that specific report.

QUESTION: And do you think that the White House statement yesterday had an effect on the defection of these colonels and generals?

MS. PSAKI: I wouldn’t want to analyze it in that way. There have been, as you know, a number of military officials and others who have defected over the course of the last year-plus because of what’s happening with the regime. But I wouldn’t want to speak on their behalf about why they made the decisions they made.

QUESTION: Have you shared your assessment --

QUESTION: Can I ask --

QUESTION: -- excuse me. Sorry. Have you shared the assessment with General Idris and your interlocutors in the Syrian opposition?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have an update on that. I know we’re in close contact, but I’m not sure who has been in touch, so I’ll venture to get that for you.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) there was a meeting in Istanbul (inaudible)?

MS. PSAKI: There was. But that meeting was something that was pulled together – it was part of our regular engagement with the opposition. And we consult with them very regularly, as you know. We did have two staff members from Embassy Ankara attending, but the purpose wasn’t to brief on the assessment that was announced yesterday.

QUESTION: There’s a meeting tomorrow with the French and British and General Idris in Istanbul as well, and you weren’t sure whether there was any U.S. involvement.

MS. PSAKI: That’s the same meeting, I believe, I was talking about.

QUESTION: Oh, it’s the same one?

MS. PSAKI: I believe it was yesterday. It may be continuing. That certainly is possible. But we did have two staff members from Ankara who attended that.

QUESTION: Is Ambassador Ford in town? Is he doing anything?

MS. PSAKI: Is he in Washington?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MS. PSAKI: I’m not sure of his whereabouts. He’s a very busy guy. But I’m happy to check on that for you. He’s not at this particular meeting that Jo was referencing.

QUESTION: How much longer will he stay in his post, Ambassador Ford?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any update on that for you.

QUESTION: So, but he will be there for the Geneva 2 thing?

MS. PSAKI: I just don’t have any update for that on – on that for you.

QUESTION: Should we assume that the General Idris and SMC will be the representative of the opposition military in – on the military side? I mean, because we are only talking about General Idris. There are several groups on the ground.

MS. PSAKI: Well, he’s the head of the SMC, so that’s why we talk about him. But again, the opposition is – the goal is for them to expand. They’ve taken some steps to do that. They need to elect leadership. That’s a part of their next step. So we continue to encourage them to do just that.

QUESTION: Can we move on?

MS. PSAKI: Absolutely.

QUESTION: Were you able to get answers to Margaret’s questions yesterday about DS?

MS. PSAKI: I was.

QUESTION: And also my question on the criminal records, criminal backgrounds?

MS. PSAKI: I was.

QUESTION: Excellent. Can you enlighten us to as to what those answers --

MS. PSAKI: I’m happy to enlighten you. So on the question of the process for the DS, while a past criminal violation would be a strong indicator against employment, it does not automatically disqualify a person for service. Such history would be scrutinized intently, considering the nature of the offense, the age when it occurred, and any extenuating circumstances. So the reality is here, just to put it in pure plain English, is that what we’re looking at is likely a juvenile conviction or minor brushes with the law. Of course, that’s considered and discussed as part of the rigorous and extensive process I talked about yesterday.

QUESTION: But a juvenile infraction or a minor brush with the law – that would impair them from doing their job?

MS. PSAKI: It would not, no. Sorry. I was answering the question as to what our process is or approach. It would not impair them from doing their job. It would not preclude them from getting a job with DS. That’s – that was what I meant in answering.

QUESTION: Right. I understand that. But the concern that was mentioned in that IG memo was not that they – not necessarily that they got a job, although that may be what some commentators are upset about, but that they were not – they were hindered in being able to do investigations, which is part of their job, because of this – these problems in their backgrounds. So my question is: Would a juvenile offense or a minor criminal violation do that? Would it impair their ability to conduct investigations?

MS. PSAKI: No. Let me just remind --

QUESTION: It doesn’t. Okay. So the --

MS. PSAKI: Let me just --

QUESTION: -- IG concern expressed in that memo is not grounded in --

MS. PSAKI: Well, again, I haven’t even seen the full memo. I know – I’m sure some people here have. But the note – the claim that was made was that there was widespread – I mean, there was a larger issue at hand here. The reason I --

QUESTION: Well, that’s my second part of my question. But continue.

MS. PSAKI: The reason that I went through yesterday how rigorous this process is was to explain that in order to get a job as one of the just over 1,900 Diplomatic Security officers, it’s a very rigorous and challenging process with multiple steps. And so if you have, as I described, a minor offense or a juvenile conviction, that’s all factored in. It doesn’t preclude you or eliminate you as being an option.

QUESTION: Right. But that’s not the question. The question is --

MS. PSAKI: Some were asking that yesterday, so when you said Margaret’s question --

QUESTION: Okay. Well, it wasn’t my question. Well, actually, Margaret’s question was, I thought, different. But anyway – and had to do with – specifically with one ambassadorial post. But my question to you is: Do these minor criminal offenses or juvenile convictions hinder or impair an agent’s ability to do the job of investigating, as was stated in that IG memo?

MS. PSAKI: If there was a decision through the process that it would, they wouldn’t get the job.

QUESTION: So – okay. So in other words, the Department disagrees with this concern expressed by the IG.

MS. PSAKI: Correct. I just went through the --

QUESTION: Okay. All right. You – okay. And then the other thing was that – just on the – reports about this suggests that many of – or it didn’t suggest, it said many of the 1,900 have this problem. Can you – since you’re saying that none of them have this problem, because it’s not an issue, can you say how many of the 1,900 Diplomatic Security agents that are employed by the Department do have these small blemishes on their record?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I’m not sure the report said that the majority of them had these blemishes.

QUESTION: It said many of them.

MS. PSAKI: Okay. No. This is – these are rare cases. I don’t have an exact number for you. But again, the important point here – and I’m sorry to go back to this – but that this is a factor that’s factored in in the process, which includes a background investigation, which includes a suitability review, which includes several steps to even get considered for the job.

QUESTION: Right. No, no, I understand. I just want to make sure it’s not the case that there are no – there’s no one who has an – it’s not the case that there are no agents who have blemishes on their record, however minor?

MS. PSAKI: Correct, but that’s all factored into the decision-making process.

QUESTION: But it’s certainly not many of 1,900?

MS. PSAKI: Correct.

QUESTION: All right. And then, did you get a question – actually, I’ll let Margaret follow up on that.

MS. PSAKI: Oh, go ahead, Margaret.

QUESTION: If she wants to. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: It was answered by Jen, but if you want to read it out for other people, sure.

QUESTION: Okay. Well, there was a question yesterday about whether ambassadors can leave post without – or leave the country of their posting without notifying or without getting permission from Washington, or whether they are allowed – whether they are required to have diplomatic security or other security agents with them when they leave.

MS. PSAKI: So let me explain to all of you the process. I know a couple of people had this question. There are a very limited number of Ambassadors who have a U.S. security detail. Many other ambassadors have security details provided by the host government, so that would be local authorities. And those details would not travel outside the country as they have no legal authority outside of their home nation. So that wouldn’t be standard. If the ambassador has a security detail in a post that would require that, as in a DS security detail, the detail stays with an ambassador until departing the country. And then if they go to a post where there is high threat, then that’s – they may have an additional detail, but it’s case by case in each of these scenarios.

So long story short, it would be incorrect to assume that a detail, especially local authorities, would leave a country with any ambassador serving. Not every ambassador has security, and ambassadors have different kinds of security with different requirements. Some don’t even have it all around the clock. So it’s a case by case depending on the post.

QUESTION: All right. Well, recognizing that DS and the rest of the building would probably get – freak out if they – if you were asked which ambassador posts have this – have security 24 hours and which ones don’t, I --

MS. PSAKI: They wouldn’t freak out if I asked, only if I answer you. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Right. Well, so I’m not going to ask that question because I know you won’t answer it, but can you give us a rough idea of how many – around the world, how many posts we’re talking about that – is it just like in war zones? I mean, I think we can all assume that Afghanistan or Iraq would be one of these ones, but an idea or a percentage of ambassadors who have – who are required to travel with security.

MS. PSAKI: I don’t want to define it because they’ll come down here and they’ll tackle me. But I will say it’s a small number. It’s a handful.

QUESTION: Small number? A handful. Okay.

QUESTION: Can I change topics?

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: The Palestinian-Israeli peace process. Today, the Israeli Defense Minister, Mr. Moshe Ya’alon, placed the blame squarely on the Palestinians for the (inaudible) in the peace process, for not going into the direct negotiations unconditionally. Do you concur with this assessment?

MS. PSAKI: We, again, believe it’s on both sides to make the tough choices, to go back to the negotiating table, and that’s what our focus is on.

QUESTION: Okay. He also on the issue of the Arab Peace Initiative, which is a great success for the Secretary of State – he got the Arabs to sort of agree to swap land – to land swaps and so on. He actually dismissed that and he said that this is not really the issue that they are trying to impose upon us conditions that we reject.

MS. PSAKI: Well, I haven’t seen his specific comments, but let me just repeat why – or just tell you why the Arab Peace Initiative is significant or why the Secretary thinks it’s significant. And that is because it shows a unity among several Arab nations, that they support an effort to move towards a peace plan and that they would support that if it were to be completed. And that’s why it’s significant. So beyond that, I’m not going to respond to back-and-forth comments that I haven’t even seen.

QUESTION: Okay. Well, let me just sort of inform you. He also said, on the settlement issue, he dismissed this as being an issue because he said, quote-unquote, "The Palestinians consider all Israelis to be settlers and all of Israel to be settlement," and so on. Is that a feeling that you get from the Palestinians when you talk to them, when you talk to the Palestinian Authority, that they consider Israel to be a settlement and all Israelis are settlers?

MS. PSAKI: I am not going to characterize the broad feelings of all Palestinians. We have made clear what our feeling is, and I said that yesterday and I think I’ll leave it at that. Okay.

QUESTION: Okay. And finally, on the issue of incitement, he said that the Palestinians incite against Israel and he requested or appealed to the United States to connect the aid that it provides to the Palestinian Authority with their agreement not to incite and to change all the textbooks. Do you agree with him?

MS. PSAKI: Again, I haven’t seen his remarks. We have made very clear --

QUESTION: I recommend that you do look at it. Yeah.

MS. PSAKI: -- about no preconditions. There are a number of issues that need to be worked out through the process, and we’re hopeful they’ll remain – they’ll move back to the negotiating table.

Last one.

QUESTION: On North Korea, there are reports that Glyn Davies will be meeting with his Japanese and Korean counterparts here next week. Can you just confirm that meeting for us and tell us what you expect to happen there?

MS. PSAKI: I do have something for you on that. So the United States will host Japan and South Korea for bilateral consultations on the D.P.R.K. on June 18^th, and a trilateral dialogue on June 19^th. The bilateral and trilateral meetings will be hosted by, as you referenced, Special Representative for North Korea Policy Glyn Davies. The South Korean delegation will be headed by South Korea Special Representative for Korean Peninsula Peace and Security Affairs – that is an amazing title – Cho. And the Japanese delegation will be headed by Japan Ministry of Foreign Affairs Director General Sugiyama. The United States, Japan, and South Korea have regular consultations, as you know, in which we exchange views on a wide range of regional and global issues, including on North Korea.

QUESTION: Jen, last one.

MS. PSAKI: Okay.

QUESTION: The conversation that Secretary Kerry will have with his counterpart, Turkish counterpart this afternoon, will he discuss the protests in Turkey too?

MS. PSAKI: The focus of the conversation is on Syria and on the recent assessment that we announced last night. Beyond that, they often discuss a range of issues. They are good friends and good colleagues, but I don’t have a prediction for you on that.

QUESTION: Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:20 p.m.)

DPB # 99

The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department.
External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.

Under Secretary Sonenshine To Deliver Remarks at the Center for Strategic and International Studies

Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Tara D. Sonenshine will deliver remarks at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) on Tuesday, June 18 at 10 a.m. Under Secretary Sonenshine’s remarks are entitled “Bottom Line Diplomacy: Why Public Diplomacy Matters,” and will discuss the ways in which public diplomacy has fused with our economic statecraft to nurture more prosperous, productive global partners who can help grow our national economy and make Americans safer.

To register to attend the Under Secretary’s remarks at CSIS click here: http://my.csis.org/csis/CSIS1700/CSISEventRegistration.aspx?eventcode=2013_133

The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department.
External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.

Assistant Secretary of State Kerri-Ann Jones To Travel to Indonesia and Kazakhstan

Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs Dr. Kerri-Ann Jones will travel to Indonesia June 16–19 and Kazakhstan June 20–26.

In Indonesia, Dr. Jones will represent the United States at the fourth annual Climate and Environment Working Group Meeting, formed under the U.S.-Indonesia Comprehensive Partnership. Under the Partnership, the United States and Indonesia cooperate on a wide range of activities to advance low carbon growth and address major threats to the world’s environment. Dr. Jones will also meet with government officials to discuss science and technology, and how civil society and U.S. companies can support the promotion of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.

Dr. Jones will lead a U.S. delegation to Kazakhstan for the first Joint Committee Meeting (JCM) on Science and Technology Cooperation between our countries. The United States and Kazakhstan have a long and robust history of science and engineering cooperation. The JCM will assess new areas of collaboration including biomedical research to improve human and animal health, sharing of scientific data to better manage natural resources, and reducing the use and generation of hazardous substances to prevent environmental damage.

The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department.
External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.

Extractives Industries Transparency Partnership Between the United States and Myanmar

The United States is pleased to announce a partnership with the Government of Myanmar to strengthen transparency and good governance in Myanmar’s extractive industries sector. This initiative will help advance good human rights practices, positively contribute to resource sharing among local populations, and possibly help to mitigate conflict.

Myanmar is undergoing an historic political and economic transformation. The country has important gas and mineral reserves which, if properly managed, can play a critical role in promoting economic growth, expanding access to electricity, and increasing development in the country. This partnership builds on a joint statement on good governance and transparency in the energy sector signed on the margins of President Thein Sein’s visit to Washington, DC in May 2013.

The partnership will provide political support and technical assistance to help Myanmar implement international best practices in the oil, gas, and mining sectors in order to improve public oversight, financial accountability, safety, and environmental stewardship. This engagement will improve long-term management in the sector and update the legal, regulatory, fiscal, and operating environment with the goal of attracting responsible investors.

It will also help Myanmar meet the requirements to join the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI). EITI is a voluntary, global initiative in which extractives sector payments made by companies and received by governments are publicly disclosed and reconciled. The initiative is designed to increase transparency, strengthen the accountability of natural resource revenue management, and build public trust in the governance of this important sector.

Good governance and transparency in the extractives sector is a key priority for the G-8 this year, and this partnership represents a key outcome of the United Kingdom’s leadership on this issue. Robert D. Hormats, the Under Secretary of State for Economics, Energy, and the Environment will travel to London, England on June 15, 2013 to announce the Partnership with Myanmar.

For more information please see link to partnership document: http://www.state.gov/e/enr/rls/ot/210632.htm

The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department.
External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.

Joint Statement on U.S.-Germany Cyber Bilateral Meeting

The text of the following statement was agreed by the Governments of the United States of America and the Federal Republic of Germany on the occasion of the U.S.-Germany Cyber Bilateral Meeting June 10-11, 2013.

Begin Text:

The Governments of the United States and Germany held a Cyber Bilateral Meeting in Washington, DC on June 10-11, 2013.

The U.S.-Germany Cyber Bilateral Meeting reinforced our long-standing alliance by highlighting our pre-existing collaboration on many key cyber issues over the course of the last decade and identifying additional areas for awareness and alignment. The U.S.-Germany Cyber Bilateral Meeting embodied a “whole-of-government” approach, furthering our cooperation on a wide range of cyber issues and our collaborative engagement on both operational and strategic objectives.

Operational objectives include exchanging information on cyber issues of mutual concern and identifying greater cooperation measures on detecting and mitigating cyber incidents, combating cybercrime, developing practical confidence-building measures to reduce risk, and exploring new areas of bilateral cyber defense cooperation.

Strategic objectives include affirming common cyber approaches in Internet governance, Internet freedom, and international security; partnering with the private sector to protect critical infrastructure, including through prospective legislation and other frameworks; and pursuing coordination efforts on cyber capacity-building in third countries. The discussions specifically focused on continued and bolstered support for the multi-stakeholder model for Internet governance, particularly as the preparations for Internet Governance Forum 8 in Bali, Indonesia are underway; expanding the Freedom Online Coalition, particularly as Germany joins the coalition just before the next annual meeting in Tunis this month; and the application of norms and responsible state behavior in cyberspace, particularly next steps in light of successful UN Group of Governmental Experts consensus where key governmental experts affirmed the applicability of international law to state behavior in cyberspace.

Germany noted its concern in connection with the recent disclosures about U.S. Government surveillance programs. The U.S. referenced statements by the U.S. President and the Director of National Intelligence on this issue and emphasized that such programs are designed to protect the United States and other countries from terrorist and other threats, are consistent with U.S. law, and are subject to strict supervision and oversight by all three branches of the U.S. Government. Both sides recognized that this issue will be the subject of further dialogue.

The U.S.-Germany Cyber Bilateral Meeting was hosted by the U.S. Secretary of State’s Coordinator for Cyber Issues, Christopher Painter, and included representatives from the Department of State, the Department of Commerce, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, the Department of Defense, the Department of Treasury, and the Federal Communications Commission. Mr. Herbert Salber, the Federal Foreign Office’s Commissioner for Security Policy led the German interagency delegation, which included representatives from the Federal Foreign Office, the Federal Ministry of the Interior, the Federal Office for Information Security, the Federal Ministry of Defense, and the Federal Ministry for Economics and Technology.

Coordinator Painter and Commissioner Salber agreed to hold the Cyber Bilateral Meeting annually with the next to be held in Berlin in mid-2014.

The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department.
External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.

Extractives Transparency Partnership Announced Between U.S. and Guinea

The United States is pleased to announce a partnership with the Government of Guinea to strengthen transparency and good governance in Guinea’s extractive industries sector. Guinea is blessed with significant mineral resources, many of which remain undiscovered or undeveloped. It is the world’s largest producer of bauxite (used to make aluminum), and is set to become the third largest source of iron ore. Additional mineral resources include: gold, diamonds, graphite, manganese, nickel, and uranium. Guinea’s mining sector alone generates a significant percentage of all export earnings, and 17 percent of GDP, making transparency and good governance of the mining sector a critical goal to ensure these resources are used to develop the country, strengthen the economy, and lift its citizens out of poverty.

The United States applauds Guinea’s commitment to extractives transparency, including the government’s decision to publicly post current and future mining contracts. The United States looks forward to partnering with Guinea and working closely with civil society and industry to further expand transparency efforts and support good governance in the extractive industries sector.

Several key outcomes of this partnership include:

• Ensuring more Guinean diamonds enter the legal chain of custody and are certified as conflict-free by the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme. Guinea is an active Participant of the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme for rough diamonds, which aims to stem the flow of conflict diamonds and promote the legitimate trade in rough diamonds.
   
• Working collaboratively with Guinean Government and civil society to assess Guinea’s diamond production capacity in order to better understand the production capacity of this resource and minimize the risks of smuggling.
   
• Working with Guinean partners in government and civil society to achieve compliant status under the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) by 2014. Guinea is currently an EITI candidate country. EITI is a voluntary, global initiative in which extractives sector payments made by companies and received by governments are publicly disclosed and reconciled. The initiative is designed to increase transparency, strengthen the accountability of natural resource revenue management, and build public trust in the governance of this important sector.

Revenue Watch recently ranked Guinea 33 out of 58 extractives countries in its Resource Governance Index, recognizing the need to continue to improve Guinea's reporting practices, safeguards and quality controls, and enabling environment. This puts Guinea in an excellent position to take the next steps towards improved extractives sector governance overall.

Good governance and transparency in the extractives sector is a key priority for the G-8 this year, and this partnership represents a key outcome of the United Kingdom’s leadership on this issue. Robert D. Hormats, the Under Secretary of State for Economics, Energy, and the Environment will travel to London, England on June 15, 2013 to announce the Partnership with Guinean President Alpha Conde.

For more information please see link to partnership document in English and French: http://www.state.gov/e/enr/rls/ot/210631.htm

The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department.
External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.

Travel of Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism to Belgium and Germany

Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism Ira Forman traveled to Belgium and Germany from June 10-13, 2013. He delivered remarks at the Kazerne Dossin Memorial, Museum, and Documentation Center on Holocaust and Human Rights in Mechelen, Belgium as part of the Raoul Wallenberg Commemoration.

He also spoke in Berlin at a conference held by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) titled “Addressing the Security Needs of Jewish Communities in the OSCE Region: Challenges and Good Practices.”

For further information, please contact Aaron Jensen at JensenAW@state.gov or (202) 647-0516, or visit www.humanrights.gov.

The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department.
External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.

U.S. - Japan - Republic of Korea Trilateral Meeting in Washington, D.C.

Special Representative for North Korea Policy Glyn Davies will host a trilateral meeting with Japan and the Republic of Korea (ROK) in Washington, D.C. June 19 to exchange views on a wide range of issues related to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

The ROK delegation will be headed by ROK Special Representative for Korean Peninsula Peace and Security Affairs Cho Tae-yong. The Japanese delegation will be headed by Japan Ministry of Foreign Affairs Director General for Asian and Oceanian Affairs Shinsuke Sugiyama.

These discussions reflect the close cooperation among our three countries and our common interest in ensuring peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula.

The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department.
External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.

Assistant Secretary for Conflict and Stabilization Operations Travels to Nigeria

Assistant Secretary for Conflict and Stabilization Operations (CSO) Rick Barton will travel to Nigeria June 16-22, 2013.

Assistant Secretary Barton will travel to Abuja, Lagos, and Port Harcourt to meet with members of the Nigerian Government, civil society organizations, community leaders, business representatives, media, and international donors. The Assistant Secretary will discuss a range of issues, including the security and stability of the Niger Delta.

More information on Assistant Secretary Barton and the Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations is available on Twitter and Facebook. Further information on the State Department’s work on civilian security, democracy, and human rights, follow @civsecatstate or visit www.state.gov/j.

The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department.
External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.

Lost Music of the Holocaust: Music From Inside the Nazi Death Camps

Ira Forman, Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism, will host a multimedia event, “Lost Music of the Holocaust,” focusing on the music, composed and even performed clandestinely by musicians incarcerated in Nazi death camps on Tuesday, June 18 at 2 p.m. in the Dean Acheson Auditorium at the U.S. Department of State in Washington, D.C.

Bret Werb, Music Curator of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, will give the keynote address, which will be followed by a short documentary film.

Following the film, a panel of distinguished experts, who have located and preserved some of these lost works, will profile the gifted artists who continued to create under inhuman conditions, embodying the strength of the human spirit and our common humanity. The panel will also take questions from the audience.

The event will conclude with the first known performance of a set of piano variations on a Polish patriotic theme (composed in the Dachau concentration camp by Polish POW Leon Kaczmarek, 1903-1973). The pianist will be 17 year-old Nicholas Biniaz-Harris, winner of the National Symphony Orchestra’s 2013 Young Soloists’ Competition and the grandson of a Schindler’s List Holocaust survivor.

The remarks will be open to the press.

Pre-set time for cameras: 1 p.m. from the 23^rd Street entrance.

Final access time for press: 1:30 p.m.

Media representatives may attend this event upon presentation of one of the following: (1) A U.S. Government-issued identification card (Department of State, White House, Congress, Department of Defense or Foreign Press Center), (2) a media-issued photo identification card, or (3) a letter from their employer on letterhead verifying their employment as a journalist, accompanied by an official photo identification card (driver's license, passport).

For further information, please contact Aaron Jensen, Press Officer, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights & Labor at JensenAW@state.gov or (202) 647-0516.

The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department.
External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.

U.S. Department of State Promotes Economic Statecraft at the Paris Air Show

Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs Beth McCormick will travel to France on June 16-19, to hold consultations on defense trade issues and join other senior U.S. Government officials to promote more than 250 U.S. companies exhibiting the latest aerospace technologies at the Paris Air Show.

In Paris, Deputy Assistant Secretary McCormick will join officials from the U.S. Department of Commerce and the U.S. Department of Defense to advocate for overseas marketing efforts of U.S. companies bidding on defense contracts, engage with senior government officials to promote defense sales of particular importance to the United States, discuss how progress toward Export Control Reform is supporting our partners and allies, meet with representatives of participating U.S. companies, and consult with governments on broader strategic cooperation issues.

The U.S. Government helps promote U.S. businesses around the world in countless ways that don’t always get public attention. Under the Department’s Economic Statecraft initiative, we are ready to leverage our network of more than 200 embassies and consulates in support of U.S. industry. America’s economic renewal depends on the strength of the global economy – and the global economy depends on the strength of the American economy. Every day, our diplomats and commercial officers make work to promote U.S. companies wherever they operate – driving exports, creating jobs, and accelerating our economic renewal.

For further information on Deputy Assistant Secretary McCormick’s travel to the Paris Air Show, please contact David McKeeby in the Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, Office of Congressional and Public Affairs at PM-CPA@state.gov, and follow the Bureau of Political-Military Affairs on Twitter, @StateDeptPM.

The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department.
External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.

Joint Troika Statement on Heightened Tension Between the Governments of Sudan and South Sudan

Following is the text of a joint statement by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, Norwegian Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide, and United Kingdom Foreign Secretary William Hague.

Begin Text:

We are deeply concerned at the heightened tension between the Governments of Sudan and South Sudan. We call on both governments to comply fully with all of their September 27 agreements, including ceasing any support to rebel movements in each other’s territories and withdrawing their forces fully from the Safe Demilitarized Border Zone. The Government of Sudan's announcement that it intends to stop the flow of South Sudanese oil transported via Sudan’s pipeline is in contravention of these agreements. We urge the Government of Sudan to reconsider its position and call on both governments to continue constructive dialogue on implementation of these agreements, especially on oil and security.

The Troika reminds both sides of the commitment they made to a peaceful resolution of their disputes in signing the Addis Ababa agreements on 27 September 2012 and calls on them to cease their increasingly hostile rhetoric. Full implementation of all agreements, without conditionality, as well as progress on unresolved issues such as Abyei, presents the best path toward realizing these goals. We call on both governments to cease any interference in the internal affairs of the other state. In particular, we condemn any military support being provided to rebel movements in Sudan or South Sudan. Such support is clearly in breach of both the spirit and the letter of the Addis agreements and should end immediately.

We remind both governments that they committed under the Addis agreements to withdraw forces fully from the Safe Demilitarized Border Zone consistent with the African Union map which they have both accepted, and as called for by UN Security Council Resolution 2046. The UN Security Council has made a substantive commitment to support border security arrangements, by increasing the force levels of the UN Interim Security Force in Abyei for its participation in the Joint Border Verification and Monitoring Mechanism. We urge both governments to resolve their concerns through the Joint Political Security Mechanism, the Petroleum Monitoring Committee and the other established bilateral mechanisms.

Abandoning internationally-supported security mechanisms and unilaterally shutting down oil will have serious implications for the viability of both states. We call on the two governments to recover their spirit of cooperation exhibited in past months and to commit to overcoming their differences. President Mbeki and the AU High-Level Implementation Panel have now proposed to the Heads of State practical measures to help the parties honor the commitments that they have already made to each other. The Troika supports these next steps as the only viable way forward and repeats our rejection of unilateral actions in word or deed that would damage our collective goal of lasting peace.

The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department.
External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.

United States G8 Partnership with Myanmar on Extractives

United States G8 Partnership with Myanmar on Extractives

1. Overview

Myanmar is in the midst of a historic political and economic transformation. Myanmar’s significant gas and mineral reserves, if properly managed, can play a critical role in promoting economic growth, expanding access to electricity, and increasing development in the country. Myanmar ranks approximately 34^th in the world in proven gas reserves, but exploration – particularly offshore – is ongoing. Myanmar also has moderate proven oil reserves, with significant undiscovered potential. While current resource numbers are not exceptional by global standards, they will continue to have a significant impact on the country’s development. In the first half of 2013 the government launched competitive onshore and offshore licensing rounds - the first competitive round that may attract significant participation by international oil majors, and the first to open up Myanmar’s deepwater with its significant resource potential.

Myanmar also has a significant minerals sector. Myanmar produces 100% of the world’s rubies, and a significant portion of the world’s jadeite. Myanmar also produces a range of other minerals, including copper, iron ore, and gold.

Reliable figures about total revenues from the extractive industries are difficult to identify, but gas exports to Thailand alone are estimated to compromise some 40% of export earnings. Government revenues are expected to increase significantly as new gas fields come online during 2013.

President U Thein Sein announced in summer 2013 that Myanmar would implement the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI), and intends to submit its candidacy application by December 2013. Minister at the President Office U Soe Thane has been selected as the government’s EITI champion, and five ministries – Ministry of President Office, Ministry of Finance and Revenues, Ministry of Mine, Ministry of Energy and Ministry of Environmental Conservation and Forestry – have appointed individuals to participate in a government working group to support implementation.

Challenges in the extractives sector in Myanmar, including lack of transparency, relationship to conflict, and concerns associated with land acquisition, labor rights, and other human rights will take time, but must be addressed in order to sustain Myanmar’s political and economic transformation. Robust involvement of all stakeholders, including civil society groups, will be critical in this process.

2. Partnership Objectives

During the President U Thein Sein’s visit to Washington on May 20, 2013, U.S. Special Envoy and Coordinator for International Energy Affairs Carlos Pascual and Myanmar Minister for Energy U Than Htay issued a joint statement on good governance and transparency in the energy sector. This statement outlined some of the objectives of the Myanmar’s economic reform efforts and the G8 partnership, including:

• Continuing to reform the energy sector, including through participation in the G8’s Partnership for extractives transparency in conjunction with the United States;
• Managing natural resources and the revenues they generate, transparently and for the benefit of all citizens;
• Striving to ensure international best practices are used in safety and environmental stewardship in the energy sector
• Operating accountably in line with the expectations of all citizens
• Implementing EITI, including working closely with civil society and industry

To that end, the G8 partnership will seek to support Myanmar as it continues its economic reform efforts by providing political support and technical assistance in support of the Government of the Republic of the Union of Myanmar’s implementation of international best practices in oil, gas, and mining sector management and oversight, financial accountability, and safety and environmental stewardship. This engagement will support successful efforts to improve long-term sector management, updates to the legal, regulatory, fiscal, and operating environment to attract qualified and responsible investors, and strong institutional governance and transparency with respect to extractives sector revenue management.

The G8 partnership will also reinforce international support for Myanmar’s implementation of EITI. Recognizing the importance of promoting such transparency in all countries, the U.S. is also working, as is Myanmar, to implement EITI[1]. Specific partnership objectives related to the EITI include to:

• Share Myanmar and U.S. experiences to date in working to implement the EITI;
• Support diplomatically Myanmar’s implementation of EITI, including the new EITI standard, in order to achieve EITI candidacy status in a timely manner;
• Continue Myanmar’s political support to implementation of EITI, including support to relevant government ministries, civil society groups, and other stakeholders; and
• Identify how EITI can continue to contribute to public discussions on responsible management of the extractive sectors in Myanmar.

The partnership will also assist in coordination of activities among donors and partner organizations providing assistance in this area, in order to maximize resources and engagement with the government.

The full text of the joint statement is located here: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2013/05/209702.htm.

3. Achieving objectives

The United States will support the G8 partnership through the Energy Governance and Capacity Initiative (EGCI). The EGCI is a U.S. Department of State-led program that utilizes U.S. government and nongovernmental expertise to help build the capacity of governments with emerging or expanding oil and gas sectors to manage the sector responsibly and for the benefit of their populations. Through EGCI, the United States has proposed to assist the government of Myanmar, as needed, to update the regulatory, fiscal, and operating environmental to attract qualified and responsible international operators, to undertake capacity building in technical areas, including safety standards, environmental management, community engagement, and land use planning to ensure successful long-term management, and to support the building of strong financial institutional governance and transparency related to energy sector management. EGCI assistance will be focused on the Ministry of Energy and the Myanma Oil and Gas Enterprise. The EGCI also plans to support the Ministry of Energy’s efforts to implement the EITI. The Government of Myanmar has agreed to cooperate with the United States in this effort, and initial program work has begun, with a visit to the United States in November and a short workshop held in Nay Pyi Taw in March. Future engagements are being developed.

These efforts will be closely coordinated with related bilateral and multilateral efforts in this sector, including UK support for administration and logistics for EITI implementation; EU funding for a review of EITI implementation experiences in the region and presentation of options for Myanmar implementation; World Bank technical assistance to support EITI implementation and advice on amending mining legislation to meet international best practice; and potential engagement by Australia and Norway in the mining and oil and gas sectors, respectively. This work will also complement efforts under way to build civil society capacity to participate in EITI and related extractives activities, by the Revenue Watch Institute.

4. Government and Partner consultation

The State Department held preliminary consultations with the Ministry of Energy and Ministry of Foreign Affairs in May and released the joint statement on May 20. The U.S. Embassy in Yangon will discuss and finalize the partnership document with government officials during the week of June 3. A draft of the partnership document has been circulated to donor governments, World Bank, and some civil society groups for comment. Initial outreach has taken place to one major industry player in Myanmar. Civil society: A draft of this Partnership document has been circulated to civil society members of the extractives sector working group based in Rangoon for their feedback.

5. Deliverables on June 15^th 2013

Possible deliverables by June may include:

• Announcing the Partnership and action plan

----------

[1] The 39 current EITI candidate and compliant member countries are: Afghanistan, Albania, Azerbaijan, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Central African Republic* (*suspended), Chad, Cote d'Ivoire, Democratic Republic of Congo*, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, Honduras, Indonesia, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Liberia, Madagascar*, Mali, Mauritania*, Mongolia, Mozambique, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Peru, Republic of the Congo, Sao Tome and Principe, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Tajikistan, Tanzania, the Philippines, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Yemen*, and Zambia. Nearly a dozen other countries including the United States, France, Myanmar, Senegal, Ukraine and the United Kingdom have committed to join.

The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department.
External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.

United States G8 Partnership with Guinea on Extractives

Extractives Partnership between Guinea and the United States

French Translation PDF

1. Overview

Guinea, which has a population of 10 million in an area the size of the UK, has vast mineral resources, many of which remain undiscovered or undeveloped. It is the world’s largest producer of bauxite, and is set to become the third largest source of iron ore. Guinea also produces a range of other minerals, from gold to cement. Undeveloped mineral resources include: graphite, limestone, manganese, nickel, and uranium. Guinea’s mining sector alone generates more than 80 percent of all export earnings, and 26 percent of GDP, making transparency and good governance of the mining and extractive industries sector a critical goal to ensure these resources are used to sustainably develop the country, strengthen the economy, and lift its citizens out of poverty.

Guinea’s oil and gas sector is under exploration, with indications that there is offshore potential. Exploration is ongoing by a handful of small companies, but no discoveries have yet been made.

Guinea is an Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) candidate country, and has until April 2014 to achieve EITI Compliance or faces suspension of its candidacy. In early 2013 the government took the notable step of publishing all of its mining contracts, a move encouraged but not required by the new EITI rules. Guinea’s mining contracts can be found at: http://www.contratsminiersguinee.org/about/projets.html.

Guinea is also an important source of alluvial, artisanal diamonds, producing over 300,000 carats in 2011, for a total value of approximately USD$30 million; industrial production of diamonds is in the development phase with the potential to add significantly to this total. Guinea hosts several known kimberlites, and exploration is ongoing for additional primary kimberlitic source rocks for diamonds. The Guinean government has been a Participant in the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme (KPCS) [1] for rough diamonds since 2003. The KPCS was established to ensure that the trade in rough diamonds does not finance rebel movements seeking to undermine legitimate governments.

Between 2006 and 2012, rough diamond production in Guinea twice exceeded the total estimated carat production capacity. The unusually high production figures reported in 2007 and 2008 specifically led to the passage of an Administrative Decision on Guinea by the KPCS, requesting an assessment of Guinea’s deposits to determine a realistic production range, and requiring Guinea to strengthen internal controls on their diamond exports. Since the implementation of this decision in 2009, production figures have significantly improved in accuracy and Guinea has improved its overall controls.

Nevertheless, data gaps, uneven enforcement, limited technical capacity and regulatory deficiencies in the artisanal mining sector persist, and Guinea continues to serve as a reported transit point for conflict diamonds from neighboring countries to international markets. These challenges not only deprive Guinea of needed revenues for development, but threaten the credibility of Guinea’s enforcement of the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme.

2. Partnership Objectives

Specific partnership objectives related to the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme, and in particular the Washington Declaration (which was approved at the 2012 Plenary meeting and seeks to improve the formalization and economic development of the artisanal mining sector), include:

• Ensure more Guinean rough diamonds enter the legal chain of custody by strengthening the property rights/land tenure of artisanal miners and improving the miners’ skills and range of complementary livelihoods of artisanal diamond miners;
• Raise awareness and skills through training and public education about the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme at national and local levels;
• Increase information transparency with respect to Guinea’s alluvial diamond resources; and
• Strengthen the capacity of government officials, mining associations, and civil society to work collaboratively to assess Guinea’s diamond production capacity and minimize the risks of trade in illegal diamonds.

Transparency reduces the risk of corruption, and helps citizens to hold their governments accountable for spending natural resource revenues. Recognizing the importance of promoting such transparency in all countries, the U.S. is seeking to join Guinea and the 38 other member countries in implementing EITI[2]. Specific partnership objectives related to the EITI include to:

• Share Guinea and U.S. experiences to date in working to implement the EITI;
• Support diplomatically Guinea’s implementation of EITI, including the new EITI standard, in order to achieve EITI compliance by Guinea’s April 2014 deadline;
• Continue Guinea’s political support to implementation of EITI, including support to relevant government ministries, civil society groups, and other stakeholders; and
• Identify how EITI can continue to contribute to public discussions on responsible management of the extractive sectors in Guinea.

3. Achieving objectives

The U.S. proposes partnering with the Guinean Ministry of Mines and Geology (MMG) to conduct a study to determine how USAID’s Property Rights and Artisanal Diamond Development (PRADD) project could be restarted, building off its prior investments during the 2008-2009 timeframe. The study will focus on the applicability of the PRADD model in Guinea, including strengthening property rights of artisanal miners in order to ensure more diamonds enter the legal chain of custody, and facilitating training and public education and KPCS compliance at national and local levels.

The U.S. will also build on previous collaboration between the Unites States Geological Survey (USGS), the Ministry of Mines and Geology (MMG) and Guinean civil society to assess the potential and production capacity of Guinea’s alluvial diamond deposits and continue to monitor the artisanal mining sector. Developing local capacity to measure and analyze Guinea’s rough diamond production capacity is critical for ensuring increased transparency and enforcement of the KPCS. The objective of the partnership is to enable the Guinean government and civil society to work collaboratively to minimize the risks of trade in illegal diamonds and Guinea is complying with the requirements stipulated by the KP, and increase information transparency with respect to Guinea’s alluvial diamond resources.

The U.S. will also work directly with the Guinean government and the Gemological Institute of America to conduct a rough diamond evaluation training for government officials as part of strengthening the KPCS system.

Regarding EITI, the U.S. will coordinate with donor and partner organizations providing technical assistance in the areas of extractives transparency, (including the World Bank Multi-Donor Trust Fund to which the U.S. contributes, AfDB, GIZ, and Revenue Watch Institute) in order to maximize resources and engagement with the Government of Guinea.

4. Government and Partner consultation

The U.S. Embassy in Conakry held preliminary consultations with the Guinean Minister of Mines and geology to discuss the proposed partnership. U.S. officials from the National Security Staff and the State Department will meet with representatives from the Guinean government in Washington D.C. (May 31) to preview the partnership. Additional consultations will also occur at the Kimberley Process Intersessional meeting in South Africa (June 4-7).

5. Deliverables on June 15^th 2013

• Announcing the Partnership and action plan.

----------

[1] The KPCS includes 80 Participants, accounting for approximately 99.8% of the global production of rough diamonds. Participants include, but not limited to Brazil, China , Russia, the EU, the U.S., Japan, Indonesia and others. African participants include: Angola, Botswana, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Congo (Brazzaville), DR Congo, Cote D’Ivoire, Ghana, Guinea, Lesotho, Liberia, Mauritius, Namibia, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania Togo and Zimbabwe.

[2] The 39 EITI candidate and compliant member countries are: Afghanistan, Albania, Azerbaijan, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Central African Republic* (*suspended), Chad, Cote d'Ivoire, Democratic Republic of Congo*, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, Honduras, Indonesia, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Liberia, Madagascar*, Mali, Mauritania*, Mongolia, Mozambique, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Peru, Republic of the Congo, Sao Tome and Principe, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Tajikistan, Tanzania, the Philippines, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Yemen*, and Zambia. Nearly a dozen other countries including the United States, France, Myanmar, Senegal, Ukraine and the United Kingdom have committed to join.

The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department.
External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.

United States G8 Partnership with Burkina Faso on Land Governance

Land Governance Partnership between the United States Government and the Government of Burkina Faso

The United States will partner with Burkina Faso under the G-8 Transparency Initiative to further improve land governance. The United States’ Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) Compact with Burkina Faso includes a Rural Land Governance Project that is already implementing many elements of the New Alliance Country Cooperation Framework and the Voluntary Guidelines for the Responsible Governance of the Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests in the Context of National Food Security. The partnership will build on this progress and promote gender equity and improvement of transparency in land transactions taking note of the African Union Declaration on Land Issues and Challenges, and the Nairobi Action Plan on Large Scale Land-Based Investments. The partnership will support the formation of a land observatory to encourage shared learning, program coordination, and identification of needs for further improvements in policy, regulations and practical tools.

1. Overview

The majority of the population of Burkina Faso lives in rural areas and is dependent upon access to land for food and income-generating activities. In response to intensifying competition for land and natural resources and a lack of access to land administration services in rural areas, the Government of Burkina Faso undertook a multi-year stakeholder consultation process in order to develop a new land policy framework. Under this framework, a new Rural Land Tenure Law, developed with support from the United States Government through the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) Compact’s Rural Land Governance Project ($59 million), was adopted in 2009. This law recognizes customary tenure practices, allows formal registration of a range of land rights, and decentralizes authority over land administration. Significant progress is being made to implement the Rural Land Tenure Law; yet much remains to be done. To this end, Burkina Faso’s New Alliance Country Cooperation Framework (NACCF) includes a policy commitment to Facilitating Access to Land and its Secure Productive Use (Objective 4), and outlines activities that build on objectives of the Rural Land Governance Project.

The MCC Compact has supported: a) establishing and operationalizing rural land administration agents in 47 of the country’s 302 rural communes (municipalities), to resolve land disputes and record land rights within these communes; b) advancing the legal and regulatory framework through adoption of two major laws – the 2009 Rural Land Tenure Law, and the 2012 revision to the Agriculture and Land Reform Law; c) the delivery of land holding certificates to households in the 47 communes; d) improving procedures for land allocation in irrigated zones; and e) supporting key land ministries to identify institutional reform and capacity development needs. These activities have benefitted from broad stakeholder engagement and advanced land tenure reform. They have also led other donors such as the World Bank (WB), European Union (EU), and the Agence Française de Développement (AFD) to consider programs to improve land governance in other communes throughout the country.

2. Objectives

As part of the 2013 G-8 Transparency Initiative, the United States will partner with Burkina Faso, in coordination with G-8, and multilateral and regional organizations to strengthen efforts to improve land governance and to increase transparency in land transactions, consistent with the Voluntary Guidelines for the Responsible Governance of the Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests in the Context of National Food Security (VG), the Framework and Guidelines on Land Policy in Africa, and the NACCF.

The partners will work together to:

• reduce land conflicts in rural areas, increase the recognition of household rights to land, and enable local land use planning for the equitable allocation and use of natural resources through the MCC Compact; and
• encourage shared learning, enhanced program coordination, and identification of gaps in policy, regulations and practical tools, with a particular emphasis on gender and transparency in land transactions.
• The proposed timeframe for the partnership is six years. This includes one year supported principally through the last year of the MCC Compact and an expectation of five additional years, subject to the availability of sufficient resources, which may be secured through collaboration with stakeholders.

The MCC Compact establishes monitoring indicators for land governance and transparency that can be used to measure progress through its last year and beyond. With a goal of contributing to learning, MCC is also supporting independent evaluations that will become available after the Compact ends. Under the land partnership, approaches to benchmarking and tracking progress toward the implementation of Burkina Faso’s land policy, consistent with the NACCF, the VGs and the Framework and Guidelines on Land Policy in Africa, may be defined.

Achieving objectives

The partnership will focus on two activities:

A. Establishing and operating a national land observatory: This will be an institution to monitor and support the land reform process through research and facilitating policy assessment and dialogue to identify further legal, regulatory, procedural and operational adjustments. It will also provide a venue for sharing the results, tools developed and lessons learned from the MCC-supported project and others. The national land observatory will encourage sustainability and improved performance of the new rural land institutions and promote adherence to principles outlined in the VGs. The first stage, establishment of the national land observatory by the end date of the MCC Compact in July 2014, will be coordinated by Millennium Challenge Account – Burkina Faso (MCA Burkina Faso), the Burkinabé government entity responsible for implementing the Compact. The establishment of the observatory will be followed by its implementation according to a work plan and available resources. As part of its ongoing activities, the land observatory will promote gender equity and will sensitize citizens and land administration personnel to ensuring the inclusion of both men and women in land tenure reform.

B. Building capacity for tracking and transparency of land transactions: Through the partnership, the Government of Burkina Faso will be encouraged to identify and pilot a cost-effective approach to recording, organizing, and storing documents and information related to land rights and transactions in order to improve the security existing land rights, increase transparency, and improve the efficiency of land administration.

The MCC Rural Land Governance Project includes funding to support, in the first year of the partnership, the establishment of an observatory and to increase attention to gender equity that can be used to launch the partnership. Some indicators used by the MCC to monitor progress on the Rural Land Governance Project could also be used more broadly to monitor targets outlined in the NACCF and developed for this partnership, including: 1) Resolution of land rights conflicts; 2) Number of land holding certificates issued; 3) Extent of confidence in land tenure security; 4) Number of stakeholders trained; and 5) Number of legal and regulatory reforms accomplished.

Government and Partner Consultation

The concept for this partnership has been discussed at the technical and policy levels within the U.S. Government and the Government of Burkina Faso. In addition, the United States has consulted preliminarily with the World Bank, the United Nations International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), the African Union Commission, and the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (Land Policy Initiative) about this partnership and the potential for collaboration. Use of the Land Governance Assessment Framework (a tool developed by the World Bank) has been discussed with the Bank as a possible collaborative effort that could become an early observatory activity. IFAD has indicated its support for the creation of a land observatory and the Union Economique et Monétaire Ouest Africain (UEMOA) also indicated support prior to development of the partnership in conversations with MCA Burkina Faso in the field. Consultations will continue and will expand to others local, regional and global stakeholders that may be willing to collaborate and provide technical and financial resources to further refine and achieve the partnership objectives.

The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department.
External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.

• NEPAL
  • Election Preparations
• SYRIA
  • President Clinton's Remarks
  • Situation on the Ground / Revised UN Estimate of Casualties
  • Hezbollah and Iran's Fighters
  • U.S. Assistance to Opposition
  • Geneva Conference / Political Transition
• DEPARTMENT
  • Dialogue with Partners on Issues Including Counter-Terrorism, Cyber-Security and Privacy
• PAKISTAN
  • Bilateral Relationship
  • Detained Embassy Officials in Karachi
• ISRAEL/PALESTINIANS
  • Settlement Construction
  • Negotiations
• DEPARTMENT
  • Inspector General Memo
  • Diplomatic Security Hiring Process
• GREECE
  • Reforms
• BANGLADESH
  • Working Conditions
• IRAN
  • Elections
• DEPARTMENT
  • Hearing on International Religious Freedom Act
• EGYPT
  • Support for Democratic Future
• TURKEY
  • Efforts to Resolve Situation / Call for Restraint / Respect for Freedom of the Press

The video is also available with closed captioning on YouTube.

1:20 p.m. EDT

MS. PSAKI: Everyone, happy Thursday. I have one item at the top.

We welcome the announcement by the Interim Election Council of Ministers in Nepal that Constituent Assembly elections will take place on November 19^th. Since the dissolution of the previous Constituent Assembly – Constituent Assembly, sorry about that – more than a year ago, we have encouraged the Government of Nepal to take this important step. We congratulate the people of Nepal as they prepare for free, fair, and inclusive elections, which are the hallmark of every democracy. The United States remains committed to supporting Nepal’s election preparations, including through voter registration and education and the organization of observer missions.

With that, ladies in the front, what is on your minds?

QUESTION: Syria.

MS. PSAKI: I would expect so. (Laughter.) How can I help you?

QUESTION: I wondered if you’d seen the comments today from – no, yesterday, I believe they were made, from former President Clinton, who is saying that staying out of Syria, I think, is a big mistake, and is – seems to be splitting with the President, with President Obama, whose ear he has. Could you comment on those, please?

MS. PSAKI: Sure. Well, first let me say for some who have or haven’t seen reports on this, these were remarks during, I believe, a closed-press meeting. And so I haven’t seen the full context of them and I suspect most of us have not seen the full context of them. But let me say that, as President Clinton knows, these decisions are very difficult, and they require careful weighing of the facts. The President’s focus, as we’ve talked about quite a bit in here over the last couple of days, is on making the best decision that will help bring an end to the suffering of the Syrian people while balancing with our own national security interests and those of the region.

We do share the view that the regime has been aided by the influx of foreign fighters, by Hezbollah. That has helped the regime on the ground. And conditions on the ground have worsened. And the dire situation on the ground is exactly why the President and his national security team have redoubled our efforts to explore what more we can do to help the opposition.

QUESTION: That was a really amazing recitation of what your colleague at the White House just said, almost word for word. I congratulate – kudos for getting – having the --

MS. PSAKI: We’re very in tune, Jay and I. We are.

QUESTION: -- having the message. Can I take a slightly different tack on this?

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: You’ve seen – I’m pretty sure you’ve seen the new UN figures on the number of dead, 93,000 confirmed, probably many more. So given that, are you or is the Administration still comfortable with this policy on – policy of kind of what people might uncharitably say is strategic dithering on the idea of arming the rebels? Or have you actually – the decision, I suppose, is the – has the decision up until this point been – has a decision been made about arming the rebels? The answer is yes, I think, and the answer – and the decision is no. Is that correct?

MS. PSAKI: I have no update on a decision and no announcement. Let me say --

QUESTION: So there hasn’t been a decision either way?

MS. PSAKI: I have no announcement to make for --

QUESTION: Fair enough, but --

MS. PSAKI: -- on that today.

QUESTION: Well, then, to this point at whatever time it is, 1:20 on Thursday afternoon, the decision has been no. Is that correct?

MS. PSAKI: Well, we have not announced that we are providing lethal assistance. That’s correct.

QUESTION: No, I know. But it is fair to say that the Administration up to this point where we’re talking to right now has decided no on the answer – on the question of arming the rebels?

MS. PSAKI: Well, as you know, discussions are ongoing, but there is not a decision I’m aware of and no announcement to make.

QUESTION: Okay. And so then my question is that if no decision has been made, are you comfortable with the fact that you’ve been weighing this for two – almost two years now and you haven’t come to a – and you haven’t made a decision?

MS. PSAKI: Well, Matt, we’ve made a decision about a number of increases in aid to the opposition. Let me first say, just so I don’t forget to say it, that we are, of course, saddened to see the UN’s revised estimate of the number killed in Syria, but we’re not shocked. Assad has used indiscriminate and disproportionate force against Syrian civilians, and inflicted unthinkable suffering upon his own people, which is why the United States has been at the forefront of the international community’s efforts to address this situation.

We have, as you know – and I talked about this about a week ago, but this does broadly answer your question. The President led the international call for Assad to step aside and allow a peaceful, democratic process to proceed. We’ve ratcheted up financial pressure on the regime and the worst human rights abuses through multiple rounds of sanctions, encouraging our international partners to do exactly the same. We have supported the cooperation and the expansion of the Syrian opposition, not an easy process, of course, after 40 years of stifled political debate. And we are contributing efforts – to their efforts to provide an alternative to the regime in liberated areas with 250 million in transition assistance.

So we have – I stated that, even though that was a long answer, to remind everyone of the decisions and the choices that we have made.

QUESTION: Right.

MS. PSAKI: I did say at the top that we have redoubled our efforts and are focused on considering all options, barring boots on the ground. And the President and his national security team are focused on discussing just that.

QUESTION: But you’ve done all of that, that long recitation of stuff that you have done. Does it give you pause that all of that stuff that you have done doesn’t seem to have made a single bit of difference on the ground? Because you tend – almost 100,000 people are confirmed dead, and the situation is getting worse, not better. So does that give anybody pause?

MS. PSAKI: Of course.

QUESTION: Okay. All right.

MS. PSAKI: We wake up every morning and the Secretary is focused on what more we can do to help the opposition. But let’s not forget that these numbers have not been increasing tragically in a vacuum. This is a case where, as we’ve talked about quite a bit in here over the last couple of weeks, Hezbollah, Iran have stepped up their assistance. This has been in part why we are refocusing on our efforts to help the opposition on the ground.

QUESTION: Can you just explain in more detail, because you’ve used the word “redoubled” today. Yesterday it was “refocused,” and you just said again you’ve refocused your efforts.

MS. PSAKI: I think they’re synonyms, wouldn’t you say?

QUESTION: Probably, although redoubling suggests slightly stronger efforts.

MS. PSAKI: Okay.

QUESTION: But anyway, I just wanted to ask, in what way have you redoubled your efforts? Could you give us a concrete example of how you’ve redoubled your efforts in the last few days?

MS. PSAKI: Well, again, as you know, there are – the President, and I believe my colleague Jay Carney spoke to this, is – continues to focus on, looking at all of the options that his national security team has presented to him. They have been discussing that, but beyond that, I don’t have an announcement for all of you.

QUESTION: So you are saying the efforts have been more intensive over the last couple of days than they were previously? Because you were already focused on this, it’s just you’ve made the decision --

MS. PSAKI: Of course. Every day we’ve been focused on it. There’s not an announcement or a decision to tell you about or to make or to announce here, but again, they’ve been discussing these options. Redoubling and refocus implies that we have been looking closely at everything that’s happening on the ground, all of the tragedies and massacres that have been happening. We have had conversations, of course, with General Idris and others who have given us even more of an update of what’s happening on the ground, so --

QUESTION: So, there was a report that’s out in The New York Times this morning about – who seemed to have got hold of some kind of U.S. intelligence documents in which they say that there are – last month in May alone, there were 500 air-to-ground attacks against rebels and civilians by the Syrian regime forces, 500 in May. I mean, I guess on an average that works out at 10, 12 a day.

Does that shock you? Does that – how does that play into your picture of what your redoubling – what the redoubling of your efforts consists of?

MS. PSAKI: Well, there are a number of factors that play into it. Certainly, conditions that are worsening on the ground – I don’t have any confirmation of those numbers independently, but we’ve seen, obviously, what has happened in Qusayr and various massacres and tragedies that have happened around the country, the influx of Hezbollah and foreign fighters and the impact that has had on boosting the regime. And we said at the time, even if we go back to chemical weapons, when we made our intel assessment, that of course has had an impact on our increased nonlethal aid and continuing to discuss and consider options.

So there are a number of factors that play into it, including discussions we have with the oppositions and with our – with the opposition and with our allies and partners around the world as well.

QUESTION: But there have been a number of suggestions that a no-fly zone, as Matt raised yesterday, which was imposed in Libya, could help the rebels on the ground as they seek shelter and as they’re trying to hit the balance back their way. Is there still discussions going on of any kind of a no-fly zone by --

MS. PSAKI: Well, all options remain on the table, barring boots on the ground, and we continue to take a hard look at every available practical and responsible means to ending the suffering of the Syrian people.

QUESTION: Jennifer, just at the --

QUESTION: This – can I just --

MS. PSAKI: Let’s let Leslie go and then we can go right to you.

QUESTION: Thank you. Is the Secretary involved in those meetings today and tomorrow on Syria?

MS. PSAKI: I’m not going to confirm or give any specifics on any meetings that are happening. Routine meetings, as you know, we’ve talked about quite a bit this week. If there’s a meeting of the national security team, certainly the Secretary would be a part of that.

QUESTION: And --

QUESTION: And you’re redoubling efforts with routine meetings? How do you explain that one?

MS. PSAKI: Well, Brad, we’ve had discussions about what needs to happen and how we can help the opposition for some time.

QUESTION: Right.

MS. PSAKI: Those happen during meetings, those happen in a variety of ways, so – but I can assure you they’re being discussed.

QUESTION: Redoubling efforts is like when you give one dollar in aid and then you decide to give two dollars, you’ve doubled something.

MS. PSAKI: Well, that’s doubling.

QUESTION: Right, and then you would give four. That would be redoubling, right? You’re having routine meetings, then you’re having more routine meetings.

MS. PSAKI: I don’t know that math is any of our strength, so – (laughter) --

QUESTION: I’m pretty good. Well, 16 --

QUESTION: But I think the point he’s getting at, though, is that you – I think he’s getting at – is that you often say in talking about other governments, that action – that you’re looking for actions, not words.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: And thus far, at least on the question of arming the rebels or making some significant difference, impact, on the situation on the ground, the balance of power as it stands, this Administration has been all talk and discussion and routine meetings, and not redoubling so far. How do you respond to that criticism?

MS. PSAKI: That – what I already went through in terms of what we’ve already done and the fact that we’re --

QUESTION: Yes, but as of --

MS. PSAKI: -- continuing to consider, Matt, all options, barring boots on the ground.

QUESTION: But continuing to consider can be seen by some as not doing anything, not taking action. In fact, it, by its very definition, “continuing to consider” is not taking action, it is considering. So you routinely fault other governments for not acting, for just saying – doing – just speaking, just issuing words. And I’m not – and I don’t see how you can consider yourself – not you personally, but the Administration can consider itself immune from such criticism in this case.

MS. PSAKI: Well, Matt, if there was an easy choice to make here and if this wasn’t a difficult crisis happening in Syria with challenging decisions to make, I’m sure we would have already made them. But that’s the process we’re in right now.

QUESTION: Jennifer, right here?

MS. PSAKI: Let me just – Margaret, do you have one on Syria?

QUESTION: I do.

MS. PSAKI: Okay.

QUESTION: On the 123 million that Secretary Kerry pledged to the opposition back at the end of April, has that yet been notified? I know you said that was in the works, but has Congress been told yet?

MS. PSAKI: I’m not aware of an official notification. That was the next step. You’re correct. I’m happy to check if there’s any update on that.

QUESTION: But very quickly, on the point that you mentioned just a little while ago, the meetings that have just ended and the recommendations that were submitted, are you expecting that the President will actually say something before he meets with President Putin on Monday?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any update for you on announcements or any timing of hypothetical announcements.

QUESTION: Okay. The other thing is that intelligence reports – in fact, U.S. intelligence reports suggest that the rebels are awash with weapons, weapons that have come from Libya. Some even suggest that they include MANPADS, which are surface-to-air missiles that conceivably could threaten commercial airlines and so on. Are you aware of that?

MS. PSAKI: I have not seen those reports you’re referring to. I would point you to many public comments that have been made by General Idris and other members of the opposition, so I’m not sure what you’re referring to.

QUESTION: Okay. Another thing is what Secretary of State Kerry said yesterday about the Geneva and how they interpret Geneva. He suggested that a major point in Geneva 1 last June 30^th was a transitional government with full authority. That was the suggestion. But the Russians contradict that, and they say that Assad having to leave is not part of that. Is there, like, a contention on this point that has not been resolved?

MS. PSAKI: I would refer you to the UN. They’ve spoken about this and spoken about what was agreed to during the discussions, and they’ll have some more next week.

QUESTION: Why the UN? I mean, we’re talking about your position versus the Russians.

MS. PSAKI: They --

QUESTION: That wasn’t a UN agreement.

MS. PSAKI: The UN was part of – I’m referring to --

QUESTION: Right.

MS. PSAKI: I think he’s asking about what we said last week about what the UN and Russia and the U.S. had agreed to as part of the meetings that – or this is how I’m understanding your question.

QUESTION: Okay. Let me reframe the question.

MS. PSAKI: Okay.

QUESTION: Are you closer today than you were a week ago to the Russian position regarding holding Geneva?

MS. PSAKI: To which Russian position?

QUESTION: The Russian position that it does not include the clear call for Assad to step aside?

MS. PSAKI: No, we’re – our position has remained the same on that issue. We’ll continue to discuss --

QUESTION: So with this kind of difference, do you expect that the conference could actually take place?

MS. PSAKI: We do. We’re still planning it, but again, as I’ve said a couple times this week, our work with the opposition and on the crisis in Syria can’t happen in a political vacuum, which is why we’re also focused on what we can do more to help the opposition on the ground.

QUESTION: And lastly – I promise lastly --

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: On the issue of foreign fighters, now, there are – we know that there are foreign fighters from Hezbollah fighting on the side of the regular forces, but there are also thousands upon thousands of other fighters that are involved here that come into Syria with the aid of regional governments. Are you also calling on them to withdraw?

MS. PSAKI: We are, and you’ve asked me that question before.

QUESTION: Right, but since you mentioned certain foreign fighters and did not mention the other, I thought that I’d bring it up.

MS. PSAKI: Well, I’m talking – I was referring to in the context of how the situation and the conditions have been boosted for the Assad regime on the ground.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: The Russian diplomat in Washington yesterday said that if the U.S. and Europe, Britain or France, will arm the rebels, they will step up their delivery of arms to the Syrian Government. Is this something of concern to you?

MS. PSAKI: Well, we’re always concerned and have been concerned about reports and public statements by the Russians about their plans to support, whether it’s through financial or through military aid, the regime. But again, we’re getting several stages down the road here into a hypothetical question. So --

QUESTION: No, but don’t you consider that the Russian and probably the Iranian are already helping the government?

MS. PSAKI: We, of course, are well aware of that and well aware of the aid that is being given to the regime by Iran and other supporters of their efforts.

QUESTION: Change of subject?

MS. PSAKI: Do we have any more on Syria? Okay.

QUESTION: I have a question. Do you know of any meeting – we’re reporting out of Beirut and Paris that there is a meeting with Idris tomorrow. Your – sorry, French, British and U.S. officials are meeting him tomorrow in Turkey. Do you have any confirmation?

MS. PSAKI: I’m not aware of the U.S. participation, though I’m happy to check on it and see what the status is of that.

QUESTION: There’s been no change in the meeting scheduled for the 25^th of June between Sherman and --

MS. PSAKI: No, no change.

QUESTION: Okay. So that is still set? Thank you.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Is there a goal for those talks, the ones that start on the 25^th?

MS. PSAKI: To continue the discussion, Brad.

QUESTION: Keeping you talking, yes. (Laughter.)

MS. PSAKI: Continue the discussion.

QUESTION: Yes, you’re really good at that.

QUESTION: They’re redoubling.

MS. PSAKI: To work through the agenda and work through participation and plan for how we can create the conditions to make the conference productive.

QUESTION: But do they have to have some sort of agreement on participants and agenda in order for this to happen in mid-July?

MS. PSAKI: Well, certainly that is a key part of what needs to happen before a conference would happen, as well as the opposition electing leadership and making sure on all sides this is the right time and the right conditions to move forward with the conference.

QUESTION: So if they meet and simply say, “We agree to meet again in two weeks in Geneva,” and book out a lot of hotel rooms and fly across the world again, that won’t be a success per se?

MS. PSAKI: We believe a success is continuing to work towards planning a conference to – that will have the conditions that can bring both sides to the table and move towards a political transition. At the same time --

QUESTION: Having the conference is the success, not continuing to talk about --

MS. PSAKI: No, a conference that will move both sides to a political transition. That’s why we're working with all sides in order to make sure the conditions are right for just that.

QUESTION: Jen, as they really look at different options right now, would you say that there is an agreement among officials, including Secretary Kerry, that the U.S. needs to intervene now, given the dire situation on the ground? I mean, I’ve been speaking to humanitarian groups who say – who are calling for urgency here. They can’t get their aid in. They can’t help. The humanitarian situation is worsening.

MS. PSAKI: Well, there are several different tracks of this, and I know I’ve talked a bit about this. But as you know, we have been working. We are the largest – if not one of the largest, I believe the largest provider of humanitarian aid to Syria and to the – to all people of Syria. I just mentioned our nonlethal assistance and what we’ve provided there. In terms of additional options and whether one will be undertaken, or what is being considered, I just don’t have anything for you on that.

QUESTION: Do you think that nonlethal aid has been effective?

MS. PSAKI: Well, look, nonlethal aid has served a variety of purposes. It’s been worked through the coordinating body under the SOC. We have provided assistance for everything from infrastructure to access to water, and this is something that is important. You mentioned the humanitarian issues on the ground. That is a great concern of ours and the impact this crisis has had on the people of Syria.

But we’ve continued to do more, and that has been an upward trajectory over the past couple of months. And if you watched the pattern, in Rome we decided to give directly to specific entities. In Istanbul, we decided the next group would be – the next tranche of money would go in part to the SMC. So you’ve seen adjustments we’ve made as we make – as we make evaluations about what’s needed on the ground.

QUESTION: So that lack of notification to Congress on that aid that was promised at the end of April, has that – will that stall the delivery of the next round of nonlethal aid to the rebels? It’s been more than four weeks now.

MS. PSAKI: Well, 127 has been – is in train.

QUESTION: Right.

MS. PSAKI: I know you’re aware of that. A hundred and twenty-three is the next stage. There’s a natural process that is undertaken because we are very focused on, of course, getting this aid on the ground, but we also respect the process that we have here to moving it forward. So should it – an unwarranted delay? No. But it is something the Secretary is very focused on, and he will press to make it happen as quickly as possible.

QUESTION: Can you explain what he needs to nail down before giving that notification, why --

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have anything specific. That’s the next stage of the process.

QUESTION: Also, do you know if – whether the U.S., and how much the U.S. is going to contribute towards the $4 billion that the UN has made an appeal for?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any update on that.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: New subject?

QUESTION: Wait, I just wanted to --

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: -- check one thing before we go on. That is, there’s still no determination on chemical weapons?

MS. PSAKI: No update on that.

QUESTION: One more Syria?

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: I would like to ask a general question. The U.S. was involved in Libya with putting the no-fly zone in Libya, but this time you haven’t done yet. So does the experience in Libya have some impact on the U.S. policy in Syria?

MS. PSAKI: Well, Matt asked a similar question yesterday, and while the atrocities committed against civilians are abhorrent in both cases, Syria and Libya are different countries, as you know. They have different populations, different geography, and different challenges. So there was also widespread support at the time, international support and clear UN Security Council authorization for military intervention in Libya. So it’s different.

But whichever judgments we make for Syria must pass the test – the bar we’re looking at, I should say, of making the situation better for the Syrian people, and we also must take a look – into account the long-term human, financial, and political costs for us, Syria and the region. So that's the bar we’re looking at here.

QUESTION: Could I just point out, when you say they’re different countries with different populations and different geographies, yeah. The one different about the population is that there’s 93,000 fewer Syrians than there were two years ago, and the death toll in Libya didn’t come even close.

MS. PSAKI: That is true, Matt, but what I meant was the size of the population, where the countries are located, there are many details that are different about the populations in the countries.

QUESTION: Two questions on South Asia, please.

MS. PSAKI: Okay.

QUESTION: One: Today, as far as this NSA and security – I mean the phone records – today, Mr. Jay Carney at the White House, on a question, he mentioned about the – David Headley, who is serving in Chicago, on the attacks in a Mumbai hotel. And also he mentioned about some terror plots were foiled in Pakistan, as far as these NSA phone.

My question is that since India, Pakistan, and I’m sure maybe Afghanistan region is involved, if the – those – leaders of those countries like people in India, I mean the leaders in India or the Pakistan, they knew or do they know about this? I know that U.S.-India, U.S.-Pakistan, U.S.-Afghanistan cooperation is going on as far as terrorism is concerned. My question is, do they – are they aware of these things going on?

QUESTION: Yes.

MS. PSAKI: Well, Goyal, we are, of course, aware that recent disclosures in the press about classified U.S. intelligence activities have raised concern with some other governments. I would refer to all of them to speak for themselves. And we have ongoing dialogues with allies and partners around the world on a range of issues, including counterterrorism, cyber-security, and privacy concerns, and all of these programs. And so we’ll continue to discuss those issues and others raised through our diplomatic channels.

QUESTION: And also when the Secretary visits end of the month to India and other countries in the region, he will be discussing all these issues?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I don’t have any travel to announce for you today. But certainly he is open to discussing a range of issues with all of our friends and partners out there.

QUESTION: And finally, one more, Pakistan.

MS. PSAKI: Okay.

QUESTION: If you can clarify or if you have the new government of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, he – they had summoned some U.S. diplomats in Islamabad to explain and to protest about the ongoing drone attacks by the United States. And the Nawaz Sharif government is calling now already on the U.S. to stop these drone attacks because they are killing innocent peoples in Pakistan. My question is: What is the future of the U.S.-Pakistan relation under the new government?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I was going to add before that the Secretary is looking forward to visiting Pakistan and India at the appropriate time, though I have no – nothing to announce today. But we do have a strong, ongoing dialogue with Pakistan regarding all aspects of our bilateral relationship and shared interests, including security and counterterrorism cooperation, and we’ll work together to address any of these concerns.

QUESTION: Same subject?

QUESTION: Well, you might not have anything to announce today, but the Pakistanis sure did. Do you have any reason to think that what the Pakistani Foreign Ministry spokesman said about Secretary Kerry visiting Islamabad in the last week of June is incorrect?

MS. PSAKI: Well, Matt, we’re still working through our official process here, and when we have official travel notification or announcements to make, I’m sure we will make them.

QUESTION: Still on --

QUESTION: It is – it is already --

QUESTION: (Inaudible) Prime Minister has also announced it as well.

MS. PSAKI: I did see that as well.

QUESTION: Still on Pakistan.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Do you have any information about four embassy officials who were not allowed to go to the consulate in Karachi, I think, and then sent back to Islamabad?

MS. PSAKI: So I can confirm that the four U.S. embassy officials flew from Islamabad to Karachi yesterday, I believe it was, to meet with U.S. Consulate General Karachi officials at the consulate. When they arrived at the Karachi International Airport, they were detained by airport officials and have since returned to Islamabad. In terms of the reasoning, we’re still gathering information on what happened here.

QUESTION: Do you generally need special permission to travel within Pakistan between diplomatic posts?

MS. PSAKI: I’m not aware of the requirements or the forms needed. Again, we’re still looking at what happened here, so we just don’t have a new update.

QUESTION: And did you find this becoming behavior of a close counterterrorist ally?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t want to judge without knowing the details, Brad.

QUESTION: Do you know, though, if there is – you have, presumably, if you’re still trying to find out what happened, you’re asking the Pakistan – you’ve inquired with the Pakistani authorities about what happened, correct?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I’m sure we’re in touch with all the appropriate point people here in terms of determining what happened. And beyond that, I would refer you, of course, to the officials there.

QUESTION: This would seem a bit unusual. Is it something’s that’s happened in the past to your officials in Islamabad?

MS. PSAKI: I’m not aware of the history here, but again, I don’t want to over read – and I would encourage none of you to over read – into it while we’re still looking into what the specifics of the events were.

QUESTION: Well, these four people were told something. They weren’t just rounded up in complete silence. Surely, you have some information about why they couldn’t proceed to the consulate general.

MS. PSAKI: I just don’t have anything more for you on it, Brad.

QUESTION: Madam, as far as Secretary’s visit to India, it is – it has been already printed in the news media in India. The Secretary will be in Delhi on June 24^th.

MS. PSAKI: I have seen those reports, Goyal. And when I have something to share with all of you, I’m happy to share them.

QUESTION: We might join, you think.

QUESTION: Can we go to the Mid-East, to Israel-Palestine?

MS. PSAKI: Uh-huh.

QUESTION: So as part of whenever it is that you make this announcement – well, we do expect the Secretary to visit Israel soon – I don’t think that that’s any secret since you had basically announced that he had postponed his trip there – trip to the Middle East there. So I’m wondering, in light of that – in light of his upcoming travel, if you have particular concerns about the latest settlement announcement in the West Bank today from the Israeli military.

MS. PSAKI: Well, we, of course, have seen those media reports that the Government of Israel has advanced plans to approve the construction of additional settlement housing in the West Bank settlements, and our position is the same. The Secretary has expressed his concern in the past both publicly and in private conversations. We don’t accept the legitimacy of continued settlement activity. We remain hopeful that both sides will look at the important opportunity we have here to build trust and confidence and move back to the negotiating table, and that’s what our focus is on.

QUESTION: Have you seen anything so far to give you hope? You say you remain hopeful. Has there been anything to give you hope?

MS. PSAKI: Well, Matt, as you know, to the frustration of all of you I’m certain, these conversations and the meetings have been very private, and we’ve kept them private for a reason.

QUESTION: No, let’s talk about public, just things that have appeared in public, things that are public knowledge. Has there been anything that would give you hope? I mean, there comes a point at which remaining hopeful is – becomes just naive and unworkable.

MS. PSAKI: Well, I think the Secretary himself made very clear the last couple of times he’s spoken about this that both sides need to make tough choices, and it’s on them to make the decision about whether they’re willing to move back to the table.

QUESTION: Okay. So have you seen either side make a tough choice?

MS. PSAKI: Again, I’m not going to lay out --

QUESTION: Well, I mean, I just --

MS. PSAKI: -- what conversations that happen privately.

QUESTION: Okay. Well, have you seen --

MS. PSAKI: I’ll leave you to analyze what they’ve said publicly.

QUESTION: Okay. Can you – then I will do that. And what they have said publicly, or, at least in this case, what the Israelis have said publicly, is not conducive to any resumption in negotiations. Is that correct?

MS. PSAKI: There have been --

QUESTION: You say that continued settlement activity is bad and is not helpful to the process.

MS. PSAKI: That is true.

QUESTION: Okay. So have you seen anything public, that they have done publicly, that would be conducive to resumption, on either side – not just the Israelis, either side? Has either side done anything since the – since you have been in this job, or since the Secretary has been in – the current Secretary has been in his job, that would give you any reason to be hopeful that a resumption in negotiations is possible?

MS. PSAKI: Well, Matt, the Secretary --

QUESTION: Anything? Anything?

MS. PSAKI: The Secretary would not have returned as many times as he had if he didn’t think that there was an opportunity here. And given the stakes and how important this would be and how impactful it would be to the region and our interests around the world, that’s why he’s so focused on it. Obviously, there are a lot of conversations that happened privately. There have been a range of comments made, of course. We know that – we knew going into it, the Secretary knew there would be cynics, and we’ve seen that in the media, as he himself has said. But there have been meetings, a number of positive meetings they’ve had. There have been positive comments from both sides about the openness to continuing the discussions, and we’ll see if we get to the point where both sides make the tough decisions to move back to the table.

QUESTION: Okay. Are you suggesting that it is cynical to say – to see an Israeli – another Israeli announcement of continued settlement activity, something that you yourself say is bad – it’s cynical to see that as something that is not --

MS. PSAKI: No, I --

QUESTION: -- conducive to --

MS. PSAKI: -- I wasn’t --

QUESTION: -- negotiation?

MS. PSAKI: -- I wasn't attributing that to that specific question. I was attributing it to the fact that there have been comments, as we’ve all seen and as the Secretary himself has talked about, about how difficult this is, how he understands people are skeptical, things along those lines.

QUESTION: But here’s the thing: How – I don’t see how you can it’s cynical or – he understands why people are skeptical? I mean, it’s precisely because of things like this that people are skeptical. I would --

MS. PSAKI: And because --

QUESTION: -- argue that it’s not cynical. It’s realistic.

MS. PSAKI: This is because there have been efforts to move back to the table countless times, as you well know, because you’ve followed this closely --

QUESTION: Yeah.

MS. PSAKI: -- for a number of years. And it’s difficult. So – but he still remains focused on it, and if him going back to the region will help move it --

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. PSAKI: -- the ball forward one step, he’ll do that.

QUESTION: Just on – this should be easier. Do you know, has this latest announcement been raised by U.S. officials with Israeli officials?

MS. PSAKI: I’m not aware of a – because this was just this morning, so I don’t have any update on kind of a recent --

QUESTION: (Inaudible) an update since we talked the last time about this.

MS. PSAKI: All right. Said’s going to read out conversations.

QUESTION: Yes, exactly. There was – if I may. There was an increase of 670 units yesterday.

MS. PSAKI: Yes, that’s what I was referring to.

QUESTION: And today there was an announcement for Gush Etzion, another addition of 1,000. So in the last --

QUESTION: I’m sorry, but he update --

MS. PSAKI: I think Matt was --

QUESTION: -- I was looking for was whether --

MS. PSAKI: Matt was asking about conversations between people at our Embassy or consulate, or presumably in the State Department.

QUESTION: Do you plan to raise it at a high level in the coming days?

MS. PSAKI: The Secretary has raised it at a high level before. I don’t have any planned calls, but I’m sure he will not hesitate to do so.

QUESTION: Okay. Let me just follow up, if I may, on this. Was this issue, the issue of expansion of settlement, discussed between Secretary Kerry and Secretary Hague yesterday?

MS. PSAKI: No, it was not.

QUESTION: Okay. Are you aware that Mr. Netanyahu in Warsaw refused to sign on a statement that calls for a two-state solution, he insisted that the two-state solution would be taken out?

MS. PSAKI: I would send you to the Government of Israel and Mr. Netanyahu.

QUESTION: Okay. And lastly, the Palestinians – the Palestinian Authority says that these settlement expansions is actually a way to sort of disrupt Secretary Kerry’s effort towards some sort of a peace settlement. Do you agree with them, or do you --

MS. PSAKI: Well, I think I may --

QUESTION: Perhaps you find that to be cynical?

MS. PSAKI: I made pretty clear that we don’t accept the legitimacy of continued settlement activity, and we encourage both sides to act in a way that will provide for a path to peace. So --

QUESTION: Yeah. But, I mean, you always say the same thing, that you are unhappy, you find it unhelpful and so on. But the process is really accelerating at a breathless kind of speed. Are you not concerned that there may not be any land left for the Palestinians to build their state on?

MS. PSAKI: Well, that’s why I expressed a concern today.

QUESTION: What I don’t understand is – the Secretary said it several times, you’ve repeated it – that there’s reasons for skepticism, for cynicism, you understand.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: But you don’t provide any counter evidence why people shouldn’t be skeptical or cynical in this case. You’re not providing any --

QUESTION: Is it secret?

QUESTION: -- evidence or anything to suggest that people should get rid of this skepticism and believe in the process.

MS. PSAKI: The strategy here is to keep these negotiations private, because his belief – and the belief of a number of these officials – is that that’s the best way to create an environment to bring both sides back to a negotiating table.

QUESTION: But you understand that on that notion, then, if you were skeptical, you should stay skeptical, correct?

MS. PSAKI: If the current path we’re on leads to a peace agreement, Brad, we will accept --

QUESTION: You will inform us of the decision.

MS. PSAKI: -- every ounce of skepticism there’s been.

QUESTION: Is it possible --

QUESTION: (Laughter.) What if it doesn’t?

MS. PSAKI: It’s worth the effort to try to bring both sides back to the table.

QUESTION: I mean, isn’t part of the problem here that despite the U.S. condemnation of settlement building, the Israelis have absolutely no incentive to stop it? I mean, they know that they’re going to have the U.S. support ad infinitum. And is it – shouldn’t there be consequences? Shouldn’t the U.S. be sort of saying, okay, we hold a lot of aid – we send a lot of aid to Israel; shouldn’t there be some kind of consequences for the Israelis going ahead and deliberately tarnishing the waters that the Secretary’s trying to build here?

MS. PSAKI: Well, our focus right now is not on consequences as much as working with both sides to try to move them back to the table. So I don’t have anything new or any new policy on that front. Certainly we find this unhelpful, as I just said. And he’s continuing to talk to both sides.

QUESTION: But diplomacy has always been about a carrot and stick thing. And I mean, working with the two sides isn’t actually getting you anywhere. We’re still stuck now where we were sort of 60 years ago. Despite the Secretary’s efforts, the Israelis are still moving forward with plans which you yourself concede are unhelpful.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Shouldn’t there be some kind of modification of the U.S. policy in that case to sort of say, “If you guys do this, we’re going to do that”? And maybe that would actually unblock this process somewhere.

MS. PSAKI: I don’t – that’s not the current plan. But we are – he is continuing to work with both sides, to have discussions, express concerns where needed with both sides, and remains focused on moving them back to the table.

QUESTION: Do you have a comment on the increased attack by settlers against Palestinian farmers and villagers?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t – I’m not sure which report you’re referring to.

QUESTION: I mean, they are constant. They happen almost every day within – they double every month. Talk about doubling. I mean, it doubles every month. Are you concerned, or do you raise this issue with the Israelis? Do you demand that they bring these attackers to justice?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t – I’m not sure what report you’re referring to. We’re always concerned about attacks on innocent civilians, but beyond that I’m not sure I have much more to add.

QUESTION: Okay. Do you expect both sides to hold the aggressors from their side accountable to justice? Do you call on both sides that they do that, including the Israelis?

MS. PSAKI: I think we’ve probably done what we can here on this topic, Said.

QUESTION: I just want to check one thing that you said to Jo. You said, “That’s not the current plan,” when I think her question was why – is there any thought being given to making there --

QUESTION: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- be consequences for unhelpful actions as it related to the settlements? And you said that’s not the current plan. Is it still the policy, though, that if the Palestinians try to get recognition at U.S. – at UN agencies or affiliates, that there will be consequences in terms of aid?

MS. PSAKI: You’re familiar with our policy. That hasn’t changed.

QUESTION: So in other words, that there are consequences for the Palestinians if they do things that are unhelpful, but there are not consequences – and there are no plans to have consequences – for the Israelis if they do things that are unhelpful to the process. Is that correct? Is that correct? That’s --

MS. PSAKI: Well, again --

QUESTION: I want to make sure that I understand that that’s the --

MS. PSAKI: There’s no change in our policy on either front.

QUESTION: Okay. All right.

MS. PSAKI: That was what I was conferring to Jo, perhaps not clearly enough.

QUESTION: Okay. So if I could just make – so it is then correct that U.S. policy is to – for there to be consequences for the Palestinians if they do things that are unhelpful to the resumption of the peace process, but it is not the U.S. policy to have consequences for the Israelis when they do similar things?

MS. PSAKI: Well, again, I think Jo was referring to funding that we provide for security purposes, which have a broad range of reasons, as you know.

QUESTION: I don’t think – she just said consequences.

QUESTION: No, no. Matt’s question is the right question, actually, yeah.

MS. PSAKI: There’s no change in our policy, Matt.

QUESTION: Okay. So there are no consequences for the Israelis but plenty of consequences for the Palestinians?

MS. PSAKI: Again, we consider aid to all sides – as you know, because you know how the Congressional process works – on a very regular basis.

QUESTION: I just want to make sure that I understand it.

MS. PSAKI: We make points to both sides about actions they would take that would be unhelpful. And we – that is why moving both sides back to the table for a peace process is so important.

Margaret.

QUESTION: Another topic?

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: The October 23^rd Inspector General memo that we’ve talked so much about – the surveillance detection agent in Brussels at the time, according to the memo, quote, “determined that the ambassador there routinely ditched his protective security detail in order to solicit sexual favors.” It then goes on to cite as other sources the ambassador’s protective detail and the embassy’s surveillance detective team, which they describe as staffed by host-country nationals. Do you have any reason to believe that those agents or the regional security officer at the time were mistaken?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I think we’ve broadly covered this topic this week, so let me just restate we’re not going to talk about individual cases from the podium. I will say that, again, this memo was put together without the benefit of case files and includes a great deal of unsubstantiated information.

QUESTION: But specific to what those particular agents and the RSO said --

MS. PSAKI: I’m not going to speak to – they did not review the case files. I’m not going to speak to individual cases. I’m just making a broad point here that I’ve made a couple of times in here about this specific memo.

QUESTION: But has anyone in the State Department talked to those members of the protective detail or the RSO since – in the past two years?

MS. PSAKI: For all of the cases that were in this memo, they were already under review or – they were all already under review, so that applies to all of them, and that means they were being looked into.

QUESTION: But that involves speaking to the protective detail members?

MS. PSAKI: It involves a number of efforts to get to the bottom of the facts and look into the details. I’m not going to get into specifically what that means.

QUESTION: Well, the regional security officer in Brussels at that time told CBS that one of his concerns was that the ambassador’s behavior left him vulnerable to counterintelligence. And he also said to CBS that the ambassador was leaving the country without his protective detail. So was Washington – was this building aware of the ambassador’s movements out of the country without protection?

MS. PSAKI: Again, I’m not going to get into any specific cases.

QUESTION: But that’s unusual, right?

MS. PSAKI: The ambassador you’re referring to has issued a statement in his name about these allegations. I would point you to that. And I would also point you to what I’ve kind of ticked through this week about the fact that this document contains a number of unsubstantiated points in it. There have been several follow-ups to that. There was a memo in February. And the OIG is currently looking into our processes here and how things are reviewed, and we certainly welcome that.

QUESTION: Well, I ask you that because some of those principals involved, who had reported those incidents that were reflected in the memo, have told us that they have not been contacted in two years. They have not been contacted even since this latest review has been initiated with the persons brought on after the February report.

MS. PSAKI: Well, the review is underway. Also, all of these cases were being reviewed internally at the time. In terms of that process entails, I just can’t speak to that.

QUESTION: I got two things. One on that.

MS. PSAKI: Okay.

QUESTION: Just in general, recognizing you can’t talk about the specific cases, are ambassadors required to have security details accompany them when they leave their post, leave the country of their posting for personal reasons or for even --

MS. PSAKI: I believe they are, but I can get you a more specific --

QUESTION: They are. So --

MS. PSAKI: -- what our policy is on that.

QUESTION: Okay. And I would be particularly interested if there is a blanket requirement of that. And then even if there isn’t a blanket requirement, if there is one requirement for specific countries or specific regions. Western Europe isn’t exactly the most threatening place to be, but if there is such a requirement it would be interesting.

And then the second thing is there was a report this morning in the New York Post which seems to – which suggests – or it doesn’t suggest, it says that many of the 2,000 Diplomatic Security agents currently employed by the Department have criminal records or otherwise checkered backgrounds. Is that-- many of – can you be – one, is that true? And two, can you put a number on how many of the 2,000? And I would also note that there seems to be a report that taped off from the Post story that says that 2,000 – all 2,000 have criminal backgrounds. So can you answer those?

MS. PSAKI: Well, again, I think this is referring to another memo with unsubstantiated information in it. Let me just tell you what our process is here. Diplomatic Security agents – as all foreign personnel are – are carefully screened and vetted during a vigorous selection – rigorous selection and hiring process. Successful candidates pass a series of highly competitive written and oral assessments. They must obtain a top secret clearance that is based on extensive background investigations that include past employment checks, criminal record checks, and interviews with neighbors, colleagues, coworkers, and employees.

In addition, because Foreign Service personnel are subject to unusual pressures, Department officials conduct a final suitability review to consider such matters as criminal history, financial responsibility, past drug or alcohol use, misconduct in prior engagement, and failure to exercise good judgment. Every evaluation is made case-by-case, but this is a rigorous and extensive process that any individual who goes through participates in.

QUESTION: Well, is it accurate to say that many of the 2,000 Diplomatic Security employees have criminal backgrounds or checkered – criminal records or checkered backgrounds that make them – that reduce their – or hinder their ability to perform their jobs? Is that correct?

MS. PSAKI: Well, again, there are 1,900 – just over 1,900, so you know – DS agents around the world. Each is reviewed on a case-by-case. That’s a process that is an HR process. I would caution you not to believe things that you read based on internal memos, as we’ve learned this week.

QUESTION: That’s why I’m – I’m not believing anything, but I’m just looking for a straight answer. Is it correct that many of those 1,900 have criminal backgrounds or – sorry – criminal records or checkered backgrounds that inhibit their ability to perform their jobs?

MS. PSAKI: No.

QUESTION: It is not correct?

MS. PSAKI: No.

QUESTION: Okay. Can you give a – are there any?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any numbers for you on things like that.

QUESTION: Well, I mean, is it a handful? I mean, I presume – this is a big building, there are a lot of people that work here. It would be --

MS. PSAKI: You’re right, Matt, but what --

QUESTION: It would be ridiculous to assume that nobody in this building doesn’t – that --

MS. PSAKI: We’re never going to get into personnel issues along those lines.

QUESTION: This is far – I mean, yes, this is a personnel issue in its most broad sense, and I’m willing to give the Department or any bureaucracy that’s got tens of thousands of employees the benefit of the doubt because it’s impossible to have --

MS. PSAKI: Correct.

QUESTION: -- a workforce that large and have no one have a criminal record.

MS. PSAKI: And what I was trying to convey with my outline of what we do is that --

QUESTION: So, what I’m trying to figure out – these people are law enforcement agents, right? They are federal law enforcement agents. Diplomatic Security takes great pride in the fact that it is considered a federal law enforcement agency.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: And if it is correct that many of the 1,900 of them are unable to do their jobs or are not able to do their jobs effectively because they have criminal backgrounds or checkered backgrounds --

MS. PSAKI: No, that is incorrect.

QUESTION: That is incorrect?

MS. PSAKI: The reason that I went --

QUESTION: But are there – then can you say, if it’s not many, is it some?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have anything for you on that.

QUESTION: But Jen, surely having a criminal record would bar you from working in Diplomatic Security, wouldn’t it?

MS. PSAKI: Well, Jo, I’m not going to get into all the specifics of this, but obviously there is a rigorous and extensive process that every individual goes through. So every factor is considered. I mentioned their suitability, their financial background, certainly their criminal background. All of these are factors that are considered through this process.

QUESTION: But again, wouldn’t a criminal record bar – just bar people from having any kind of role in a security agency, in a law enforcement agency?

MS. PSAKI: I can assure you that every aspect of anyone’s records are looked into closely and considered as a part of any approval process for any position, and certainly in Diplomatic Security.

QUESTION: So – but you would not dispute the veracity of the memo where it says that this is an issue for at least some, or would you?

MS. PSAKI: Again, I can’t rule out for you every individual’s background. So I was just being careful about not doing that.

QUESTION: Well, I mean, this is what the OIG says – right, this is what the OIG says in its report. You’re not saying that that’s wrong, are you?

MS. PSAKI: I would – I am not ruling out anything in anyone’s background. I’m just assuring for you – reassuring for you how rigorous the process is.

QUESTION: Well, I understand that. But I mean, is the – does the Department believe that it is an issue that needs to be addressed, as apparently the OIG believes?

MS. PSAKI: We welcome any review that is going to happen or take place, looking at any of our processes. I’m not aware of one that is happening in this case given how rigorous our process is.

QUESTION: Okay. So is it fair to say that you disagree, the building disagrees with the OIG concern?

MS. PSAKI: I haven’t – it’s not – it’s an internal memo.

QUESTION: I understand.

MS. PSAKI: So I’m not going to analyze an internal memo. It’s not something that we would have even necessarily seen.

QUESTION: You haven’t seen it?

QUESTION: Not necessarily.

MS. PSAKI: Well --

QUESTION: Yeah.

MS. PSAKI: -- Matt, they’re OIG documents.

QUESTION: Right.

MS. PSAKI: I mean, I would point you to them for specifics on each of these.

QUESTION: No, I understand, but maybe – but the Department often – the Department – the OIG, when it does a report or review on something like this, asks, as you went through the last time --

MS. PSAKI: Yes, they do.

QUESTION: -- with the other memo that she’s talking about, and they – and you respond, the Department responds to the OIG. Do you know if there was a response in this case, and if there was, was it that, “Well, this is interesting but we don’t think it’s a problem?”

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any update on a response. You are correct on the process.

QUESTION: Jen, can you – just on a point of clarification, and Matt touched on it at the top. Putting the memo aside, but not only for an ambassador to leave a post without notifying Washington, but to leave the country in an area that the regional security officer and his detail have outlined is at high risk of counter-surveillance because of NATO, because of all the other interests there, can you just tell us what the rule of thumb is in terms of notifying Washington and being able to overrule your regional security officer who has told you they would prefer that you stop doing this? Like, what’s the rule of thumb for ambassadors?

MS. PSAKI: Well, certainly if an ambassador has Diplomatic Security, which I believe most if not all of them have, that moving away from or traveling without them with you would certainly be frowned upon and would not be within what our policy is here. But every scenario is different and every case is different.

QUESTION: Could you clarify that for us, if you can take that question of specific to this post, whether that would be different than any other where you could leave your detail and leave the country?

MS. PSAKI: I’m happy to look into it and see what we can provide, and I’m sure we have an outline, and I have an outline of what the requirements and what the standards are that we can provide to all of you.

QUESTION: Because this was reported two years ago, so it would – since you can’t, from the podium, say – and clear the ambassador’s name since this review separate from this is going on – if you can outline for us that, at least, whether this would be with Washington’s knowledge that he was allowed to leave the country without detail, whether it was unusual or not. Because certainly, according to his agents and some of those detail members, it was, and it was reported to Washington as being quite unusual.

MS. PSAKI: Well, I’ll certainly look into what the protocol process is here. Again, I would caution you about --

QUESTION: (Off mike.)

MS. PSAKI: -- believing everything you read or everything in an internal memo. So I would take that all with a grain of salt.

QUESTION: But this is not based – well, that’s what I’m saying, it’s not just based on the memo; it’s based on separate interviews, which is why I was citing those. Because I know you’ve talked extensively about your questions regarding memos and hearsay, but this is based on what agents have shared and reported, so it’s separate from that.

MS. PSAKI: So to break through all of your questions here, I believe what you’re asking for is what our process or protocol is for ambassadors and whether, if they have security detail, they should stick with their security detail. Certainly, yes, they should.

QUESTION: But when they’re leaving the country and the agent has said to cease that activity, in this case, particularly to this post, whether there would be any reason for this to not be unusual behavior that would warrant concern and would warrant reporting, and whether these agents could be mistaken in the reports that they shared two years ago that were then reported to Under Secretary Kerry – excuse me, Kennedy in May 2011?

MS. PSAKI: Certainly, we’ll look into it. If there’s more to share, I’m happy to share it.

QUESTION: Thanks.

QUESTION: Can we change topics?

QUESTION: I have a question on Greece.

MS. PSAKI: Okay.

QUESTION: Two days ago, the Greek Government shut down the Greek public television. 2,500 of our colleagues are out of a job. In Europe, they believe that it is a violation of the freedom of the press. Do you have any comment?

MS. PSAKI: Well, we have seen, of course, those reports. I don’t have anything for you on this specifically. We recognize these are, of course, difficult times, economic times, and support Greece and have empathy with Greeks during this economic crisis. We understand the need for reforms that will make Greece more competitive and prosperous in the future.

QUESTION: But to fire 2,500 people is a reform, you think?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have anything specific for you. It, again, is a tough economic time and we support Greece in the tough choices that need to be made.

QUESTION: Can we change topics?

MS. PSAKI: Let’s go to Scott just because he hasn’t asked.

QUESTION: May I ask you a question about Bangladesh, please?

QUESTION: No. (Laughter.)

MS. PSAKI: Absolutely.

QUESTION: Several of the large European retailers have signed on to a binding fire and building safety code; U.S. retailers, not so much. Does the U.S. Government have a position about whether American retailers doing business in Bangladesh should sign this binding Fire and Building Safety Accord?

MS. PSAKI: Well, Scott, I am familiar with that issue. We believe that companies need to make their own decisions. We do have an ongoing dialogue with Bangladesh and internally in the interagency about the need to help Bangladesh and work with companies and work with the government on the working conditions and the situation there. So that is a focus that we have here.

QUESTION: So if it’s up to them to make their own decisions, it is not the recommendation of the U.S. Government that --

MS. PSAKI: It is up to them to make their own decisions.

QUESTION: Can we change topics? The

QUESTION: (Inaudible) make sure that U.S. companies obey – which are working in Bangladesh – make sure that basic human rights and pay, other facilities provided to the Bangladeshis workers, are assured?

MS. PSAKI: Absolutely. That’s a separate question about the specific – specifically what he’s asking about U.S. companies signing on to. Certainly, we think companies should hold to the highest standards their working conditions, human rights conditions, absolutely. And that’s something we have an ongoing dialogue with Bangladesh about.

QUESTION: But if the U.S. companies are not signing on to those provisions, aren’t they not trying to do the same thing with other – which you would like to – expect them to do?

MS. PSAKI: Again, it’s a separate – whether they sign on to this specific agreement, we do hold them to the highest standards and expect that they will hold human rights and working conditions to the highest standards.

QUESTION: I wonder if you would comment on the Iranian elections tomorrow. They have one moderate candidate, Hassan Rouhani, but they also have – these are the leading candidates. They have five other really conservative – led by Saeed Jalili and Qalibaf and Ali Velayati. I wonder if you – would you like to see Mr. Hassan Rouhani win the election? (Laughter.)

MS. PSAKI: Not going to speak to specific candidates, and you’re laughing because you know I won’t. The decision on who will become Iran’s next president is up to the Iranian people. However, as the Secretary said, by international standards this election is not free, fair, or transparent. The candidates were chosen, as you know, by the Guardian Council, which is unelected and unaccountable to – an unaccountable body. And nonetheless, the Iranian people will make some choice among the small choices that they have.

QUESTION: And now, what was the reason that it is – it’s declared not to be up to international standards.

MS. PSAKI: The elections?

QUESTION: Why is it not up to international standards, in your opinion?

MS. PSAKI: Well, there’s quite a history in Iran that I’m sure you’re familiar with.

QUESTION: Right. Yes, I am.

MS. PSAKI: And as you know, the Supreme Leader, the ultimate authority --

QUESTION: Right.

MS. PSAKI: -- on not only issues but a lot of these cases lies with the Supreme Leader. So we have concerns about the history and concerns about how free, fair, and transparent it will be moving forward.

QUESTION: Okay. But that brings into question the whole system in Iran, not only the election. But as far as the elections are concerned, is there – as we have seen in the past, they were actually held with some – quite transparently. Don’t you agree?

MS. PSAKI: Well, the Guardian Council selected candidates without support --

QUESTION: Right.

MS. PSAKI: -- or a vote from the Iranian people. That, I think, is a clear sign of not making this a democratic process in the true nature of the term. So that’s a flag right there. But certainly the history here and what happened just four years ago gives all of us pause.

QUESTION: But considering that Mr. Rouhani said statements that are quite conciliatory towards the United States and the West, wouldn’t you like him to see – to see him win in this --

MS. PSAKI: Again, I’m not going to speculate on individual candidates.

Iran?

QUESTION: No.

QUESTION: Yeah. Turkey.

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: Do you have a general message to the people of Iran who are facing, as you call them, these small choices, given that the last elections in 2009, in which – which were won by Mr. Ahmadinejad, ended with quite a lot of violence on the streets of Tehran?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I think our message to the Iranian people is what our message would be in any of these cases where we know that – and we have – we are not – we don’t believe, given the history, as I’ve just outlined, that we are on track for free, fair, and transparent elections. That doesn’t mean we discourage people from participating; we certainly do encourage them to. And we know the challenges that the Iranian people are facing. We’ve taken efforts and taken steps in recent weeks. It doesn’t solve this specific problem, but – to provide greater access to tools to communicate because we feel that’s so important for the people in the country. But until things change, we understand the challenges that the people in the country will be going through.

QUESTION: When you say that you encourage people to participate, that means you’re encouraging Iranians to participate and vote in what – an exercise that you think is completely pointless? Why would you --

MS. PSAKI: Well, I said, we’re not discouraging participation. We would – but we remain skeptical about what is going to transpire here.

QUESTION: I understand. I understand you’re not discouraging. But you actually said you are encouraging people to participate. Why would the United States Government encourage people to participate in an exercise that it, the United States Government, thinks is a complete waste of time and a sham?

MS. PSAKI: Well, we are skeptical about how this will be handled and managed, Matt.

QUESTION: I know, so why would you encourage people to participate in something like that?

MS. PSAKI: Well, we always encourage participation in any processes like voting along these lines. I don’t want you to read too much into the message I was sending there.

QUESTION: I’m not – I just – I’m not trying to read too much in – I’m not reading anything into it, other than the fact that you’re basically telling people to go waste their time, which I find a little bit surprising. But anyway, I have one.

MS. PSAKI: Okay.

QUESTION: It’s on a purely domestic issue.

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: So this morning, the House – a subcommittee of the House Oversight committee had a hearing about the International Religious Freedom Act. And the chairman of that committee, Congressman Chaffetz, was most peeved that the witness from the State Department who had been invited to attend, the Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom Suzan Johnson Cook, did not attend. Can you explain why she did not?

MS. PSAKI: I can.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. PSAKI: Well, the Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom gladly agreed to testify today at the House Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee hearing that you’re referring to. It is standard operating procedure that the U.S. Government witnesses that are – Department witnesses, I should say – testify on a separate panel from private witnesses. And there was a change in the procedure and the process that they – as they planned the subcommittee hearing. But the Ambassador and the Department would very much look forward to participating in a future hearing that follows standard procedures for Department witnesses.

QUESTION: Okay. Are you aware of there being any exceptions to that rule or that practice or policy? Because Congressman Chaffetz found at least one where he said and named former Assistant Secretary Shapiro as appearing on a panel with a representative from Lloyd’s, the insurance concern?

MS. PSAKI: I’m not familiar with that case. This is our standard operating procedure here.

QUESTION: I understand, but this seems like it’s a middle school fight, and it’s a little embarrassing, I think, that it even has to be raised here. Couldn’t there be some kind of compromise reached with committee about allowing her to testify? Both the chairman of the committee and the Department think that it is – it would be good --

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: -- and that her testimony would be important to understanding the situation.

MS. PSAKI: Well, she agreed to testify and she’s --

QUESTION: Yeah, but --

MS. PSAKI: -- open to testifying, so I’m sure they’ll discuss that.

QUESTION: Yeah, but testifying – yeah, but saying, “I’ll testify, but I’m only going to testify in my room,” or “at my own table,” seems a bit petty, as it does the other side as well, saying that, “No, we’re not going to ask – you can’t sit at your own table; you have to sit with these other people.”

So I just want to know why – I mean, this is the federal government we’re talking about here, and both sides are acting like a bunch of three-year-olds. Why can’t a compromise be reached? I mean, I could come up with any number of possible solutions.

MS. PSAKI: Maybe we should get you involved here.

QUESTION: Well, no. Yeah, I don’t get paid enough to do that. (Laughter.) But I just don’t understand, if you want to cooperate, why don’t you?

MS. PSAKI: Well, Matt, in this case, they had a process that – or a procedure that they were planning. She agreed to testify. They changed that. She’s happy to testify again. I’m sure there’ll be a range of discussions from both sides about that.

QUESTION: Congressman Leach, who is the ranking member of that subcommittee, said that he had a similar experience with – when he was actually the chairman of the subcommittee during the Bush Administration, had a similar experience with the refusal to testify with private witnesses. And he said that while it – he suggested that Congressman Chaffetz’s colleague might have been trying to set something up to have some kind of an argument between witnesses, and the way he suggested this was by saying that he understood that it might be entertaining for the committee members and perhaps the public, the few people who would watch this kind of a hearing – it might be entertaining for them, but it would be uncomfortable for the Administration.

Can you assure us that it is not because it would have – might have been uncomfortable for either the Administration or the witness in question? That’s not the reason why --

MS. PSAKI: Well, Matt, they were following standard policy and process here. That’s what the Department was doing. I’m sure they will discuss how to make the hearing happen in the future. You’re right that they do want to have this hearing. It is to talk about religious freedom, something the Secretary and the Department cares deeply about, and we’ll see --

QUESTION: Well, if you care so deeply about it, why couldn’t you have come up – why couldn’t you come up with some way that she could appear, when it has, in fact, happened before?

MS. PSAKI: Well, she agreed to appear, they’re going to discuss appearing, and we’ll keep you updated on what happens next.

QUESTION: But what is the standard policy again?

MS. PSAKI: That government – that Department witnesses testify in a separate panel from private witnesses.

QUESTION: And the point of that?

MS. PSAKI: It’s a longstanding Department policy. I’m not sure I have much of an analysis for you on it.

QUESTION: There’s no point?

MS. PSAKI: I’m not saying that at all. I just don’t have an analysis on it for you.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: Egypt? One last one on Egypt?

MS. PSAKI: Let’s do one last one – two last ones and then we’ll --

QUESTION: A year, almost a year on Mr. Morsy being President of Egypt, how do you see the evolution of the relationship between the U.S. and Egypt during that year?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I don’t want to give an analysis of the relationship. Obviously, there are issues that we work together on. We continue to strongly support the Egyptian people’s desire to build a prosperous, democratic future. There are issues that we disagree on. We – the Secretary has been very vocal about the need for the Egyptians to do more on their economic reforms, to do more on human rights. We’ve expressed concerns about the recent NGO ruling, of course. But Egypt has been an important partner. We know they’re continuing to build on their democracy, and we’ll continue to work with them and encourage them to do just that.

QUESTION: Jen, just on that point, today, Senator Rubio and 12 other senators submitted a letter to President Morsy. It was a very terse letter demanding that they reverse the sentences of a couple weeks ago, or 10 weeks ago. One, are you aware of the letter? And second, did you coordinate with the Senate on this issue?

MS. PSAKI: I haven’t seen the letter, so I’m not aware if we knew about it in advance.

Let’s do the last one.

QUESTION: Thank you so much. In Turkey?

MS. PSAKI: Turkey?

QUESTION: Yeah. Prime Minister issued final warning, and then he’s saying that he clean up the square. Can I have your comment about that?

MS. PSAKI: Well, we do, of course, as we’ve said a couple of times, continue to follow the events in Turkey very closely. We welcome efforts to ease tensions and encourage attempts, including the proposed referendum, which was also a part of what happened overnight, to resolve this situation through dialogue, taking into account views from across the political spectrum. We also call on all sides to exercise restraint and avoid violence. And we’ve seen incidents – I’ve talked about a couple of times over the last two weeks of – that have raised concern, so we’re continuing to follow that. And let me just add, too, that we’re troubled by any pressure against media outlets as a result of them performing the normal functions of a free press. And we’ve also seen that happening in recent days as well.

QUESTION: Did you raise this issue with the Turkish Government (inaudible)?

MS. PSAKI: I’m not aware of a – aside from the Foreign Minister conversation that happened a couple of days ago, I’m not aware of another one since then.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) the Turkish Government is complaining about the perception of Turkey in international media, and they are blaming some outlets in international media for this, CNN and other American media outlets (inaudible) actually. How your perception about Turkey has been affected because of this coverage?

MS. PSAKI: I think the most important thing here is for Turkey to respect the freedom of the media and the freedom of the press and not take actions that would contradict that, and that’s why I was referencing that.

Thanks, everyone.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:27 p.m.)

DPB # 98

The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department.
External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.

Iraqi Government and Civil Society Leaders Participate in U.S. Program To Support Iraqi Widows and Female Heads of Household

A delegation of five senior Iraqi government officials and civil society leaders is visiting Washington, DC, from June 13-20 to meet with U.S. counterparts to discuss ways to address the challenges facing widows and female heads of household in Iraq. Conducted under the auspices of the Department of State’s Iraqi Women’s Democracy Initiative (IWDI), the program will include meetings with U.S.-based experts on the needs and concerns of widows and female heads of household, and training in topics such as social assistance and welfare, implementing national programs to support vulnerable populations, developing frameworks for action and innovation to support women’s economic empowerment. While in Washington, the Iraqi delegation will meet with senior U.S. Government officials to strengthen both countries’ understanding of the status of this disadvantaged and underrepresented segment of Iraqi society.

There are an estimated one to three million widows and single female heads of household in Iraq. One in ten households in Baghdad is headed by a woman. To address the unique needs of this vulnerable population, the Department launched the Secretary’s War Widows Initiative in 2009, which directs funds to NGOs in support of literacy, entrepreneurship, and vocational skills for Iraqi widows and female heads of household. To date, the program has awarded $10 million in grants that have covered a range of issues to build the capacity of Iraqi widows, improve NGO services to widows and their children, and connect more widows to the Government of Iraq’s widow stipend program.

The IWDI was established in 2004 by the Department’s Office of Global Women’s Issues and the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor to support Iraqi women’s political, economic, legal, and social advancement. Since its inception, the IWDI has provided approximately $33 million in support of efforts to advance the status of Iraqi women.

The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department.
External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.

On the Occasion of the Official Birthday of Queen Elizabeth II

On behalf of President Obama and the American people, I send warmest congratulations and best wishes to the people of the United Kingdom in honor of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II’s Official Birthday on June 15.

There’s something remarkable in just how deeply connected we Americans feel to Her Majesty.

In the United States, we revere our special connection to what we call the Greatest Generation, the stoic men and women who persevered and won the second World War. Perhaps that is why we also share such regard for Her Majesty, who came of age in Great Britain’s own Greatest Generation.

It grew up with grit and grace in the face of enormous sacrifice, and in victory forever deepened the special relationship and bond between our two nations. Today it sets the standard for great dignity in the face of great challenge.

So, in the same year that we celebrate the 60th anniversary of Her Majesty’s Coronation, this occasion is a special opportunity to pay tribute to the Queen’s remarkable life and legacy, and to recognize her resolute leadership in the UK, the Commonwealth, and throughout the world.

That I made my first overseas visit as Secretary of State earlier this year to the UK should be no surprise, for Great Britain remains the indispensable partner of my country.

As you mark this special day with the spectacular Trooping the Colour ceremony, it is with deep respect and admiration that I extend congratulations to Her Majesty the Queen and to the British people.

The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department.
External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.

Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor Request for Proposals: Needs Assessment and Outcome-based Evaluation of Transitional Justice Programs

Department of State

Public Notice

Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor Request for Proposals: Needs Assessment and Outcome-based Evaluation of Transitional Justice Programs

PLEASE NOTE: DRL strongly urges applicants to access immediately www.grants.gov or www.grantsolutions.gov in order to obtain a username and password. It may take two full weeks to register with www.grants.gov.

REQUESTED PROPOSAL PROGRAM OBJECTIVES

DRL invites organizations to submit proposals outlining evaluation concepts and capacity to manage an evaluation targeting the following issue:

1. SCOPE

The Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL) announces a Request for Proposals from individuals and organizations interested in submitting proposals for an evaluation related to transitional justice programs overseas. This evaluation will be awarded as a cooperative agreement. The purpose of this award is to conduct an analytical review of transitional justice (TJ) programs in post-conflict countries and countries that have undertaken democratic transitions; develop a framework, to be available publicly, for programming around transitional justice mechanisms and processes based on literature and internationally accepted best practices; evaluate DRL-supported projects on transitional justice and assess how those projects fit under this newly developed framework, including identifying strengths and gaps; and create a public toolkit that includes an assessment tool and guidelines for best practices on how to develop and implement international programs focused on transitional justice issues.

2. BACKGROUND

For many years, the U.S. government has supported the governments and civil society around the world to redress legacies of past human rights abuses, including providing forensic assistance programs, supporting tribunal and courts on human rights cases, and assisting civil society systematically document human rights abuses in their countries. DRL, specifically, has funded transitional justice-related programming for more than a decade, focusing on human rights documentation, truth-seeking efforts, and judicial accountability mechanisms; forensic assistance; education and training related to transitional justice processes; support to institutions and institutional reform, including truth commissions, human rights bodies and justice sector actors; psychosocial assistance and support to survivors of torture, particularly civil society actors; and, support to memorialization, grassroots reconciliation and conflict mitigation efforts. These resources have been instrumental in many cases in promoting accountability for human rights abuses, combating impunity, increasing access to justice and promoting citizen participation in political processes in countries where trust-building, reconciliation and truth are fundamental to stability and long-term democracy. However, they have not been part of a clear and systematic strategy for how the U.S. government, including DRL, will build its transitional justice portfolio that incorporates the successes of its past programs, and utilizes lessons learned. This evaluation will collect information necessary for DRL and other donors to make systematic and informed decisions about the direction of future programming in this area.

This evaluation has two main components. The first part will be an analytical review of transitional justice (TJ) programs in post-conflict countries and countries transitioning out of repressive regimes based on available literature and best practices. This review will focus on how to best design and sequence TJ programming specific to each context, with the goal of helping to guide the development of a strategic framework that donors and implementers can use when determining the most appropriate types of TJ programs to support in targeted countries.

Second, this solicitation will include an outcome-based evaluation of past and current DRL-funded TJ programs, including an assessment of how the Bureau’s current TJ portfolio fits within the newly developed framework as well as a guide to best practices in TJ programming. The evaluation will address three key areas: program effectiveness; short-term and intermediate outcomes of the programs; and fit in relation to the new transitional justice programming framework. The findings and recommendations from this evaluation will help DRL determine the individual and cumulative success of these transitional justice programs and help inform DRL when determining programmatic priorities in the future. This will also be the basis for a public toolkit that details best practices and lessons learned with respect to this portfolio. This toolkit will include an “assessment tool,” which can be a check list and questionnaire that donors and implementers can use to determine entry points for transitional justice programming and appropriate transitional justice mechanisms given the context. The assessment tool should include examination of important variables that influence programming such as political will, human rights situation, key stakeholders, and institutional and organizational capacity, among others.

DRL’s transitional justice programs are generally two to three years in length and range between $250,000 and $1.5 million. The projects are mostly concentrated in Latin America, Southeast Asia, South Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. The evaluation will cover up to three regions, excluding the Middle East, and include approximately six active and closed grants. The closed grants will have ended no earlier than 2011.

DoS awards grants and cooperative agreements to U.S. nongovernmental organizations to implement programs that support development of democratic values and human rights around the globe. These awards are supported through Congressional earmarks in the annual Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, under the Democracy Fund.

3. EVALUATION TASKS

I. Analytical Review Tasks

A. Within two weeks of the signing of this evaluation award, the Implementer will meet with DRL to refine and approve the evaluation design, as described in the proposal, and submit the work plan of the analytical review. The work plan should contain the following: identification of the research method; information that needs to be analyzed and the respective information sources; work plan and time table for collection information; work plan and time table for organization and analysis of information; and conditions and capacities necessary for data collection, analysis and communications of findings.

B. At minimum, the methodology should include a comprehensive literature review on publications related to transitional justice programs and evaluation methodology and results. If it is determined that there have been many evaluations conducted on international transitional justice projects, the evaluations should also conduct a meta-analysis of those evaluations. From this meta-analysis, the evaluator will come up with various TJ categories: types of transitions, types of issues, feasibility of operating environment, types of assistance interventions, etc. This will build the framework and strategy for DRL TJ projects. The Implementer shall provide all major research documentation (e.g., list of types of reports and articles to be reviewed, analyses instruments, etc.) to DRL for review and clearance prior to formal analyses. If there are not many publications related to transitional justice programs evaluation methodologies, then the review can be widened to include similar projects under rule of law, peace building, or justice reform.

C. Literature review and meta-analysis shall take no longer than six weeks. The review is meant to inform the selection criteria for the projects to be included in the outcome-based phase of the evaluation. The selection criteria should take into account both regional and thematic considerations for projects in this sector that have been funded by DRL in the past five years.

D. Discussion of preliminary findings and draft framework for how to best to design, and implement transitional justice programs should take place in Washington, DC together with the DRL evaluation manager within two weeks of completing the analyses.

E. Final report on the analytical review and TJ framework shall be reviewed and cleared by DRL within three weeks after the discussion of preliminary findings.

II. Outcome-based Evaluation Tasks

A. Within two weeks after the completion of the Analytical Review Tasks, the Implementer will meet with DRL to further refine the evaluation questions and begin work on the evaluation design and work plan of the outcome-based evaluation. The evaluation will address three key areas: program effectiveness; short-term and intermediate outcomes of the programs; and fit in relation to the new transitional justice programming framework. The work plan should contain the following: identification of the research method; information that needs to be analyzed and the respective information sources; work plan and time table for collection information; work plan and time table for organization and analysis of information; and conditions and capacities necessary for data collection, analysis and communications of findings. The outcome-based evaluation should include site visits to up to six current or recently closed programs in no more than three regions, based on criteria developed during the literature review and meta-analysis portion of the evaluation.

B. A detailed evaluation design and all instruments to be used must be approved by DRL within three weeks after the work plan is approved. The Implementer shall provide all evaluation documentation (e.g., correspondence, contact letters, data collections instruments, fieldwork reports, etc.) to DRL for review and clearance prior to disseminating to participants and key stakeholders.

C. It is the Implementer’s responsibility to identify and describe data collection mechanisms based on the Implementer’s experience and expertise, keeping in mind security and confidentiality issues regarding program information. Use of quantitative as well as qualitative methods will include document reviews, surveys, structured and unstructured interviews, observations, and any other appropriate methodologies. Interviews, at minimum, should include DRL staff that have been involved with the selected TJ projects, main implementers of the TJ projects, project beneficiaries and partners and external collaborators. The Implementer shall inform DRL when data collection has been completed.

D. Data collection in the field, which can last up to three months (including time to handle logistics), will take place at the locations where the TJ projects have been implemented. The locations will be determined after the analytical review has been completed to identify the best grants to include in the evaluation. It is anticipated that approximately six grants from no more than three regions, as described in the Background Section, will be included in the evaluation. When in the field a 6-day work week with no premium pay is authorized.

E. Discussion of preliminary findings should take place in Washington, DC together with the DRL evaluation manager within two weeks of completing the analyses.

F. The Implementer shall draft a public toolkit that will help DRL and other donors guide their programmatic strategy related to supporting transitional justice efforts. Adequate time shall be incorporated into the Project Schedule for DRL and stakeholders, if appropriate, to review all draft tools. DRL will undertake a final review of all changes to the reports before the implementer makes multiple final hard copies.

G. The Implementer shall draft an evaluation report that presents findings, produces an independent assessment of the quality, efficiency, and effectiveness of the transitional justice projects, draws conclusions (i.e., identifying best practices and lessons learned), and explains how the projects fit the framework developed under the Analytical Review Tasks. The Implementer also shall draft an abridged version that would be made available to the public to help move the field forward in terms of best practices in this arena. This version would not include internal evaluation data related to DRL programs. Adequate time shall be incorporated into the Project Schedule for DRL and stakeholders, if appropriate, to review all draft reports (both versions). The implementer shall plan on at least three-to-four draft versions of the report (both versions) for Department feedback. DRL will undertake a final review of all changes to the reports before the implementer makes multiple final hard copies. The Assistant Secretary for DRL has authority for final approval and release of all final reports. DRL must approve of the final reports (both versions) before final payment can be made.

H. The Implementer should be available to conduct one to two oral briefings on the content of the evaluation report, accompanied by a Power Point presentation.

I. This phase of the evaluation should take approximately six months. The implementer may wish to adjust the time-table, in consultation with and the approval of DRL.

4. EVALUATOR REQUIREMENTS

Below are the preferred background and experience the Bureau seeks from the Implementer.

1. Extensive knowledge of and expertise in foreign assistance programs, particularly related to democracy and human rights issues. Preference is given to individual(s) with specific experience on transitional justice issues, countries undergoing democratic transition, and/or experience in the justice sector.

2. Experience with a variety of quantitative and qualitative evaluation methodologies such as how best to establish criteria for judging “success” of foreign assistance programs, and the ability to analyze, synthesize and draw larger conclusions, best practices, and lessons learned from various sources of data and findings.

3. The primary or sole evaluator should have a minimum of ten years experience leading an M&E team and show proven ability in design, implementation, data analysis and evaluation of foreign assistance programs including experience in transition settings.

4. Must be ability to safely and securely travel to various countries to conduct the necessary field work and data collection.

5. Exceptional organizational and communication skills.

5. PLACE OF PERFORMANCE

With the exception of data collection, project activity is anticipated to take place at the implementer’s place of work. Data collection, including securing current contact information for participants in the evaluation project, will take place in the United States and designated countries where the TJ grants were implemented.

6. RESPONSIBILITY OF ALL COSTS

The implementer shall assume responsibility for all costs associated with the project as detailed in the proposal. These costs include, but are not limited to: staff salaries; indirect costs; fee of any airfare and per diem for all implementer and sub-implementer staff domestic and international travel; passport/visa costs; securing and/or verifying alumni contact information; data collection and data verification; overseas staff and/or sub-implementers costs; translation services for data collection instruments, contact (cover) letters and “back-translation” of completed surveys into English; interpreter/translation costs for conducting overseas interviews and/or focus groups; lodging and per diem for interview or focus group participants and other representational costs (if necessary); lunch/dinner and incentive costs for interview and focus group participants; meeting room rentals for interviews and focus groups; telephone calls; mail and postage costs; and document reproduction. A 6 day work week with no premium pay is authorizes when in the field.

NOTE: Implementers are asked to base travel budget on economy class tickets. Implementers should not under-estimate the work time in foreign countries and the financial costs associated with overseas travel (i.e., per diem and airfare). All travel shall be in accordance with federal travel regulations, including “Preference for U.S.-Flag Air Carriers” (January 1997), and the Department of State will only fund the equivalent of economy class tickets.

7. PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE

The period of performance for the evaluation shall not exceed 8 months. The cooperative agreement expires when the final payment has been made by the Department of State. The project will commence within two weeks after cooperative agreement award is finalized.

8. PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS

Technically eligible submissions are those which: 1) arrive electronically via www.grantsolutions.gov or www.grants.gov by July 2, 2013 before 11:59 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST); 2) heed all instructions contained in the solicitation document, including length and completeness of submission; and 3) do not violate any of the guidelines stated in the solicitation and this document.

The information contained herein is to assist you as a general reference for completion of the proposal submission. It is the sole responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all of the material submitted in the grant application package is complete, accurate, and current. Please review the below Proposal Submission Instructions (PSI) in their entirety. Should you have any questions that are not answered therein, or questions on the solicitation, please contact Karen Chen (ChenKY@state.gov) and Riva Kantowitz (KantowitzRB@state.gov).

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

The U.S. Department of State requires proposals be submitted electronically via www.grantsolutions.gov or www.grants.gov .

It is the responsibility of all applicants to ensure that proposals have been received by www.grantsolutions.gov or www.grants.gov in their entirety. DRL bears no responsibility for data errors resulting from transmission or conversion processes.

GrantSolutions.gov Applications
All applicants are encouraged to submit applications via www.grantsolutions.gov.

Organizations that have previously used www.grantsolutions.gov do not need to register again. If an organization that has previously used GrantSolutions.gov is not able to access the system, please contact Customer Support for help in gaining access: help@grantsolutions.gov or call 1-866-577-0771.

Applicants using www.grantsolutions.gov for the first time should complete their “New Organization Registration” as soon as possible. This process must be completed before an application can be submitted. Registration with www.grantsolutions.gov usually occurs directly after an applicant submits their registration. To register with www.grantSolutions.gov, click “Login to GrantSolutions” and follow the “First Time Users” link to the “New Organization Registration Page.” There are different ways to register your organization, click on the link that fits best.

A valid DUNS (Data Universal Numbering System) number and CCR (Central Contractor Registration) are NOT required for submission of an initial application on www.grantsolutions.gov. If a project is selected for further funding stages, these will need to be obtained. Instructions for obtaining a DUNS number can be found at www.sam.gov . Click “create user account” and sign up for an “individual account.” For help with www.sam.gov, please call the Federal Service Desk at 866-606-8220.

Electronic applications submitted via www.grantsolutions.gov must contain the SF-424 online forms (completed) and the SOI document (Project Narrative) specified in the application kit. No additional documents should be uploaded. The preferred document formats for the uploaded documents are .doc or .docx. Applicants should wait until the upload shows the status as “successful” before moving to the next part of the application kit.

Upon completion of a successful electronic application submission, the GrantSolutions system will provide the applicant with a confirmation page indicating the date and time (Eastern Time) of the electronic application submission as well as an official Application Number. This confirmation page will also provide a listing of all items that constitute the final application submission. Please save this page for your records.

GrantSolutions.gov Help Desk:
For assistance with www.grantsolutions.gov accounts and technical issues related to the system, please contact Customer Support at help@grantsolutions.gov or call 1-866-577-0771 (toll charges for international callers) or 1-202-401-5282. Customer Support is available 8 AM – 6 PM EST, Monday – Friday, except federal holidays.

See http://www.opm.gov/Operating_Status_Schedules/fedhol/2012.asp for a list of federal holidays.

Grants.gov Applications
Applicants who do not submit applications via www.GrantSolutions.gov may submit via www.grants.gov.

**PLEASE be advised that completing all the necessary registration steps for obtaining a username and password from www.grants.gov can take two full weeks. DRL strongly urges applicants to begin this process on www.grants.gov well in advance of the submission deadline. No exceptions will be made for organizations that have not completed the necessary steps to post applications on www.grants.gov. Once registered, the amount of time it can take to upload an application varies depending on a variety of factors including the size of the application and the speed of your internet connection. In addition, validation of an electronic submission via www.grants.govcan take up to two business days. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you not wait until the application deadline to begin the submission process through www.grants.gov.

The www.grants.gov website includes extensive information on all phases/aspects of the www.grants.gov process, including an extensive section on frequently asked questions, located under the "For Applicants" section. DRL strongly recommends that all potential applicants review thoroughly the www.grants.gov website well in advance of submitting a proposal through the www.grants.gov system.

Please refer to the www.grants.gov website for definitions of various "application statuses" and the difference between a submission receipt and a submission validation. Applicants will receive a validation e-mail from www.grants.gov upon the successful submission of an application. Again, validation of an electronic submission via www.grants.gov can take up to two business days. DRL will not notify you upon receipt of electronic applications. Faxed, couriered, or emailed documents will not be accepted. Applicants must follow all formatting instructions in the applicable request for proposals (RFP) and these instructions.

A valid DUNS number AND a CCR (Central Contractor Registration) number ARE BOTH required prior to submitting an application via Grants.gov. Organizations should verify that they have a DUNS number or take the steps needed to obtain one as soon as possible. Instructions for obtaining a DUNS and number and CCR Registration can be found at www.sam.gov . Click “create user account” and sign up for an “individual account.” An organization must wait approximately 3-5 business days after registering with the CCR before the organization may obtain a username and password for Grants.gov. This may delay the organization’s ability to submit a Statement of Interest through www.grants.gov. In addition, CCR registration must be updated annually to maintain a valid registration.

Electronic applications submitted via Grants.gov must contain the three parts listed as mandatory forms in the application package, including the SOI document (Project Narrative). Upon completion of a successful electronic application submission on Grants.gov, the applicant will receive an email confirmation that the application has been successfully submitted and is in the process of verification. The applicant will then receive another email confirming that the application has been verified. Both emails are provided by grants.gov to verify that an application was received. Please save these emails for your records.

Grants.gov Helpdesk: For assistance with Grants.gov, please call the Contact Center at 1-800-518-4726 or email support@grants.gov. The Contact Center is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, except federal holidays.

PROPOSAL REVIEW PROCESS

DRL strives to ensure each application receives a balanced evaluation by the Department of State (DOS) Review Committee. All proposals for a given solicitation are reviewed against the same four criteria, which are weighted differently (see details below). These criteria are: (1) Quality of Technical Approach, (2) Program Planning/Ability to Achieve Objectives, (3) Quality of Staff, and (4) Cost Effectiveness. Additionally, the Committee will evaluate how the proposals meet the solicitation request, U.S. foreign policy goals, and the priority needs of DRL overall. Panelists review each proposal individually against the evaluation criteria, not against competing proposals.

In most cases, the Department of State Review Committee includes representatives from DRL, the appropriate DOS bureaus, and where appropriate, USAID Washington. At the end of discussion on a proposal, the Committee votes on recommending the proposal for Bureau approval.

Department of State Review Committee panels may provide conditions and recommendations on proposals to enhance the proposed programs, which must be addressed by the applicant before further consideration of the award. To ensure effective use of limited DRL funds, conditions or recommendations may include requests to increase, decrease, clarify and/or justify costs and program activities.

For further information on the DRL grants process, please see the DRL website: http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/index.htm

TECHNICAL FORMAT REQUIREMENTS

For all application documents, please ensure:

1) All pages are numbered, including budgets and attachments,

2) All documents are formatted to 8 ½ x 11 paper, and

3) All Microsoft Word documents are single-spaced, 12 point Times New Roman font, with a minimum of 1-inch margins.

Complete applications must include the following for proposal submission:

1. Completed and signed SF-424, SF-424A and SF424B, as directed on www.grantsolutions.gov or www.grants.gov. Completed and signed SF-LLL, “Disclosure of Lobbying Activities” and the “Certification Regarding Lobbying Activities” (which can be found with the solicitation on www.grantsolutions.gov or www.grants.gov and on the DRL website at: http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm), as well as your organization’s most recent A-133 audit (if applicable).

2. Table of Contents (not to exceed one [1] page in Microsoft Word) that includes a page-numbered contents page, including any attachments.

3. Executive Summary (not to exceed two [2] pages in Microsoft Word) that includes:

a) Name and contact information for the project’s main point of contact;

b) A one-paragraph “statement of work” or synopsis of the proposed evaluation plan and its expected results;

c) A concise breakdown of the project’s key evaluation activities by evaluation objectives; and

d) The total amount of funding requested and program length.

4. Proposal Narrative (not to exceed ten [10] pages in Microsoft Word). Please note the ten page limit does not include the Table of Contents, Executive Summary, Attachments, Detailed Budget, Budget Narrative or NICRA. Applicants are encouraged to submit multiple documents in a single Microsoft Word or Adobe file, (i.e., Table of Contents, Executive Summary, Proposal Narrative, and Budget Narrative in one file).

5. Budget Narrative (preferably in Microsoft Word) that includes an explanation and justification for each line item in the detailed budget spreadsheet, as well as the source and a description of all cost-share offered. For ease of review, DRL recommends applicants order the budget narrative as presented in the detailed budget. Personnel costs should include a clarification of the roles and responsibilities of key staff and percentage of time devoted to the project. The budget narrative should communicate to DRL any information that might not be readily apparent in the budget, not simply repeat with words what is stated numerically in the budget.

6. Detailed Line-Item Budget (preferably in Microsoft Excel) that includes three [3] columns including the request to DRL, any cost sharing contribution, and total budget (see below for more information on budget format). A summary budget should also be included using the OMB approved budget categories (see SF-424A as a sample). Costs must be in U.S. dollars.

7. Attachments (not to exceed seven [7] pages total, preferably in Microsoft Word) that include the following in order:

a) Page 1-2: Roles and responsibilities of key program personnel with short bios that highlight relevant professional experience. Given the limited space, CVs are not recommended for submission.

b) Page 3-5: Detailed work plan for the overall proposal. Components should include a timeline, proposed tasks and length of time for each task, deliverables and anticipated delivery date, other activities and program closeout.

c) Page 6-7: Additional optional attachments. Attachments may include additional timeline information, letters of support, etc.

8. If your organization has a Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreement (NICRA) and includes NICRA charges in the budget, your latest NICRA should be included as a .pdf file. This document will not be reviewed by the panelists, but rather used by program and grant staff if the submission is recommended for funding and therefore does not count against the submission page limitations. If your proposal involves subgrants to organizations charging indirect costs, please submit the applicable NICRA also as a .pdf file (see below for more information on indirect cost rates).

Note: DRL retains the right to ask for additional documentation of those items not included on this form.

Note: To ensure all applications receive a balanced evaluation, the Department of State Review Committee will review the first page of the requested section up to the page limit and no further. DRL encourages organizations to use the given space effectively.

INFORMATION ON STANDARD FORMS

Organizations must also fill out and submit SF-424, SF-424A, and SF-424B forms as directed on www.grantsolutions.gov or www.grants.gov. In addition, please refer to the following guidelines as you fill out the SF-424:

1. Type of Submission: Application
2. Type of Application: New
3. Date Received: Leave blank. This will automatically be assigned.
4. Applicant Identifier: Leave blank
5a. Federal Entity Identifier: Leave blank
5b. Federal Award Identifier: Leave blank
6. Date Received by State: Leave blank. This will automatically be assigned
7. State Application Identified: Leave blank. This will automatically be assigned
8a. Enter the legal name of the applicant organization. Do NOT list abbreviations or acronyms unless they are part of the organization’s legal name.
8b. Employer/Taxpayer ID Number: Non-U.S. organizations enter 44-4444444
8c. Enter organizational DUNS number (Data Universal Numbering System). Organizations can request a DUNS number at www.sam.gov.
8d. Enter the address of the applicant
8e. Enter the name of the primary organizational unit (and department or division, if applicable) that will undertake the assistance activity, if applicable
8f. Enter the name, title, and all contact information of the person to be contacted on matters involving this application
9. Select an applicant type (type of organization)
10. Enter: Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons
11. The CFDA number is 19.345
12. Enter the Funding Opportunity Number and title. This number will already be entered on electronic applications.
13. Enter the Competition Identification Number and title. This number will already be entered on electronic applications.
14. Areas Affected by Project: List the country or countries where project activities will take place in alphabetical order; for projects that will take place in more than one region enter “Global”
15. Enter the title of your proposed project (if necessary, delete pre-printed wording)
16. Congressional districts of Applicant and Program: Applicant if based in the U.S. please enter congressional district; if unknown or a foreign applicant please enter “90.” In box 16(b) for congressional district of program please enter “90.”
17. Please refer to the solicitation for the estimated start date and enter your projected end date
18. (18a) Enter the amount requested for the project described in the proposal under “Federal”; (18b) enter any cost-share under “Applicant”. Otherwise, use zeros.
19. Enter “c”
20. Select the appropriate box. If you answer “yes” to this question you will be required to provide an explanation.
21. Enter the name, title, and all contact information of the individual authorized to sign for the application on behalf of the applicant organization.

Please fill in the highlighted fields of the SF 424A with information from your proposed budget.

Please fill in the highlighted fields of the SF-424B: Page 2 - Complete applicant organization and title of authorized official sections. The Authorized Official is generally the grant signator at the organization or business.

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET (OMB) CIRCULARS

Organizations should be familiar with OMB Circulars A-110 (Revised) 22 CFR 145 (Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals and Other Nonprofit Organizations), A-122/A-21 (Cost Principles for Nonprofit Organizations; Indirect Costs), and A-133/A-128 (Audits of Institutions of Higher Education and Other Nonprofit Organizations) on cost accounting principles. For a copy of the OMB circulars cited, please contact Government Publications or download from http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_default.

INDIRECT COST-RATE

An organization with a Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreement (NICRA) from a cognizant federal government agency other than the U.S. Department of State should include a copy of the cost-rate agreement. Applicants should indicate in the proposal budget how the rate is applied and if any of the rate will be cost-shared. DRL generally does not pay indirect costs against participant expenses, but each case may vary. Organizations claiming indirect costs should have an established NICRA. If subgrantees are claiming indirect costs, they should have an established NICRA that is also submitted with the proposal package.

PROPOSAL REVIEW CRITERIA

Submissions should address the four specific criteria outlined in the solicitation described below:

Quality of Technical Approach (30 points)

Proposals should be responsive to the solicitation and demonstrate a clear understanding of DRL’s mission of promoting human rights and democracy. Proposals should show how the Implementer can creatively conduct an effective review of the transitional justice field and evaluation of international transitional justice programs in post-conflict countries under democratic transition. Because the literature on international transitional justice programs is rather sparse, proposals should demonstrate ingenuity in its ability to develop a comprehensive framework on transitional justice efforts and implement a robust outcome-based evaluation on current TJ projects. A strong proposal will expand beyond traditional evaluation methodologies and include more innovative evaluation techniques that can quickly adapt to evolving democratic situations.

Program Planning/Ability to Achieve Objectives (40 points)

A strong proposal will include a clear articulation of how the proposed evaluation activities contribute to the overall evaluation objectives, and each activity will be clearly developed and detailed. A relevant work plan should demonstrate substantive undertakings and the logistical capacity of the Implementer. The work plan should adhere to the program overview and guidelines described above. For complete proposals, applicants should provide a monthly timeline of project activities. Proposals should describe data collection mechanisms for both the analytical review and the outcome-based evaluation based on the Implementer’s experience and expertise.

Quality of Staff (20 points)

Proposals should demonstrate an institutional record of successful evaluations for a range of democracy and human rights foreign assistance programs, and preferably ones related to transitional justice issues. Proposed personnel and institutional resources should be adequate and appropriate to achieve the project's objectives. Roles, responsibilities, and brief bios demonstrating relevant professional experience of primary staff should be provided as one of the main attachments.

Cost Effectiveness (10 points)

DRL strongly encourages applicants to clearly demonstrate program cost-effectiveness in their proposal submissions, including examples of leveraging institutional and other resources.

Cost-sharing is the portion of program cost not borne by the sponsor. DRL encourages cost-sharing, which may be in the form of allowable direct or indirect costs and offered by the applicant and/or in-country partners. Applicants should consider all types of cost-sharing. Examples include the use of office space owned by other entities; donated or borrowed supplies and equipment; (non-federal) sponsored travel costs; waived indirect costs; and program activities, translations, or consultations conducted by qualified volunteers. The values of offered cost-share should be reported in accordance with (the applicable cost principles outlined in) OMB Circular A-110 (Revised) Subpart C (23) “Cost-sharing or Matching.” Other federal funding does not constitute cost-sharing.

The recipient of an assistance award must maintain written records to support all allowable costs that are claimed as its contribution to cost-share, as well as costs to be paid by the Federal government. Such records are subject to audit. In the event the recipient does not meet the minimum amount of cost-sharing as stipulated in the recipient’s budget, the Bureau’s contribution will be reduced in proportion to the recipient’s contribution.

BUDGET GUIDELINES

Applications will not be considered complete unless they include budgets that respond to the solicitation guidelines. Complete budgets will provide a detailed line-item budget outlining specific cost requirements for proposed activities. A minimum of three columns should be used to delineate the bureau funding request, cost-share by applicant, and total project funding. Complete applications will include a budget narrative to clarify and justify individual line-items (i.e., calculations of how the costs were derived per month or year, their necessity, and overall contribution to the program’s cost-effectiveness).

Note: Grantees under Bureau-funded projects are responsible for complying with all applicable tax treaties and federal, state, and local laws on tax withholding and reporting for project participants.

The three-column proposal line item budget should include the following components, in the suggested format below:

1. Summary Budget

2. Line-Item Budget

Note: This budget is designed to serve as an example of the format for complete budget submissions and is NOT exhaustive. Individual line items included in each applicant’s budget should reflect specific program activities.

Before grants are awarded, the Bureau reserves the right to reduce, revise, or increase proposal budgets in accordance with the needs of the Bureau’s program and availability of funds.

1. SUMMARY BUDGET:

Please include the applicant organization name, title and duration of the project, and the following:

All organizations, including those not offering any cost - sharing, should submit a budget, formatted to include three columns for each line item: DRL funding request, cost-share offered, and total funding. Sources of all cost-share offered in the application should be identified and explained in the budget narrative. When organizations have made a reasonable, good-faith effort to obtain cost sharing or are pursuing avenues to cost share, DRL encourages applicants to note this in the proposal.

Budgets should be arranged according to the format below to clearly delineate cost-share:

2. LINE-ITEM BUDGET:

A. Personnel – In general, employees receiving benefits from the applicant organization are considered staff. Consultants hired to assist with the program, who do not receive benefits, should be included under other direct costs. Identify staffing requirements by each position title and brief description of duties. For clarity, please list the annual salary of each position, percentage of time and number of months devoted to the project. (e.g., Administrative Director: $30,000/year x 25% x 8.5 months; calculation: $30,000/12 = $2,500 x 25% x 8.5 months = $5,312.).

B. Fringe Benefits - State benefit costs separately from salary costs and explain how benefits are computed for each category of employee (specify type and rate).

C. Travel - Staff and any participant travel:

1) International airfare

2) In-country travel overseas

3) Domestic travel in the United States, if any

4) per diem/maintenance: includes lodging, meals and incidentals for both participant and staff travel. Rates of maximum allowances for U.S. and foreign travel are available from the following website: http://www.gsa.gov/portal/category/21287 and http://aoprals.state.gov/content.asp?content_id=184&menu_id=78 . Per diem rates may not exceed the published U.S. government allowance rates; however, institutions may use per diem rates lower than official government rates.

Please explain differences in fares among travelers on the same routes (e.g., project staff member traveling for three weeks whose fare is higher than that of staff member traveling for four months). Please note that all travel, where applicable, must be in compliance with the Fly America Act. For more information see http://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/103191 .

D. Equipment – Equipment is defined as having a per unit cost of $5,000 and a service life of more than one year. If the item meets these criteria than all federal procurement policies and procedures must be followed. If an item does not meet these criteria it is considered a supply. Please provide justification for any equipment purchase/rental.

E. Supplies - List items separately using unit costs (and the percentage of each unit cost being charged to the grant) for photocopying, postage, telephone/fax, printing, and office supplies (for example, Telephone: $50/month x 50% = $25/month x 12 months).

F. Contractual –

a) Subgrants. For each subgrant/contract please provide a detailed line item breakdown explaining specific services. In the subgrant budgets, provide the same level of detail for personnel, travel, supplies, equipment, direct costs, and fringe benefits required of the direct applicant. If indirect is charged on a subgrant please include a NICRA. Please note that a subgrantee who receives equal to or more than $25,000 is required to have a DUNS number. Please visit www.fsrs.gov for more information.

b) Consultant Fees. For example lecture fees, honoraria, travel, and per diem for outside speakers or external evaluators: list number of people and rates per day (for example, 2 x $150/day x 2 days).

G. Construction – Due to the nature of DRL programs, construction costs are not allowable or applicable.

H. Other Direct Costs- these will vary depending on the nature of the project. The inclusion of each should be justified in the budget narrative. A-133 audit costs can be included if they are not part of the indirect pool and only the portion of the cost associated with this program.

J. Indirect Charges - See OMB Circular A-122, "Cost Principles for Non-profit Organizations"

1) If your organization has a NICRA, please include a copy of this agreement in the proposal. An applicant must indicate in the proposal budget how the rate is applied.

2) If your organization does not have a NICRA, the proposal budget should not have a line item for indirect cost charges. Rather, any costs that may be considered as indirect costs should be included in specific budget line items as direct costs.

Cost Share - Explanation of contributions should be included, whether cash or in-kind. Assign a monetary value in U.S. dollars to each in-kind contribution. If the proposed project is a component of a larger program, identify other funding sources for the proposal and indicate the specific funding amount to be provided by those sources. In addition, it is recommended that the budget narrative address the overall cost-effectiveness of the proposal, including leveraging of institutional or other resources.

Other Budget Guidelines

The Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor will consider budgeted line-items for the following:

• External evaluations to assess the project’s impact (costs must be built into the overall original budget proposal and must be reasonable);

• Costs associated with an internal evaluation conducted by the grantee (costs must be built into the overall original budget proposal and must be reasonable).

• Visa fees and immunizations associated with program travel.

The Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor does not pay for the following, under any circumstances:

• Publication of materials for distribution within the United States;

• Administration of a program that will make a profit;

• Expenses incurred before or after the specified dates of the grant (unless prior approval received);

• Projects designed to advocate policy views or positions of foreign governments or views of a particular political faction;

• Entertainment expenses, including alcoholic beverages;

• Contingency funds to cover unexpected costs, including inflationary factors.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Once the Request for Statements of Interest or Request for Proposals deadline has passed, U.S. Department of State staff in Washington and overseas may not discuss competing proposals with applicants until the review process has been completed.

Applicants should be aware that DRL considers submitted proposals proprietary and will make all efforts to protect information contained in the application. While DRL will not voluntarily provide the documents nor divulge their contents outside the U.S. Government, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to shield them from disclosure if faced with a request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) or other disclosure statutes. While we will try to assert FOIA exemptions where defensible, FOIA denials can be challenged in court and we cannot guarantee that the documents will ultimately be protected from public disclosure requirements.

The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department.
External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.

Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor Request for Proposals: Democracy and Human Rights in Cuba

Department of State

Public Notice

Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor Request for Proposals: Democracy and Human Rights in Cuba.

SUMMARY

The Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL) announces a Request for Proposals for projects that promote democracy and human rights in Cuba.

PLEASE NOTE: DRL strongly urges applicants to access www.grantsolutions.gov or www.grants.gov as soon as possible in order to obtain a username and password to submit your application. For more information, please see DRL’s Proposal Submission Instructions (PSI), updated in November 2012, available at http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm.

REQUESTED PROPOSAL PROGRAM OBJECTIVES

DRL invites organizations to submit proposals targeting the following issues in Cuba:

Independent Journalism (subject to the availability of funding, approximately $1,500,000):

DRL seeks proposals to improve the professional capacity of independent journalists in Cuba as well as their domestic and international exposure. The program should also mitigate the effects of the psychological concerns and security needs of Cuban independent journalists operating in a hostile environment as a result of government oppression. If appropriate and feasible, the project may facilitate external travel by Cubans and/or include a small grants component.

Illustrative project activities may include, but are not limited to:

• Conducting in-depth, continuous capacity building on issues related to fact-based reporting, journalistic standards, ethics, and best practices, and investigative journalism techniques appropriate to the Cuban context;
• Providing material and financial assistance, and professional guidance, to independent journalists;
• Assisting efforts of independent journalists in Cuba to attain international accreditation and exposure.
• Implementing practical workshops designed to enable journalists to:
  • employ best practices regarding threat assessment, digital security, physical security, and risk response;
  • utilize safety and stress awareness techniques;
  • employ best practices for content distribution.

Labor Rights (subject to the availability of funding, approximately $750,000):

DRL seeks proposals to assist Cuban citizens in promoting understanding of, respect for, and compliance with, international labor standards, especially in the context of economic sectors such as tourism and others. The project should help Cubans in Cuba to bring attention, both nationally and internationally, to the violation of labor standards on the island through targeted training, analysis, outreach, and activism. If appropriate and feasible, the project may facilitate external travel by Cubans and/or include a small grants component.

Illustrative project activities may include, but are not limited to:

• Production and dissemination of fact-based, analytical reports by Cubans in Cuba regarding labor issues affecting Cuban citizens. All analysis should include Cuban-generated proposals for change. Dissemination of reports should primarily target Cuba.
• Implementation of grassroots community outreach activities in Cuba to increase the Cuban public’s understanding of labor standards and labor rights in the workplace.
• Assist Cuban workers and labor activists in Cuba to expand domestic and international advocacy regarding labor conditions on the island internationally.

Digital Tools for Safe and Effective Civil Society Initiatives (subject to the availability of funding, approximately $850,000):

DRL seeks proposals to increase the capacity of Cuban civil society to effectively employ digital tools and resources for information dissemination and event coordination. The project should provide Cuban activists with ongoing capacity building and assistance to increase their level of technological proficiency and their ability to utilize new and existing technologies in a secure manner. If appropriate and feasible, the project may facilitate external travel by Cubans and/or include a small grants component.

Illustrative project activities may include, but are not limited to:

• Providing tools and resources to Cuban civil society that assist them in implementing grassroots initiatives securely;
• Targeted capacity building for Cuban civil society on the integration of new hardware and software into their activities. Capacity building should be ongoing and geared towards ensuring long-term improvement in technological understanding.

Afro-Cuban Equality and Advocacy (subject to the availability of funding, approximately $500,000):

DRL seeks proposals to raise awareness in Cuba of issues affecting Afro-Cubans and assist in the development of independent Afro-Cuban networks in Cuba. The project should support independent Afro-Cuban groups in advocating for equal treatment and access to services and opportunities, by facilitating outreach and advocacy efforts. If appropriate and feasible, the project may facilitate external travel by Cubans and/or include a small grants component. Geographically, the program could engage groups throughout the island, but should retain a focus on eastern provinces.

Illustrative project activities may include, but are not limited to:

• Capacity building for independent Afro-Cuban organizations on issues including, but not limited to, effective leadership, organizational vision and goals, and communications and outreach;
• Organization of events that draw attention to discrimination by generating discussion and assisting advocacy efforts among independent Afro-Cuban groups pressing for equality;
• Production and dissemination of Cuban-generated analyses reporting on issues facing the Afro-Cuban community. Dissemination of reports should primarily target Cuba.

Social Analysis and Advocacy (subject to the availability of funding, approximately $750,000):

DRL seeks proposals to support the capacity of nascent, independent Cuban think tanks to produce and disseminate analyses of issues concerning Cubans on the island. The project should support efforts by those think tanks and their partners to engage a wide swath of Cuban society in driving community discussion and prompting advocacy-related activities. Analysis produced under the project should be objective, data-driven, and include proposals for Cuban-led alternatives for change. If appropriate and feasible, the project may facilitate external travel by Cubans and/or include a small grants component.

Illustrative project activities may include, but are not limited to:

• Production of Cuban-led research and analysis that considers societal issues that affect the general population, such as the Cuban educational, medical, housing, and prison systems, among others;
• Increasing spaces for discussion that engage a wide swath of Cuban society and present them with objective analysis and Cuban-led proposals for change;
• Dissemination in Cuba of information via print, SMS, in-person discussions, or other means that illustrates the findings of Cuban-led analytical reports and suggested changes;
• Capacity building for independent nascent think thanks on issues including, but not limited to, effective leadership, organizational vision and goals, and communications and outreach.

DEADLINE AND TECHNICAL ELIGIBILITY

Please refer directly to DRL’s posted Proposal Submission Instructions (PSI), updated in November 2012, available at http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm. Faxed, couriered, or emailed documents will not be accepted at any time. Applicants must follow all formatting instructions in this document and the Proposal Submission Instructions (PSI).

To ensure all applications receive a balanced evaluation, the DRL Review Committee will review the first page of the requested section up to the page limit and no further. DRL encourages organizations to use the given space effectively.

An organization may submit no more than two [2] proposals.

Technically eligible submissions are those which: 1) arrive electronically via www.grantsolutions.gov or www.grants.gov by Monday, July 15, 2013 before 11:59 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST); 2) heed all instructions contained in the solicitation document and Proposal Submission Instructions (PSI), including length and completeness of submission; and 3) do not violate any of the guidelines stated in the solicitation and this document.

It is the responsibility of all applicants to ensure that proposals have been received by www.grantsolutions.gov or www.grants.gov in their entirety. DRL bears no responsibility for data errors resulting from transmission or conversion processes.

Once the Request for Proposals deadline has passed, U.S. Department of State staff in Washington and overseas may not discuss competing proposals with applicants until the review process has been completed.

NOTE: In order to process final awards, approved applicants will need to register with www.grantsolutions.gov.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Programs that leverage resources from funds internal to the organization or other sources, such as public-private partnerships, will be highly considered. DRL strongly discourages health, technology, or science- related projects unless they have an explicit component related to the requested program objectives listed above. Cost sharing is strongly encouraged but not required for the purposes of this solicitation. Cost sharing contributions should be detailed appropriately in the proposal budget and budget narrative.

Proposals that include the production of content should prioritize Cuban authorship and generation of that content.

Pursuant to governing regulations, DRL requires prior approval of all foreign travel and/or subawards undertaken. For the purposes of this solicitation, “foreign travel” includes any travel outside Canada, Mexico, the United States, and any United States territory or possession. However, the term “foreign travel” for non-profit organization located in a foreign country means travel outside that country. For travel to Cuba, DRL encourages applicants to list the region of origin. For travel from Cuba, DRL encourages applicants to list the region of destination. For travel not including Cuba, DRL strongly encourages applicants to specify country of origin and destination. DRL also strongly encourages applicants to provide specific travel costs associated with foreign travel. Travel costs are defined as expenses for transportation, lodging, subsistence, and any other costs budged for the implementation of travel.

As detailed in DRL’s November 2012 Proposal Submission Instructions, DRL strongly encourages applicants to provide a detailed account of any proposed subawards within an application. “Subaward” means an award of financial assistance in the form of money, or property in lieu of money, made under an award by a recipient to an eligible subrecipient or by a subrecipient to a lower tier subrecipient. The term includes financial assistance when provided by any legal agreement, even if the agreement is called a contract, but does not include: 1) procurement of goods; 2) technical assistance, which provides services instead of money; 3) other assistance in the form of loans, loan guarantees, interest subsidies, or insurance; 4) direct payments of any kind to individuals; and 5) contracts which are required to be entered into and administered under procurement laws and regulations. Applicants are encouraged to provide the following information in relation to subawards:

• For subawards to organizations:
  • The name of the sub-awardee, and (a) in the case of a for-profit commercial organization, the place of incorporation; or (b) in the case of a partnership, the place where legally organized; or (c) in the case of a non-profit organization, the place where legally organized.
  • The program description, statement of work, or terms of reference, period of performance, and country of performance.
  • The total estimated cost, including a detailed line-item budget and budget narrative that also includes proposed cost share, if applicable, and a copy of any current indirect cost rate agreement between the U.S. Government and the sub-awardee.

• For subawards to individuals:
  • The program description, statement of work, or terms of reference, period of performance, and country of performance.
  • The total estimated cost, including a breakdown of any expenses (such as travel, proposed daily rate, salary, stipend, or honorarium (whichever applies), etc.) and proposed cost share. The recipient must also provide a description of the experience level and professional background if any fee is to be received by the subawardee or if any fee is provided as cost share under the agreement.
  • Although the recipient is not required to provide the name of the individual, it must ensure that all appropriate vetting is conducted to ensure that subawards are not entered into with those who are debarred, suspended or otherwise excluded from or ineligible for participation in Federal assistance programs or activities.

• For all subawards, applicants are encouraged to provide information related to foreign travel, purchase of equipment, and further subawards or subcontracts, including subcontracts with program consultants.

Successful applicants are required to obtain and maintain the applicable Department of Commerce and/or Department of Treasury Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) licenses. More information on these licenses can be found at:

a. U.S. Office of Foreign Assets Control: http://www.treas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/;

b. U.S. Department of Commerce: http://www.bis.doc.gov/licensing/index.htm

Special thought and consideration should be given to the selection of consultants and other personnel who may be required to travel to the island. To the extent possible, travel by American citizens should be limited. It is preferable for these personnel to speak Spanish fluently, possess solid understanding of the Cuban cultural context, and have prior experience on the island, in order to maximize their effectiveness in this unique operating environment.

DRL will not consider proposals that reflect any type of support for any member, affiliate, or representative of the Cuban government. DRL will also not consider proposals that reflect any type of support for any member, affiliate, or representative of a designated terrorist organization, whether or not elected members of government.

The information in this solicitation is binding and may not be modified by any Bureau representative. Explanatory information that contradicts this language in this solicitation will not be binding. Issuance of the solicitation does not constitute an award commitment on the part of the Government. The Bureau reserves the right to reduce, revise, or increase proposal budgets in accordance with the needs of the program evaluation requirements.

This request for proposals will appear on www.grantsolutions.gov or www.grants.gov and DRL’s website, www.state.gov/j/drl.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

Should you have any questions regarding the solicitation, please feel free to contact Alex Covington at CovingtonAP@state.gov and Kathleen Duffy at DuffyKK@state.gov. Once the deadline has passed, State Department officials and staff - both in the Bureau and at embassies overseas - may not discuss this competition with applicants until the entire proposal review process is completed.

The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department.
External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.

Release of the June 12, 2013 U.S. Periodic Report to the UN Committee on Elimination of Racial Discrimination

The June 12, 2013 CERD report has been released and is posted at:

HTML - http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/cerd_report/210605.htm

PDF - http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/210817.pdf

The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department.
External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.

U.S. Department of State Welcomes Female Pakistani Field Hockey Athletes on the 41st Anniversary of Title IX

The Empowering Women and Girls through Sports Initiative aims to increase the number of women and girls involved in sports. From June 17- 27, the U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA) will bring ten teenage field hockey players and two female coaches from Pakistan to the United States for an international sports exchange. This program builds on the U.S. global commitment to advance the rights of women and girls around the world.

Their time in the United States aligns with the 41^st anniversary of Title IX, the landmark U.S. law, which afforded opportunity and equality for American women in sports and education. The lessons of Title IX will help young athletes increase the number of women and girls who participate in all aspects of sports worldwide.

These high school athletes will play field hockey with their American counterparts in Washington D.C. where they will work with their peers on developing teamwork, health, and leadership skills. They will also travel to North Carolina to participate in field hockey clinics, activities on sports and disability rights, and community volunteerism at the University of North Carolina-Greensboro.

The Empowering Women and Girls through Sports Initiative is comprised of three pillars: Sports Envoys (American athletes who travel overseas); Sports Visitors (youth athletes and coaches who travel to the United States); and the cornerstone of the initiative, the U.S. Department of State and espnW Global Sports Mentoring Program.

For more information, please contact of the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs at ECA-Press@state.gov.

The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department.
External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.

Background Briefing on Easing of U.S. Economic Sanctions In Support of the Syrian People

MODERATOR: Hello, everybody. Thanks for joining us this afternoon. Again, I just want to remind you this is on background. We have with us today two senior Administration officials. The first official is [Senior Administration Official One]. And our second Senior Administration Official is [Senior Administration Official Two].

And so with that, I’ll just hand it over to [Senior Administration Official One] for brief remarks, and then we’ll open it up for questions.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Well, thank you very, very much for joining us today on this call. I really just wanted to take just a couple of minutes to provide a short brief on several actions the Administration is taking today to ease sanctions in opposition-controlled areas of Syria for the benefit of the Syrian people.

We’re – the Department of State, the Department of Treasury, and the Department of Commerce are taking three actions today to ease the economic sanctions in those opposition areas of Syria. The first action we’re taking today is that Secretary of State John Kerry signed a limited waiver of the Syria Accountability Act which will authorize the export or re-export of certain U.S.-origin items to liberated areas of Syria for the benefit of the Syrian people.

Currently from the United States you can export certain food and medicine to Syria. The action we’re taking today will allow U.S. companies and persons to export, subject to case by case review by the Commerce Department, a wide range of reconstruction-related equipment to opposition areas. Some examples of the kinds of equipment that could be authorized for export include a variety of agricultural equipment, equipment related for power generation, as well as water supply and sanitation type equipment to those liberated areas. This is not a general license we’re taking today, but rather U.S. companies interested in engaging in these kinds of exports will be able to apply to the Department of Commerce for license to export those kinds of goods. We see this action as a way of providing some concrete material benefit to people in those liberated areas because of the needs for reconstruction in those areas.

Related to that action today, Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control, OFAC, is issuing a Statement of Licensing Policy which will allow – encourages U.S. people to apply to OFAC for specific licenses that’ll enable U.S. persons to engage in certain activities in Syria. In particular, the Statement of Licensing Policy invites people to apply for licenses to engage in oil-related transactions for the benefit of Syrian opposition, including facilitating the export of oil from Syria for the benefit of the Syrian opposition, also to provide support to Syria’s agricultural and telecommunications sectors. People wishing to engage in other kinds of transactions, particularly in liberated areas, within the scope of the Statement of Licensing Policy, are also invited to apply for licenses.

And finally, we’re amending a general license, General License 11, that’ll authorize additional NGOs to engage in activities to preserve cultural heritage sites and the cultural patrimony of Syria.

I think, broadly speaking, we see the actions we’re taking today as providing an important benefit for the people of Syria and for the Syrian Opposition Coalition and the opposition within Syria. As I said, the actions we’re taking today do still require companies interested in engaging in these transactions to come in and get specific licenses. That ensures that relevant U.S. governments can review specific transactions to make sure that specifically sanctioned entities aren’t able to participate in those transactions and that those transactions are actually for the benefit of the Syrian people.

We’ve worked closely with the Syrian opposition across a range of issues over the last year or two. We do see this as a very important area for us to be able to continue working with them to provide a variety of additional economic – with the actions today, provide some easing of the economic sanctions in place in those opposition-controlled parts of Syria and for the benefit of the Syrian Opposition Coalition.

I think with that, [Senior Administration Official Two], unless you have anything you’d like to add, maybe we should open it up for questions.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: Fine to go ahead and open it up for questions. Thanks, [Senior Administration Official One]. You’ve covered it.

MODERATOR: Operator, can we get the first question? Thank you.

OPERATOR: And once again, if you have a question, please press *1 at this time. And our first question comes from the line of Jill Dougherty at CNN. Please go ahead.

QUESTION: Yes. Thanks – (call interrupted).

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Jill, I can’t hear you.

OPERATOR: It looks like she got disconnected. Let me pull up the next one. And that will be from Emily Cadei at CQ Roll Call. Please go ahead.

QUESTION: Hi. This is Emily Cadei. Thanks for doing to the call. I just wanted to get a sense from you guys about whether this is more being proactive, given the fact that there might be future demands for reconstruction materials, or if you’re actually getting demands from the Syrian opposition on the ground right now, if there’s things that are actually going on right now that these actions today that Commerce, Treasury, et cetera have taken will actually facilitate or that have been held up until this action will be taken.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: I can’t comment on specific cases companies have brought to us, but I will say there have been a number of specific instances of companies from the U.S. that wanted to send equipment to opposition-controlled parts of Syria and consistent with supporting the Syrian people. In particular, there is a recent case of a company that wanted to send some water purification equipment to Syria that was not previously authorized and that we would now – the Department of Commerce would now be able to authorize that export. And we’ve heard a variety of other cases about that. So I would say this is both to address specific concerns that have come in, and it is also very much prospective, because we expect there to be more and more need and more and more demand for these kinds of goods and services going forward.

QUESTION: Thank you.

OPERATOR: And our next question comes from the line of Howard LaFranchi, Science Christian Monitor. Please go ahead.

QUESTION: Yeah. Hi. Thanks for doing this. I’ve got to ask the question: Does this have any impact on U.S. companies that might want to sell arms to the opposition?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Today we are talking about easing economic sanctions in support of the opposition. And the actions taken today don’t affect existing regulations related to providing arms or other lethal items to Syria. The actions do not affect those kinds of issues.

QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.

OPERATOR: And our next question comes from the line of Jill Dougherty, CNN. Please, go ahead.

QUESTION: Yes. Hi. Back again after a technical glitch. Sorry about that. I just wanted to make sure, these – when a company comes to you or to whichever agency – excuse me – and wants to export something, do they have to show that it’s going to a particular area? Is that how it would be defined? In other words, how do you keep it for the Syrian people in, let’s call it opposition-controlled areas, as opposed to anything that might be controlled by the regime? Sorry if you’ve already answered that.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: I think, Jill – and I’m glad you managed to solve the technical glitch. I appreciate the question from you. Look, I think certainly we would want companies to be looking at who the end user is, and we’re looking for as much information about where it’s going as possible. We also have a regular dialogue with the Syrian Opposition Coalition. We will be in dialogue with them on many of these issues as well.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: I think from the Treasury perspective we would also look at – in all of these, we look at all of the facts and circumstances involved in the transaction so there’s not just one factor that we’d look at in terms of where the article or services might go, but everything involved to make sure that it supports our national security and foreign policy goals.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MODERATOR: Operator, can we see if there’s other calls? Thank you.

OPERATOR: Once again, if you have a question please press * then 1 at this time. And our next question comes from the line of Margaret Brennan, CBS. Please, go ahead.

QUESTION: Hi, it’s Margaret Brennan. Thank you for doing this. And I’m joining the call late because of a technical issue, so forgive me if I’m repeating a question here. But if you can explain – I mean, who do you see as becoming now the chief exporters here? Can you break it down by actual demand? I mean, what does this actually facilitate the transfer of?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: So I am – let me first say, this is not just about exports from the United States. The statement of licensing policy from OFAC would also let U.S. persons engage in – help facilitate oil sales from opposition-controlled areas for the benefit of the Syrian people, also engage in agricultural-related projects in those areas and other kinds of economic transactions for the benefit of the Syrian people in those opposition-controlled areas, even where there isn’t an export from the United States. This is actually a broader series of actions we’re taking today than just focusing on the export of U.S.-origin goods.

I think we really see a wide range of potential of both actions that we would have liked to have seen happen to date already and actions we see going forward, including the ability to provide U.S. companies to sell water purification, agricultural equipment, other kinds of reconstruction-related equipment to Syria. We also see, potentially, participation of U.S. persons in those other kinds of activities that can be licensed to do for the benefit of the Syrian people.

So I don’t think this is just about benefiting one sector or one particular kind of good or product. I think this really is a series of actions we’re taking today to make sure that a wide range of reconstruction-related activities, services, and products are available in opposition-controlled areas for the benefit of the SOC and the Syrian people.

QUESTION: So this is more for theoretical future demand?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: No, I think – sorry you were – Margaret, that you’re joining the call late. I mean, we have had a number of instances to date over the last couple of months where there have been things we would have liked to have allowed that we couldn’t prior to this action, have allowed – to give an example I touched on briefly earlier a major company – a major American manufacturer was hoping, pursuant to a request from a major international organization, to be able to deliver some water purification equipment into Syria that we could not authorize prior to the actions we’re taking today. Going forward, we could authorize that kind of action.

And we’ve also had a number of other instances of kinds of things that we would like to be able to authorize for the benefit of the Syrian opposition, the Syrian people, that we couldn’t to date having done, but that we will be able to do from today on pursuant to the actions taken today.

OPERATOR: Once again, if you have a question, please press *1 at this time. And our next question comes from the line of Paul Handley, AFP. Please go ahead.

QUESTION: Hi, Paul Handley from AFP. What’s the potential for them selling oil? What kind of volumes are we talking about? And what else could they be selling soon and quickly and at significant volumes and value to export outside and export to the U.S.?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: I’m not going to be able to give you a figure on volumes of oil exports. Clearly, there are a variety of issues related to infrastructure and oil export infrastructure in Syria. But this is an issue that the Syrian opposition has been and is quite interested in, and we look forward to seeing the kinds of specific applications that come in to engage in those kinds of transactions.

OPERATOR: And our next question comes from the line of Nicole Gaouette, Bloomberg News. Please go ahead.

QUESTION: Hi, thanks for doing this call. I wanted to ask about how these contracts would be paid for and whether they will in any way be tied to some of the humanitarian aid that the U.S. has been offering rebels.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: No, this is – the actions we’re taking today are separate from U.S. Government-provided assistance to the opposition. This is really about enabling the opposition to work with private sector, work with international organizations, work with NGOs to provide additional support reconstruction activities in those areas beyond what the U.S. is providing from the U.S. Government directly.

QUESTION: Thanks.

OPERATOR: And there are no more questions in queue at this time. Please go ahead.

MODERATOR: Okay. If there are no more questions, we’ll end it there. Thank you all very much for joining the call. We appreciate it. Good afternoon.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Thank you.

# # #

The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department.
External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.

Agreement on Legislative Elections Reached in Guinea

The United States welcomes the agreement reached between the Government of Guinea and members of opposition political parties that paves the way for all parties to participate in legislative elections. We applaud Guinea’s political leaders for demonstrating goodwill, flexibility and a shared commitment to holding inclusive and peaceful elections in accordance with international standards. We commend the dialogue facilitated by UN Special Representative of the Secretary General Said Djinnit that achieved this agreement and the support shown by representatives of the Francophone, European Union, and Economic Community of West African States. The United States is committed to supporting the electoral process and the seating of a newly elected National Assembly, an important milestone in consolidating Guinea’s democratic transition.

The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department.
External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.

Think Asia, Think Hong Kong

Thank you for inviting me to speak at this special event.

I also wish to acknowledge a few special members of this distinguished audience, including the Honorable Mr. Leung, Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Mr. Norman Chan, Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Monetary Authority, former Treasury Secretary Rubin, Under-Secretary Sanchez, Ambassador Sun, and our Consul General to Hong Kong Stephen Young, and many others here tonight.

I would also like to especially thank our gracious host, Mr. Jack So, Chairman of the Hong Kong Trade and Development Council.

When people think of Hong Kong, they may think of the bustling Ladies Market, Hong Kong Disneyland, Bruce Lee and Jackie Chan, a cutting edge center of finance and markets or even maybe how it has more Rolls-Royces per capita than anywhere else in the world. But Hong Kong also presents an important, dynamic, and ever expanding market for American businesses.

The world’s strategic and economic center of gravity is shifting east, and we in the United States are focusing ever more on the Asia-Pacific region. President Obama put it best when he said, “Asia will largely define whether the century ahead will be marked by conflict or cooperation…” And what better way to achieve cooperation than through prosperous economic partnerships in “Asia’s World City,” Hong Kong.

It’s no surprise that in 2011 then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton chose Hong Kong as the venue to discuss the “Principles for Prosperity in the Asia-Pacific.” The principles she cited were openness, freedom, transparency, and fairness. Last month, Secretary of State John Kerry laid down his own vision for building peace and prosperity in Asia through “strong, fair, smart, and just growth.” Those of you who have spent time in Hong Kong know that the city and the people embody these exact principles. There is a reason that every year since 1995, Hong Kong has won the title of “World’s Freest Economy.”

So where does Hong Kong fit into the global economy? As the State Department’s Chief Economist, I can’t help sharing some pretty compelling statistics with you. Although Hong Kong has a population of just over seven million, it has one of the highest levels of GDP per capita in the world. Perhaps more remarkably – as we sit here in New York City, home of Wall Street and the New York Stock Exchange – the World Economic Forum named Hong Kong “Top Financial Center in the World” last year, Hong Kong’s stock market was the sixth largest in the world last year and was the most active in the world for IPO funds raised globally in 2011.

And the United States regained its number one spot in IMD’s “World Competitiveness Survey” for 2013, edging out Hong Kong, last year’s number one winner. But, of course, we here in the U.S. don’t mind a bit of healthy competition from our friends.

Hong Kong is also the world’s ninth-largest trading economy and maintains one of the world’s highest trade-to-GDP ratios. By our calculation, roughly 85 percent of the value of Hong Kong’s trade is neither produced nor consumed in the territory. Rather, it is part of the global flow of trade between China and the rest of the world. Why does so much global trade flow through Hong Kong? The answer is simple: because it is easy. Hong Kong provides an extremely convenient platform for trade to and from China and across the rest of the region. It is home to one of the world’s leading international financial centers, weaving sophisticated networks of institutions and markets to the rest of the global financial system. Hong Kong’s well-deserved international reputation for openness, transparency, free markets, and rule of law stands out – just like its soaring skyline.

Hong Kong has maintained this reputation under the “One Country, Two Systems,” policy which has allowed Hong Kong to sustain a high degree of autonomy as a Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China. With this unique position, Hong Kong has demonstrated to the world that, not only is it a bridge between East and West, it is a place where ideas are born, businesses thrive, and economic opportunities can unlock vast human potential.

The United States in particular has benefited as a trading partner with Hong Kong.

As many of you are aware, in 2010 President Obama announced the National Export Initiative, with the goal of doubling U.S. exports and supporting an additional two million American jobs by the end of 2014.

In the past three years, U.S. exports to Hong Kong have increased by an average of nearly 20 percent every single year, on schedule to reaching our target.

Despite its small population, Hong Kong is the tenth-largest market for U.S. export of goods, and the sixth-largest market for U.S. agricultural products. One example: U.S. beef and beef products to Hong Kong reached a record $342 million in 2012.

U.S. firms are abundant in Hong Kong. More than 1,300 U.S. companies are represented in Hong Kong, with more than half choosing to base their Asian regional offices there. Hong Kong is critical to building economic integration between the U.S. and China, as 80 percent of these Hong Kong-based regional offices manage business operations on the Mainland.

But the economic partnership between Hong Kong and the United States goes well beyond the numbers. Hong Kong’s role in U.S. trade includes a qualitatively unique level of collaboration seeking “win-win” objectives. Not long after President Obama announced his National Export Initiative, the Hong Kong government and the U.S. government launched the Pacific Bridge Initiative. In partnership with the Hong Kong Trade Development Council, we agreed to collaborate on trade shows, trade missions, conferences, business matchmaking, and media outreach. The initiative has increased the number of new U.S. small and medium-sized enterprises going to Hong Kong.

It is rare indeed in this world to find two governments working so closely together to promote each other’s trade objectives. But that is the global outlook that truly sets Hong Kong apart.

The American relationship with Hong Kong is very much a two-way street. The future of the Asia-Pacific is very much linked to America’s own future.

Looking ahead, we must continue to strive for greater economic integration, particularly on the trade front. The United States, Hong Kong, and 20 other trading partners representing two-thirds of the world’s trade in services are negotiating a groundbreaking International Services Agreement at the WTO.

And within the Asia-Pacific, the United States and regional partners are striving to expeditiously complete the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a 21^st-century agreement which will create a new high standard for multilateral free trade. With current TPP partners agreeing in April to welcome Japan into the negotiations, the group would swell to represent 40 percent of the world’s GDP and almost one-third of world trade. We hope that TPP will serve as a platform for even greater regional economic integration. And to be clear, TPP members look forward to potentially expanding this platform to other Asia-Pacific economies ready to adopt its ambitious commitments.

Within the regional trade context, we also acknowledge Hong Kong’s efforts to forge a free-trade agreement with the ASEAN countries, five of which rank among Hong Kong’s top ten trading partners. Such an agreement would be good for Hong Kong, good for Asia, and good for free trade.

Turning to Foreign Direct Investment, we are striving to take full advantage of China’s historic shift to becoming a net supplier of FDI. Recently, for the first time, China’s outbound FDI surpassed its inbound FDI. This Chinese investment has benefitted the U.S. where, since 2006, FDI from China to the United States has grown at an average rate of 71 percent every year. We at the State Department are working hard to make sure this trend continues. We hope that public and private sector professionals alike are also keenly aware of the opportunity Hong Kong presents to help facilitate and accelerate this trend.

It is clear that there is an increasingly central role for Asia in the future of the global economy.

For the U.S. to fully encourage and capitalize on this increasingly important economic region we need American companies and our government to pursue positive and prosperous partnerships in the region.

It is places like Hong Kong that make me and my colleagues enormously optimistic about that future. Hong Kong is a place where you can do business. It is a place where trade and finance can and do flourish. It is a place with leaders in business, finance, and government who understand how to make things happen and get things done. In short, Hong Kong is a place that “gets it.”

Thank you.

The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department.
External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.

National Day of Russian Federation

I am delighted to offer my congratulations to the people of Russia as you celebrate your National Day this June 12th.

I was in Moscow earlier this year for my first visit as Secretary of State, and my trip coincided with celebrations of Victory Day, a reminder of the pivotal role your country has played at times of great challenge in the world. As I stood and placed a wreath at your Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, I was reminded of the great sacrifice the Russian people made along with the United States to defeat a common enemy. It was also a reminder that today, despite our differences and different perspectives which we express openly and honestly, Russia and the United States have much to gain by working together on the central challenges of this century. The opportunities before us far outweigh our differences, as our record of cooperation on common interests, from trade and investment to counterterrorism and nonproliferation, clearly demonstrates. In today’s global economy that thrives on innovation, Americans and Russians both stand to benefit from increased partnership between our societies, universities and businesses.

As you celebrate your national day, I offer all Russians my warm wishes, and my hope that by working together we can help to ensure that the 21st century will be defined by shared peace, stability and prosperity.

# # #

The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department.
External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.