Situation in Lebanon

The United States is deeply concerned about the situation in Lebanon. The latest clashes in the northern city of Tripoli, in which at least 23 people have been killed, constitute a stark reminder that the conflict in Syria poses an increasingly dangerous threat to Lebanon’s stability and security.

The United States fully supports Lebanon’s security, stability, and sovereignty and welcomes efforts by Lebanon’s leaders to take all necessary steps to put an end to the violence in Tripoli. We strongly support the Lebanese Armed Forces’ and Internal Security Forces’ efforts to stop the fighting in Tripoli and fully restore calm across the country. We call on all parties to do their part to restore calm, act with restraint, and respect Lebanon’s stability and security.

The United States supports the principles of the 2012 Baabda Declaration and Lebanon’s dissociation policy with respect to the crisis in Syria. We call on all parties in the region to avoid any actions that would exacerbate that crisis, increase the propensity for spillover violence, and negatively affect civilian populations. Hizballah leaders’ decision to escalate the group’s role in the fighting in Syria violates and undermines Lebanon’s dissociation policy and risks dragging Lebanon into a foreign conflict, to the detriment of the interests of the Lebanese 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.

Press Availability in Tel Aviv, Israel

I had very productive meetings with leaders in Israel and in the Palestinian Authority. As everyone knows, Israel remains our closest ally and a partner in the region, and we will continue to work together in order to enhance regional security and stability. And we will also continue to work with the Palestinian Authority in order to help them to be able to reach and meet their aspirations.

I believe that President Obama’s trip here earlier in the year opened up a window of opportunity, and it showed that there are strong constituencies for peace both in the West Bank, in the Palestinian territories, as well as in Israel. The polls overwhelmingly showed – perhaps 68, 72 percent of the people of Israel believed in a two-state solution. Peace is actually possible, notwithstanding the doubts that some people have because of past disappointments.

So the bulk of my discussions while I was here were therefore focused on how to move forward to try to achieve the negotiations that are necessary to bring about a just and lasting peace and security. I will continue my close engagement with both the Israeli and the Palestinian leaders going forward as needed in an effort to try to bridge any divide or to try to find the framework by which negotiations could begin.

I am convinced that the people on both sides of this conflict want it to end, but there are obviously different views about how to get there or who takes the first step or what the successive measures are in order to be able to get there. And so that’s what we have to deal with here. Israelis have a clear priority, which we understand and support, with respect to the issue of security, and they need and deserve that security. Palestinians have a priority concern with respect to knowing that they can secure an independent, sovereign, and prosperous state with clear lines as defined previously by them and others along the 1967 lines with swaps and recognizing changes that have taken place on the ground, as President Obama stated in his vision in 2011.

There is one way to make any of these visions a reality, and that is through direct negotiations. Ultimately it is the Israeli and the Palestinian people who will both decide the outcome or even the possibility of getting to those negotiations, and it is ultimately the people of Israel and Palestinians who will achieve the greatest benefits from a peace, and it is they who must make their voices heard.

Leaving this conflict unresolved for decades has deprived generations of security, and it has deprived people of the recognition that they deserve. And it is clear that – despite the sense of status quo, which for many is acceptable, it is clear that, in the long run, that status quo is not really sustainable. We all know that the longer it takes to bring about a peaceful end to this conflict the more and more difficult it will become to do so.

So I made clear in my discussions that the parties should be focused on making progress towards the direct negotiation, and each side needs to work to build trust and each side needs to refrain from any provocative rhetoric or actions that take us backwards. Ultimately, ending this conflict will take leadership on both sides. And as we look to restart negotiations, we look forward to working with the Israeli Government under the leadership of Prime Minister Netanyahu and his new government, as well as the Palestinian Authority under the leadership of President Abbas.

Achieving a lasting peace is also in the interests of all the communities in this region, all of the countries in the region. Just last month in Washington, the Arab League representatives stood up and reiterated their support for ending this conflict, and they moved voluntarily to adjust the initiative to reflect where we are today with the realities on the ground.

In addition, I will say that in every conversation I have had in the trips the President has asked me to make over the course of the last months – whether in China or Japan, or throughout Europe or throughout the Gulf, or visitors who have come to see me as recently as last week, the day before – the day I left to come here, the Foreign Minister of Brazil, Antonio Patriota, or the Foreign Minister of New Zealand, Mr. McCully – all said – they almost began their conversations with discussion of the need for and the potential of peace within the Middle East. This is a global concern for a lot of different reasons.

I was very encouraged by the statement from the Arab League delegation that said that a future agreement ought to be based on a two-state solution along the ’67 lines with comparable and mutually agreed upon swaps. The United States remains deeply committed to the goal of two states living side-by-side in peace and security, and it is only through direct negotiations that the Israelis and the Palestinians can address the permanent status issues and achieve the peace that both deserve – a peace with two states for two peoples with a sovereign and viable, independent Palestine living side-by-side in peace and security with a Palestinian homeland and a homeland for the Jewish people. That remains our goal.

I know that in some corridors, I know there are those who are skeptical, and some even because of prolonged skepticism might even call themselves cynical. And there are legitimate reasons for that. There have been years of disappointments. It’s our hope that by being methodical, being careful, being patient, but detailed and tenacious, that we can find a path that will ultimately lead to peace. I emphasize it will not be because the United States makes it happen or some other country does – this is a peace that must be negotiated between Israelis and Palestinians and their elected leadership. That is what we’re working towards.

I thank Prime Minister Netanyahu for his warm and generous welcome while here, his hospitality. I thank him for his efforts and I thank President Abbas for his warm hospitality and for his efforts. And I call on both of them in the next days to demonstrate the leadership that I believe the people in the Palestinian territories and in Israel hope for.

Thank you. I’d be happy to answer any questions.

MS. PSAKI: The Secretary – sorry.

SECRETARY KERRY: Or any questions. I guess I’m --

MS. PSAKI: Okay. The Secretary will take five questions this afternoon. The first will be from Arshad Mohammed of Reuters.

SECRETARY KERRY: Arshad, you’re on.

QUESTION: In Rome two weeks ago, you’ve said you believe both the Israelis and the Palestinians, both sides, were serious about the possibility of resuming peace negotiations. Last week, Israeli court documents showed that the government plans to retroactively legalize four previously illegal outposts.

SECRETARY KERRY: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Is that the act of a government that is serious about peace talks? Have you asked the Israeli Government for a full public settlement freeze if they get into talks? And can you point to actions on either side that demonstrate – that show seriousness?

SECRETARY KERRY: I’m not going to comment on what was asked for, not asked for, what was – any of the sort of private conversations I’ve had with the leaders except to say this: That issue was raised appropriately, and we did discuss the status of settlements overall and the need for both sides to take steps that indicate a willingness to try to move forward.

Now, the United States position with respect to settlements is clear, and it has not changed. We believe they should stop. That is a position that has been consistent not just by the United States but by the international community. And it is also clear that when actions are taken – whether by court or otherwise – it is our view that those actions can be deemed by some to be provocative, and they are not necessarily constructive with respect to the process. So it is our hope that there will be a minimal effort there.

Now, some of this is, frankly, beyond the control, and I understand that. There are some private and individual permits granted some time ago, and in terms of the legality, there is no capacity to move on them. But in other ways, certainly the government has an ability to be able to make a difference here in the next months. It’s my hope that they will, but I’m not going to go into any specific discussion of sort of what steps they may or may not take or where we are.

As I’ve said, we are trying to get to talks without pre-conditions. We do not want to get stuck in a place where we are arguing about a particular substantive issue that is actually part of a final settlement, and that argument takes you so long that you never get to the negotiations that bring about the final settlement. So the key here, in my judgment, is to show patience on both sides. There will be things that each side may choose to do that may create problems for the other side or change the politics. That’s pretty normal out here in this part of the world. Our hope is that everybody will stay focused on the prize, focused on the goal, and that is to negotiate in full faith on the broad basis that ends the anxiety and the tension over some of these other issues, because you’ve actually solved them by reaching a settlement on the broader components of the conflict itself.

MS. PSAKI: The next question will come from Christine Renawi.

QUESTION: Yeah. I’m from Palestine TV and (inaudible) news agency. Yeah, about Israel declared recently that it’s in the process of legitimatizing the four settlement outposts in the Palestinian territories. What’s your position towards that? And finally, what are the prospects of the peace process on the light of your meetings with Netanyahu and Mr. President Abbas?

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, as I just said, our position on settlements and outposts and on the legalization is that we are opposed to it. We believe that that is not appropriate, and, in fact, is not constructive in the context of our efforts to move forward. But it should not be something, as I just said, that prevents us from being able to get to negotiations, because if you can negotiate borders, and if you negotiate security and get to a final settlement, you have resolved the issue of settlements themselves. That’s the way you resolve the issue, is by deciding what is in the Palestinian state and what are the rules there and what is Israel and what are the rules there. And the sooner we get to that, the sooner the question of settlements is resolved.

With respect to where we are in the process, I’m not going to comment, except to say that we have reached – I’ve been here now a number of times. Both sides know what the choices are. Both sides know what is needed in order to try to move forward. And it’s really time for the governments to make their decisions. Are they prepared? This is not something, as I said, that we can decide. This is something that the leaders of Israel and the leaders of the Palestinian Authority have to decide. And we’re getting towards a time now where hard decisions need to be made.

MS. PSAKI: The next question will come from Michael Gordon of The New York Times.

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, Palestinian officials have said that June 7^th is the date by which they hope to see discernible progress in the peace process. They say that you’ve asked them to suspend their efforts to join international organizations or take steps that would reinforce their claim to statehood prior to that. What do you hope to accomplish in June? Is that month a target date for you? And if there is no progress in that month, what restraint will you ask for of each side?

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, I’m not going to get into specific dates, Michael. I don’t think setting one date or another unilaterally and arbitrarily necessarily advances things. But I will say this: President Obama, when he was here, made it very clear to all of the folks that he talked with – he made it clear to the Palestinians, he made it clear to the Israeli leadership – that he was going to give this a certain period of time, a few months is the term that he phrased it in, and then he was going to take stock of where we are to try to determine whether or not the parties are serious about coming back to the table and negotiating. He was here March 23^rd. We are now May 23^rd; that’s two months. And we’re moving into June.

So we are obviously moving in to a point where, as I just said, we are reaching the time where leaders need to make hard decisions. And I think that speaks for itself.

MS. PSAKI: The next question will come from Mala Barty from Israeli Channel 10.

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, is there any readiness from the Israeli side to go for confidence-building measures such as settlement freeze in the territories prior to the resumption of negotiation? If not, is there a readiness from the Palestinian side to go back to the table without getting these steps from the Israelis prior to the resumption? And in a more important sense, we know there are gaps. But you were here a month ago, and you’re saying the time is running out. And we understand that you will plan to come back here next Monday, but you somehow not (inaudible) regarding what happened in the last day.

SECRETARY KERRY: Yeah.

QUESTION: But what’s necessary to – now to happen in order for you to come back for next round of talk? Thank you.

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, let me begin by saying that time is running is out is sort of the wrong phraseology, if you don’t mind my saying so. It – the question is whether or not people are going to make the hard choices with respect to getting back to negotiations, and the timeframe within which the President said he wanted to have a sense of that is obviously coming due. But no, I think that it’s important for us to not create some sort of artificial standard. If it’s a week, two weeks, something like that, I think we need to allow folks to make their decisions within a reasonable framework in the next days ahead.

I don’t know what this thing about Monday is. I think we had a day where I might have been able to come back if I needed to, but I don’t think I do need to. And so I’m going to be speaking at the World Economic Forum; I’ll have a little more to say there about this process. But then I’m going to go on to other meetings and other business that I have as Secretary of State, while others obviously consider the choices that they know now are clear and the ways that we have offered to think about how we might proceed forward. So in that regard, those are the hard choices that need to be made.

MS. PSAKI: The final question will be from Jo Biddle of AFP.

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I actually want to turn to Iran. This week, the Guardian Council authored a list of 80 candidates who are permitted to stand in the June 14^th presidential elections. After initially barring all 30 women candidates, they’ve also ruled out several moderates, including former-President Rafsanjani and only allowed a hand-picked that served so loyal to the Supreme Leader to stand. While it isn’t – obviously not up to the U.S. to choose who should stand in the Iranian elections, does this hand-picked slate of candidates represent a fair and free choice for all the people of Iran across a broad spectrum of Iranian society? And how concerned are you that the leadership which emerges from the vote will actually toughen Iran’s stand on its nuclear program? Thank you.

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, I can’t think of anybody in the world looking at Iran’s election who wouldn’t be amazed by a process by which an unelected Guardian Council, which is unaccountable to the Iranian people, has actually disqualified hundreds of candidates, potential candidates, according to very vague criteria, which the Iranian people are not privileged to know or judge by. The council narrowed a list of almost 700 potential candidates down to the sort of officials of their choice based solely on who represents the regime’s interests, obviously, rather than who might represent some different point of view among the Iranian people. That is hardly an election by standards which most people in most countries judge free, fair, open, accessible, accountable elections. The lack of transparency obviously makes it highly unlikely that that slate of candidates is either going to represent the broad will of the Iranian people or represent a change of any legitimate kind.

So in addition to that, there are some troubling signs that Iranian Government is now taking steps to slow down or even cut off internet access, which is the process by which people can take part in the sharing of information and the exchange of ideas in an election. So ultimately, the Iranian people will be prevented not only from choosing someone who might have reflected their point of view, but also taking part in a way that is essential to any kind of legitimate democracy.

So we’ll have to see what develops, but it’s our hope still that the Supreme Leader and the Iranian leadership will come to the table in a serious way with a serious offer in order to prove that their nuclear program, which they profess is peaceful, is indeed peaceful. And I would reiterate – and I’ve said this before, and now it is almost a month or so even later – the clock is clearly ticking. And even today there are reports from the IAEA of its dissatisfaction with its access, and we know of the continued efforts of Iranian development of its program.

So this is an issue which is very, very much on our radar screen. We think about it and look at it every single day, take stock of it on a regular basis, and our hope is, for the sake of the region, the world, the Iranian people, ourselves, that we can have a peaceful resolution. But it is going to have to be demonstrated much more affirmatively than it has been to date that Iran is interested in that kind of a solution and that they are, indeed, prepared to prove that their program is peaceful.

I will repeat what I’ve said previously: Notwithstanding my criticism that I just made of the election process, the President of the United States has from day one said that he is open to trying to work towards a relationship with Iran that sees them rejoin the community of nations, lift sanctions, move to participation in international organizations, and assume a role like other nations that is responsible and accountable to the rule of law that we live by in the international community. That is the preferred hope of the American people and I think people in the world.

The Iranian leadership needs to make its decisions whether or not it wants to go down that road or the alternative. And the alternative is obviously one that none of us are looking for or want to contemplate. But the President has made it clear it is not one that he shies away from, if that is the only option that is left to him.

Thank you all very much. Appreciate 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.

Remarks Before His Meeting With Israeli President Shimon Peres

PRESIDENT PERES: Dear John, our dear Secretary of State, also let me tell you that our heart are with the American people, the dear people in Oklahoma.

SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you very much.

PRESIDENT PERES: We share their pain, we admire their courage, and we shall pray for their full recovery. God bless them.

SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you, sir.

PRESIDENT PERES: Welcome here again. I know that your burden is very heavy and your responsibility is heartbreaking, but so is the hope. If you will succeed, it will be our success. If you will miss, we shall miss. We shall stand on your side all the way. You have a mission of peace which concerns all of us – Israelis, Palestinians, old and young, mothers and children. I wish you success. We shall work with you. Thank you.

Just one word --

SECRETARY KERRY: Yes, sir.

PRESIDENT PERES: I also want to appreciate your effort to bring an end to the tragedy in Syria. We can’t stand it as human beings, and what you are doing is a human mission, not just a political necessity. Here too we shall be on your side in the best way we can, when necessary to say but when necessary also to be silent. Both are apparently needed, and we shall follow your advice to make your burden as easy and your success as promised. Thank you.

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, Mr. President, Shimon, my friend of many years, I’m very grateful to you, first of all, on behalf of the American people for your expression of condolences for what happened in Oklahoma – obviously extraordinary and tragic. But you’re right, the people there are unbelievably courageous and they set a great example to everybody.

I’ve said before when I come here, and I’d say it again, that visiting with you is really very special. You are one of the world’s great statesmen, as I wrote in the book out there. I think you are a treasure for Israel and a great treasure for all of us who try to work for peace. I know the journey you have had and the many, many, many roles you have played in Israel’s history, and it’s a great privilege for me to visit with one of the founding father generation leaders of this country. So I’m really honored to be here with you.

No one knows better than you the complications and difficulties of trying to end years of conflict and trying to bring people with a long history of not trusting each other and of disappointments and of conflict, and trying to bridge that divide. I am convinced, with great humility, that this moment is a really critical one for the region and particularly for Israel, for Palestine, for Jordan. I think there is an opportunity. But for many reasons, it’s not on the tip of everybody’s tongue. People in Israel aren’t waking up every day and wondering if tomorrow there’ll be peace, because there is a sense of security and a sense of accomplishment and a sense of prosperity.

But I think if you look over the horizon, as you do so much, one can see the challenges. And I think that the importance of trying to resolve this in this moment where there is a willingness for people to look for a way can’t be overstated. You said if you succeed or if you – it’s not me, Mr. President. It really is a question of whether Israel and the Palestinians make the choices. And the United States of America, through President Barack Obama, is completely at the disposal of both parties to try to help bridge the divide. We will work as hard as we can. You know how strongly we support Israel. You know how much we care about and admire the journey of the Israeli people. But our hope is that the leaders in both Israel and the Palestinian Authority will find the way to compromise and to achieve both of their goals. And I look forward to working with you in that enterprise. 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.

Background Briefing by a Senior State Department Official

QUESTION: [Senior State Department Official], did the opposition firmly commit to attending the Geneva conference next month? And did they outline in what format and what representation level, et cetera?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: It wasn’t the purpose of this meeting to go into the details of how the Geneva meetings would be set. Rather, it was to confirm how it fits within a broader strategy of this group of countries and the Syrian opposition to work on the political track even as we also work on providing additional support to the opposition. So we didn’t go into those kinds of details. We’re not there yet.

With respect to what the opposition said, first I think it’s really important that I emphasize that the 11 foreign ministers there all strongly supported the holding of the Geneva meeting. And they were very vocal in that support with the opposition. George Sabra acknowledged that there are advantages and said that they will need to explain it to the people inside the country. And he said we also look to continued support from our friends at the table, meaning the countries there, and he got strong affirmations that that support would continue. And you’ll see that highlighted twice in the communique.

MODERATOR: Arshad.

QUESTION: Yeah. There’s one line in the communique which I wanted to ask you about, which says the ministers also emphasized that until such time as the Geneva meeting produces a transitional government, they will further increase their support for the opposition and take all other steps as necessary. What does that mean? Does that mean greater military support or greater flows of arms?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Well, different countries are doing different things.

QUESTION: Right.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: So not all the countries at the table are doing the same things in terms of support. And I think that’s going to continue. I don’t think that’s going to change. There’ll be some countries that offer lethal support and there’ll be some countries that do not.

The important thing is that all of the countries agree that this support to the opposition is a tactic that works towards achieving a strategy of securing a negotiated political settlement through a process that would start at the Geneva meeting. So that particular sentence was also specifically there to make it clear that we don’t know if the Geneva process is going to be successful or not. And additional support to the opposition is not tied to a specific outcome of that Geneva meeting. Of course, if the Geneva meeting achieves a breakthrough and we get a transition government, then the opposition will actually be part of the transitional government and we don’t need to support the opposition per se.

QUESTION: Is it fair to say that the support to the opposition, which you described as a tactic that was helpful toward the broader strategy – to put it in simple terms, is it fair to say that by increasing, whoever does it, the flows of lethal assistance and other assistance to the opposition, before or after Geneva, is designed to try to help them regain some of the ground that they had lost in these past days?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: It’s long been our sense that Bashar al-Assad and his regime are not willing to make concessions now. And they said that, if you saw the Argentinian newspaper interview that he gave a few days ago. And so we have long said that it’s important to change his calculations, and that in order to change his calculations, the balance of power on the ground must change. And so, as the communique states, we will increase our support to the opposition. And the goal of that is to change that balance on the ground, but not as an end in and of itself but rather to facilitate arriving at a negotiated political solution.

QUESTION: Last one from me on this if I may. Do you expect that increase in support for the opposition to include more of the lethal weapons or more sophisticated weaponry, or is it just going to be more of the same of what has been done before by whichever countries have done that?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: I think different countries are reexamining their options. It’s not a secret that we’re studying options in the American Administration. We haven’t made final decisions. There is a discussion in Europe about lifting the European arms embargo. They had a discussion – there was talk about that tonight. And so different countries are considering what kinds of steps they need to take. But I think all of them fit within the parameter of helping the opposition writ large.

In specific terms, for the lethal that you’re talking about, the Supreme Military Council – General Idris was there tonight and gave a very thorough briefing on what’s going on on the ground, accenting in particular the latest on the Iranian and Hezbollah and Iraqi presence in the country – working through the Supreme Military Command on the lethal side, but all of it with the goal of strengthening the opposition in order to help convince the Syrian regime that it will have to negotiate the establishment of a transition government. And of course our position is well known. We cannot see how Bashar al-Assad could be a part of that administration.

QUESTION: Just, [Senior State Department Official] --

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Yeah, please.

QUESTION: -- one quick thing.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Yeah.

QUESTION: Did you mean to say Iraqi?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: I’m sorry, what did I say? Oh, yeah, I did mean to say Iranian, Hezbollah, and Iraqi. Idris talked --

QUESTION: You mean Iraqi Shia?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Iraqi Shia, yeah.

QUESTION: Did he give any numbers, any more specifics on the Iranian presence?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Yeah, he did. According to Idris, he said that there are Iranian personnel providing direct advisory support to fighting units. He said that there are Iraqi Shia in several battles. And then he highlighted in particular, but did not limit it to, the fighting in Qusayr. But he also mentioned, for example, areas around Damascus.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) numbers?

QUESTION: But one thing that came up a the presser today --

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: You were saying --

QUESTION: Numbers.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Numbers, he said thousands.

QUESTION: And that was thousands of Iranians plus --

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Total.

QUESTION: Total?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Total.

QUESTION: Including Iranians, Hezbollah --

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Iranians, Iraqi Shia, and Hezbollah. He said thousands.

QUESTION: One thing that came up --

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: By the way, I would encourage you to talk to General Idris yourself, and I think one of his people.

QUESTION: One thing that came up at the – Secretary Kerry’s press conference today was a concern that this might spread to Lebanon, either through the actions of Hezbollah or the reactions of the Syrian opposition in this form and in the kind of – informally or formally, have you spoken with the opposition and encouraged them not to take --

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Yes.

QUESTION: -- the fight into --

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: We have.

QUESTION: What’s – how have you tried to address this?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: We have, for example, spoken to commanders in the Homs area and – who have talked about the problem of supply trains coming up out of the Lebanese Bekaa. And we have said that we need to keep Lebanon out of this, and we need to find ways to stop the flow coming out of Lebanon. And of course we are discussing the broad Lebanese policy of disassociation from the Syrian conflict with the Lebanese Government.

QUESTION: Did you say that if they do intervene in Lebanon, it might affect American thinking on how much the United States can support them?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Michael, I’m not going to go beyond where I just went in terms of our diplomatic contacts. You can – but I can say this: We strongly support the territorial sovereignty of Lebanon. We do not want Lebanon dragged into the Syrian civil war.

QUESTION: I noticed in Secretary Kerry’s opener, he seemed to make a point of saying that the rebels had agreed to various things themselves, including not to use chemical weapons and so on. Is it fair to say, between the conversation you’re just alluding to and the kinds of things that the Secretary referenced at the beginning, that there was a message to the rebel groups that they need to kind of keep their noses clean here?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Oh, absolutely.

QUESTION: Can you talk a little bit more about that?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Well, that wasn’t – I mean, that came up a bit tonight. But also, just in terms of the importance of the armed opposition to organize themselves and to bring themselves together under this Supreme Military Council that General Idris heads. And of course, they themselves say that they want to do that, but the Supreme Military command would ultimately become, if you will, the backbone of the future leadership of the Syrian military. Interestingly, Idris said that there probably are some members of the military that they could bring into the future Syrian military – people who don’t have blood on their hands, people that are vetted and are respectable.

So we think it’s very important that Idris and the Supreme Military command and all of the armed opposition groups, A, not try to acquire chemical weapons and, B, that they leave the facilities – they don’t try to enter them. And we have a communicated that with them.

MODERATOR: Anyone else, a last question?

QUESTION: In Istanbul, the agreement was that all military aid would go to Idris, and all 11 countries agreed to do that.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Has there actually been military equipment, do you know, delivered to Idris since then?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Yes.

QUESTION: Have you seen a reduction in the amount going to al-Nusra and other groups?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: First indications are good, but it’s too early to be sure. This is one of these ones where we’d like to have more facts, but the first indications are good.

QUESTION: And can you say anything about the quantity getting to Idris now?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: No, I don’t want to go into that.

MODERATOR: Indira.

QUESTION: You talked about the – sorry, I’m so tired. (Laughter.) You talked about the --

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Tell me about it. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: I’m trying to remember, what did he talk about? Oh, using this threat of increasing aid to the opposition as a means to the end of getting everyone to the table. So today, at the conference, did Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey and others talk in any specifics of how much they’re willing to up their military aid as a means – I mean, we’ve got a pretty short window here, a couple of weeks.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: This wouldn’t – I mean, at a level of foreign ministers, you normally wouldn’t get into how many truckloads or planeloads (inaudible.).

QUESTION: Or in principle that they are bringing --

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: But what we’re talking about here is grand strategy, and the grand strategy is clear in the communique, which is the importance of a political solution along the lines of full implementation of the Geneva communique. All the foreign ministers signed on readily to that. That – at the same time, we have to increase support to the Syrian opposition, including the Syrian Military Council for the military assistance. But again, with the goal of promoting, ultimately, a negotiated political deal.

QUESTION: And just to clarify, they did or did not say whether they would be – that they have a slate of people and they’re willing to go to Geneva?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: They said that they wanted to do further internal consultations, which is not a surprise. Remember that they are in the middle of leadership meetings right now. They’re supposed to begin choosing a new leadership tomorrow – Thursday. So Sabra said he understood the utility of it and he understood the importance of the political solutions and said we absolutely support the political solution. But he said, “I have to go back, and let us work on our political leadership meeting.”

QUESTION: And what sort of information do you have about the Syrian regime having its slate ready? You cited to us the other day that you had read press reports, but do you have any first --

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Yeah. Yeah, I understand one of my diplomatic colleagues is saying there’s another list out there. To be honest, until the Syrian Government names its own list itself, I don’t think we really know who’s going to come. We have been told that the Prime Minister of Syria will head the delegation. However, the rest of the members of the delegation, we don’t know. And I don’t think we will until we get – first we have to fix a date, and then work out a lot of the details, some of the things that Brad was asking about. Then maybe we’re going to have a better sense of the Syrian delegation. But I think, frankly, it really doesn’t matter what other countries say about the Syrian regime’s willingness to talk. Let’s hear it from Damascus itself.

QUESTION: And the Prime Minister would be acceptable to the opposition?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: I think so, yeah.

QUESTION: Who told you that the Prime Minister would lead the delegation? Was that the Russians or someone else?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: It is – we’ve heard it from a variety of contacts, including but not limited to the Russians, but it’s also been in Arab media repeatedly.

QUESTION: Were there any important commitments pertaining to military support, pertaining to, I don’t know, opposition new willingness to engage in the political effort that’s not captured in this communique, that you think deserves highlighting?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Sabra talked – and we talked about the expansion of the meetings that are going on now. Do you all know what’s going on in Istanbul? Should I give two sentences on that?

QUESTION: Yes.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Key things to know: They are having meetings right now to expand their general assembly, which, for want of a better expression, would be like their proto-parliament. They’re talking about expanding it by as many as 30 to 40 seats, to take it from 61 now up to 91 to 100. They’re discussing that right now. There are names; they’re supposed to elect people, and there’s a slate of people that would go forward to be elected – by the existing 61 members. So that’s supposed to start tomorrow. Then they’re supposed to go from that to electing a new president. Remember that Mouaz al-Khatib resigned, so George Sabra is the interim, but he’s only the interim, so they’re going to elect a new president. That is supposed to happen, George said, sometime in the next couple of days.

Then they will – remember there was the question of the Prime Minister and setting up a temporary government. They’re then supposed to elect that, or to confirm that, a slate of ministers including a defense minister that would work directly with Salim Idris. That is then supposed to happen towards the end of this seven meetings, which we think will take somewhere around three to four days, but those of us who worked in Iraq understand these things can take longer.

So that’s all supposed to happen. Once they’ve done all of these things, then they will have a new leadership of the coalition, and potentially a vastly expanded kind of base of people, from 61 going up to 90 or maybe 100. So out of that, then, they will then sit, and I think make a decision on Geneva.

QUESTION: Can I ask just --

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: But can I just add one other thing? We, the Americans, in the meantime are spending a great deal of time – I have a team in Istanbul right now that are talking to the Syrians, both to the elements of the Free Syrian Army as well as to the political leadership, and explaining how they can use Geneva to their advantage.

MODERATOR: Michael.

QUESTION: Just a last quick one. Have you resolved the issue of the other potential participants in Geneva, namely the Iranians?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: No.

QUESTION: At least among the 11?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: No. And I think --

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: And I think that is one we’re going to have to talk also to the United Nations.

MODERATOR: All right, last one, Jo.

QUESTION: Sorry. [Senior State Department Official], are you now going to go to Istanbul?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: I’m going in --

MODERATOR: Few hours.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: -- five hours.

QUESTION: To Istanbul?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Okay.

QUESTION: And will you be attending the meetings? Or will you just --

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Oh, no, I’m not invited to attend them.

QUESTION: Okay.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: And I, frankly, shouldn’t be in the meetings. These are meetings about Syria by Syrians. So – but I wanted to make sure that everyone there knows where we stand on issues they must – they need, really – you can put this in your story – they do need to resolve their leadership issues. They cannot continue with an interim president. They have to have someone chosen, and they need to resolve the issue of the temporary government. They’re either going to do it or they’re not. It’s taking a lot of time and attention.

So they need to resolve the question of expanding their base and bringing additional people in. So these are big issues and they need to move forward on them. So then they can move on to other things like Geneva.

QUESTION: I don’t mean to be obtuse, but why has it been so enormously difficult for the opposition to coalesce around a single --

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Because they’ve never had elections and so nobody knows anybody’s relative weight, because nobody knows if you represent 10 percent or 50 percent. And because nobody knows, everybody is equal, and yet that’s very difficult.

MODERATOR: All right, last one.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: This is a dynamic, by the way, that you see frequently when the iron boot comes off a political system, and before you have any kind of election. So I – I mean, this is not the first time I’ve seen this.

QUESTION: So everything in the communique seem to be points that the Secretary and other nations have already made, they’ve already all but stated. So what is new out of tonight’s meeting that we didn’t know --

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: What is new out of tonight’s meeting is that there is a solid international backing for the holding of a new meeting in Geneva by the friends, by the core friends of Syria.

QUESTION: Thanks.

MODERATOR: Thank you very much.

# # #

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 With Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu Before Their Meeting

PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU: Well, John, it’s a pleasure to welcome you to Jerusalem. You’re an old, personal friend and a longstanding friend of Israel. And that friendship was demonstrated in President Obama’s historic visit here in March. It was demonstrated yesterday in the extraordinary resolution by the U.S. Senate to stand with Israel against Iran’s nuclear program. I want to commend the House Foreign Affairs Committee for upgrading the sanctions.

We’ll discuss Iran. We’ll discuss the terrible harm to stability in Syria. But above all, what we want to do is to restart the peace talks with the Palestinians. You’ve been working at it a great deal. We’ve been working at it together. It’s something I want. It’s something you want. It’s something I hope the Palestinians want as well. And we ought to be successful for a simple reason: When there’s a will, we’ll find a way.

So welcome.

SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you, Prime Minister.

PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU: Thank you as well.

SECRETARY KERRY: My pleasure. We were just saying what a pleasure it is; it’s always wonderful to come back to Israel, and particularly to Jerusalem. It’s a pleasure for me to visit with my friend of many years now – longer than we can count – Bibi Netanyahu. And I’m really grateful to him for the seriousness with which he is working and undertaking the homework that President Obama asked all of us to engage in when he came here on his visit.

There have been some very serious meetings, a lot of very serious discussions. We’re working with the Prime Minister, with Minister Tzipi Livni, with military – General John Allen was here on the ground, working with his counterparts on the issues of security. I would reiterate that the United States of America is committed now, as it always has been and will be, to the security of Israel. The security of Israel is paramount in our discussions with respect to the peace process.

I am appreciative that the Prime Minister has really put personal energy into helping us to define some of the work that we need to do to figure out the way forward. Let me just say to everybody I know this region well enough to know that there is skepticism. In some corridors, there’s cynicism. And there are reasons for it. There have been bitter years of disappointment. It is our hope that by being methodical, careful, patient – but detailed and tenacious – that we can lay out a path ahead that could conceivably surprise people, but certainly exhaust the possibilities of peace. That’s what we’re working towards, and I thank the Prime Minister for his serious commitment to this endeavor.

On Syria, I just came from a meeting in Amman with 10 other ministers. They all agreed and are committed to try to move towards a negotiated solution. Nobody has any illusions about how difficult, complicated, what a steep climb that is. But we also understand that the killing that is taking place, the massacres that are taking place, the incredible destabilization of Syria, is spilling over into Lebanon, into Jordan, and has an impact, obviously, on Israel. So we have an obligation to try to see if we can implement Geneva One. Again, we’re aware of the pitfalls, but I think the Prime Minister knows better than anybody what the implications of these security threats are.

And S-300 missiles coming from Russia or other countries – from Iran, missiles – are destabilizing to the region. The United States is committed not only in its defense of Israel, but in its concerns for the region, to try to address this issue.

So, Mr. Prime Minister, thank you. Great to be with you.

PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU: Thank you. Please, sit down, have a glass of water.

SECRETARY KERRY: 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 London Eleven Plenary Meeting

Thank you very much, Foreign Minister Judeh, Your Royal Highnesses, my fellow ministers. We are deeply appreciative to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, to His Majesty King Abdullah, to you Minister Judeh for bringing us together, and we always appreciate your warm hospitality and your commitment to trying to advance the interests of your people and of your neighbors.

The 11 of us are here because we each, our countries, have a profound stake in the serious crisis that is affecting the Syrian people, and an equally great interest in a peaceful, prosperous Syria that we hope will soon be able to emerge again. Your country, Mr. Foreign Minister, feels the consequences of this conflict especially strongly as more and more refugees pour across the border every day. And that is also true for Foreign Minister Davutoglu. This is an appropriate setting in which we should meet and discuss the road ahead. And it’s also, I think everybody would agree from the intensity and seriousness of the discussion we just had, this is a critically important moment for us to do so.

Recently we have seen a disturbing increase in violence at the hands of the Assad regime. It’s a trend that concerns every single one of us around this table, and we are convinced concerns people around the world. The massacres in Bayada and in Banias, the shedding of innocent blood, must end. And that is what brings us here. We don’t need more proof that now is the time to act; what we need to do is act.

When we met in Rome, we said with one voice that we wanted to move towards the transition government that was promised in the first meeting in Geneva, and we wanted a transition government without Assad because of the sheer necessity of trying to govern the country after all of this killing and bloodshed. We agreed to increase aid to the moderates in the opposition, including nonlethal aid. And when we next met in Istanbul, the opposition reaffirmed its support of the Geneva communique, the communique that calls for, very simply, a transitioning governing body with full executive authority chosen by mutual consent. We all agreed to direct military aid through General Idris, then the Supreme Military Council, in order to ensure that moderates and not extremists receive the necessary aid.

The opposition also signed at that time an important set of standards, standards that prohibit the use of chemical weapons. And they agreed to be inclusive of all minorities of all people in Syria and to be protective of every single minority. And this week, the opposition is meeting to discuss how to expand their membership in order to elect new leadership and how we can all work together to move the process forward.

When Foreign Minister Lavrov and I met two weeks ago in Moscow at the instructions of our two presidents – President Obama, President Putin – we reiterated our nations’ shared commitment to the sovereignty of Syria, its territorial unity, the need for a negotiated settlement, and our commitment to working in order to create a transition – to convene, if you will, a negotiation among the parties in Geneva.

So before I turn the floor over, let me just say one thing before we start to build on the progress that we made in Rome and Istanbul and Moscow. I want to reiterate what we talked about in the room a moment when we were alone. We all agreed that this is a pivotal moment. The only alternative to a negotiated settlement, the only alternative to trying to find success in a meeting in Geneva along the lines of the first Geneva communique, the only alternative to that is more killing, more innocent civilian deaths, more chaos, more instability in a part of the world that has already suffered too much from it. That path would lead, we all know, to a lot more families being torn apart, to a lot more refugees crossing the borders to Turkey, to Lebanon, to Jordan. It would cause instability in the region, as we know, and is a path that would lead ultimately potentially to the splitting apart of Syria itself.

There is another path, and that’s the one that we have decided that we have a responsibility to pursue, difficult as that path is, and we all know that. It is a path that leads to a political solution and a political transition to a renewed Syria, to a future of hope and not fear, and a much more stable Middle East and a much more secure world.

It is interesting that we are all seeking it. We don’t hear President Assad asking for it or looking for it. For that better outcome to prevail and to be durable, the negotiations must, of course, be between Syrians. So our job as the 11 states who call ourselves the Friends of Syria is to do everything in our ability to help the opposition to come to the table in a strong position and be able to negotiate effectively, even while we work with others to get the regime to the table too.

So I look forward to discussing further how we can help to hasten a better outcome in a more secure and a more prosperous country for the people of Syria and for every single one of us who shares a stake in their future and in the hopes of the possibility of peace. 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.

Joint Statement of the Participating Countries in the Amman Ministerial Meeting on Syria

The Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs of Qatar and the Foreign Ministers of Egypt, France, Germany, Italy, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, U.A.E., U.K., USA and Jordan came together in Amman on May 22nd 2013 to deliberate on the developments in Syria and to reemphasize their support to find a political solution to the crisis in Syria. The representatives from the leadership of the Syrian National Coalition of the Revolutionary and Opposition Forces also attended part of the meeting, and briefed the Ministers on the situation inside Syria.

The Ministers reviewed their discussions in the Rome meeting of February 28th 2013, and recalled the joint statement of Istanbul of April 20th 2013 that supports a political solution in Syria on the basis of the Geneva Communique of June 30th 2012.

The Ministers supported the participation in the Geneva meeting for the purpose of the full implementation of the outcomes of the first Geneva meeting to end the bloodshed, fulfill the legitimate aspirations of the Syrian people, preserve the territorial integrity of the country, and strengthen the national unity amongst all components of the Syrian national fabric. The Ministers emphasized the central role of the United Nations Security Council in the realization of this effort.

The Ministers condemned in the strongest terms the use of heavy weapons including ballistic missiles against the people, and deplored the ethnic cleansing that the regime is pursuing as seen recently in Banias, and declared that such crimes will not go unpunished.

The Ministers stressed that the political process to reflect positively and tangibly on the daily lives of the Syrian civilian population, including the release of prisoners, the delivery of humanitarian assistance and end the killing of civilians.

The Ministers identified as the corner stone of a political solution the formation of a transitional governing body through mutual consent, within a defined and agreed upon timeframe, to assume full executive authority, including all powers of the Presidency in addition to control over the armed forces and the security and intelligence apparatuses, for an agreed upon and defined timeframe for the transitional period. The Ministers affirmed that the final objective of the transitional period should include the adoption of a new Syrian constitution that guarantees the equal rights of all citizens.

The Ministers underlined that the attainment of the political solution that meets the aspirations of the Syrian people means, as stated in the Abu Dhabi joint statement of the May 13th 2013, that Assad, his regime, and his close associates with blood on their hands cannot play any role in the future of Syria.

The Ministers reiterated their support to the Syrian National Coalition of the Revolutionary and Opposition Forces and welcomed the efforts by the Coalition to expand their base of representation to include all components of Syrian society, and emphasized the central and leading role of the Coalition in the opposition delegation to the anticipated international conference on Syria. Furthermore, the Ministers reiterated the right to self defense of the Syrian people, and committed to offer additional support to reinforce the role and capacity of the Supreme Military Council (SMC).

The Ministers expressed their strong concern over the increasing presence and growing radicalism on both sides of the conflict and terrorist elements in Syria; a matter that deepens the concerns for the future of Syria, threatens the security of neighboring countries and risks destabilizing the wider region and the world.

The Ministers denounced the intervention of foreign combatants fighting on behalf of the regime, and consider their presence a flagrant intervention on Syrian territory and a serious threat to regional stability. In this context, the Ministers stressed in particular the operations conducted by Hezbollah in Qusair and elsewhere and called for the immediate withdrawal of Hezbollah, fighters from Iran, and other regime allied foreign fighters from Syrian territory.

The Ministers expressed their deep concern over the deteriorating humanitarian conditions in Syria, as well as the threat they pose to the stability and security of neighboring countries hosting Syrian refugees. They underlined the importance of cross border humanitarian operations and called upon the international community to support host countries to address the pressures arising from hosting refugees based on the principles of burden sharing and to prevent any implications for international peace and security.

The Ministers viewed with extreme concern the growing number of reports and strong indications of the use of chemical weapons by the regime in Syria. The Ministers emphasized the importance of enabling the UN to conduct a comprehensive investigation regarding the use of such weapons. The Ministers stressed that there will be severe consequences if these reports are confirmed.

The Ministers also emphasized that until such time as the Geneva meeting produces a transitional government, they will further increase their support for the opposition and take all other steps as necessary.

Finally, the Ministers agreed to strengthen cooperation and coordination among themselves and with international partners to ensure the successful convening of the international conference leading to a political solution to the Syrian crisis.

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 With Jordanian Foreign Minister Nasser Judeh After Their Meeting

Today, there is no doubt that a large part of our discussions touched on the Syrian issue and the crisis that is continuing there, and within the framework of the ministerial meeting that will be held this evening in Amman for the Group of 11. We’re calling it the Group of 11 that met in Istanbul on the 20^th of April and before that in Rome on the 28^th of February. And the main critical point in this, or the transforming point, was the meeting that brought Kerry together with President Putin and Secretary of State Lavrov in Moscow, and the agreement between the two parties to work on holding an international conference that will be the main sort of foundation for the political path that we have been talking about here in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.

Our position, our firm position, is that a political solution is the best solution that will lead to solving this crisis, to ending the violence, ending the killing, ending the destruction, and ending the bloodshed. And I think that this is a common goal of us all. We confirmed this in our discussions, the importance of speeding up finding a solution that will ensure the participation of all components of the Syrian people.

We also discussed the other important point that we all talked about – that we all talk about – which are the humanitarian consequences of the crisis in Syria. Jordan is hosting around 540,000 Syrian refugees, and we’re bearing a huge economic burden and social burden regarding this – because of this. We thank the United States of America for their continuous support of Jordan. President Obama, during his visit to the Kingdom announced – (audio break) – United States is giving to countries that are hosting Syrian refugees. Therefore, we reiterate our thanks to the Secretary of State for this assistance and for the support through the United States of America. We welcome you once again.

(In English.) And in English I would say it is a real pleasure to welcome you here.  And as a dear friend and as a friend of Jordan.  And we’ve known each other for many years.  You are always welcome in Jordan.  We just met with his Majesty, the King, had an excellent discussion.  Secretary Kerry is no stranger to the region.  This is the fourth or fifth time – we’re disagreeing on the numbers or the frequency of the visit – that he has been here in the last couple of months, which shows and reflects his commitment and his enthusiasm to a) resolve the lingering and central core issue of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and also to talk to like-minded countries about this ongoing conflict in Syria, this ongoing crisis, and our collective efforts to bring about a political solution.  And of course, we discussed the range of issues, which I alluded to in Arabic.  Your wisdom and experience and wise counsel are always welcome and much appreciated.  Mr. Secretary, welcome to Jordan.

SECRETARY KERRY:  Well – excuse me.  Mr. Foreign Minister, thank you very, very much, my friend Nasser.  We have indeed gotten to know each other well.  We’ve spent a lot of time together over the years.  And that helps in this business, as you know.  And we’ve been able to have very frank discussions and be able to work together cooperatively in a very significant way, and I want you to know how much President Obama and the American people appreciate your personal friendship, but of course the friendship of His Majesty King Abdullah and the friendship of the people of Jordan for which we are very grateful. And we admire the efforts that you are making here, that His Majesty has been making to institute reforms and to strengthen Jordan and to struggle with the economy, all of which make our being here and these meetings even more important.

Our countries are working together on a number of critical issues, not just the question of Syria but on other issues with respect of the region, and of course, particularly questions of the relationship between Palestine – Palestinians and Israel. So we appreciate your leadership. We also particularly appreciate Jordan’s incredible hospitality to the point of strain and difficulty in trying to deal with the humanitarian crisis that is the overflow of what is happening in Syria.

So I’d like to say a few words to all of you about why we’re here and what we expect from this meeting. And I assure you we come here with a full measure of humility, understanding the complications, the complexity of this challenge, and understanding the many different interests that need to try to be brought together and to be balanced in the process of trying to find peace in a place of great violence, and in a place where that violence is spilling over into other countries and affecting the region and potentially threatening even sectarian violence on a wider scale.

So these are big stakes, and I don’t have any illusions about how difficult it is to find that path forward. But I also have no illusions at all, nor does President Obama, or I think anyone in America, about the need – the compelling urgent need – to try to explore every possibility to end the killing. And that’s what brings us here. All the partners come here to meet this evening with the goal of putting an end to the bloodshed that has cost tens of thousands of lives.

And we would call on President Assad to exhibit the same commitment to trying to find peace in his own country. That is critical. Every single day, the image of more carnage, or the report of a massacre, or the report of women and children being killed, the report of more people being driven out of their homes and across a border, is really challenging the conscience of the world. And that violence has to end. That’s what brings us here.

So we are committed to try to work in the course of this evening to find the unity of purpose and the unity of specific approaches that will help us to try to implement Geneva 1, to implement a transition, a transitional government that will allow the people of Syria to choose the future of Syria.

Today, we are going to discuss the state of play on the ground, the steps that we can take to aid the opposition in its struggle against this violence, and the process of bringing together opposition leaders so that the members of that opposition can represent the broadest base possible in Syria in order to help us try to find that solution.

We’re not here to dictate to them or to anybody an outcome. We’re not here to dictate to the opposition particularly but to any group. We’re here to suggest. We’re here to work with people, to work through different ideas and to try to find the best way forward.

So we will discuss the framework, the structure of what we think Geneva ought to be. And obviously, that will have to be discussed with the Russians, with the United Nations, and with others in order to find the formula that moves us forward most effectively. We will listen to all voices with respect to the format, to the timing, to the agenda, and to the outcomes that should be discussed.

And we will also discuss support for the people of Syria with respect to the humanitarian crisis that is currently being faced. The size of the camps that are being managed by Jordan, the numbers of refugees in Lebanon, the numbers of refugees in Turkey – all of these are growing into one of the largest humanitarian crises of recent memory.

Let me also make clear, in the event that we can’t find that way forward, in the event that the Assad regime is unwilling to negotiate Geneva 1 in good faith, we will also talk about our continued support and growing support for the opposition in order to permit them to continue to be able to fight for the freedom of their country.

So one final comment: Let’s assume there is no Geneva 2. Let’s assume that we don’t come together as a community of nations to try to find a peaceful process to move forward. What will happen? What will happen is an absolute guarantee that the violence will continue and the world will be standing on the sidelines doing nothing constructive to try to find a way to end that violence. That’s unacceptable. President Obama is committed to try to find a peaceful way forward, and he has asked me to join with my friends and colleagues, the foreign ministers of the Core Group that will meet tonight, to push forward in Geneva.

I want to thank President Putin and Foreign Minister Lavrov for their willingness to say that they will work in good faith, in good conscience, to try to find a way to implement Geneva 1. And I will simply remind everybody: Geneva 1 is clear; it says there must be a transition government with full executive authority with mutual consent. And it is very, very clear as a starting point that mutual consent will never be given by any member of the broad opposition of Syria for Assad to continue to run that government.

So that’s what has to be negotiated in Geneva is: How does this transition take place. How do you end the violence? How do you in good faith implement what has already been agreed to? And how do you begin to move forward so that Syrians, everybody – Alawite, Druze, Christian, Jew, Ismaili, Sunni, Shia, everybody – has the ability to choose the future and all will be protected against violence or oppression from their government? Those are the fundamental principles; that’s what will guide our discussion tonight.

And we will look forward to working in the next days to make Geneva a reality, understanding that if Geneva 2 weren’t on the horizon and it didn’t exist, all we would be looking at is the continued tragic disintegration of a country that will go down further into more violence and more bloodshed and more destruction. We believe that trying to get the Geneva process, difficult as it is, fraught with all of the complications that it presents, is a better alternative to the other.

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

FOREIGN MINISTER JUDEH: Thank you very much, sir. We have maybe – we can take two or three questions. (Inaudible.)

QUESTION: As the preparations and efforts are taking place in terms of holding the conference, the Syrian Ambassador, who is representing his government in Jordan, just issued a statement today criticizing the conference and criticizing Jordan for even hosting the conference and called it the fake friends of Syria conference. Having said that, have you received any assurances – and I mean by you the Group of 11 – have you received any assurances or confirmations or signs from the Syrian regime that they would accept to sit at the table of negotiations?

My second question to Mr. Kerry: It looks like the Syrian forces on the ground are making some progress and making gains with the support of Hezbollah forces, who have become publicly and have announced recently that they are taking part in the military activities in Syria. Do you see that further complicates the situation in terms of the efforts to hold a conference on Syria, and do you see a place for Assad in the future of Syria?

FOREIGN MINISTER JUDEH: I hope Syrian Ambassador has enough diplomatic savoir faire not to criticize Jordan while accredited to Jordan. (Laughter.) And secondly, I hope – you said he represents his government. I really hope that he is representing his government because initial signs that we received from the Syrian Government is that it welcomed this initiative. In fact, I’ve heard that they’ve presented names of the delegation that might engage in this.

And thirdly on this point, I would say this whole effort tonight and as a continuation of what happened, what took place in Istanbul on the 20^th of April and in Rome on the 28^th of February and the effort that the Secretary led in Moscow with the meetings with the Russian leadership there, is all about ending the conflict and reaching a political solution. So I find it very, very hard to believe that anybody’s against that. And what we do in Jordan here is definitely a reflection of our concern for what’s happening in Syria and our belief and commitment to the political solution that will end the bloodshed and guarantee the territorial integrity and the security of Syria.

Mr. Secretary.

SECRETARY KERRY: The United States, I think, joins the other core nations who are supporting the opposition in condemning Hezbollah’s destructive role of all of the foreign fighters who are in the region, particularly in Syria. And active military support to the Assad regime simply exacerbates the sectarian tensions and it perpetuates – perpetuates – the regime’s campaign of terror against its own people. The United States and other countries are not sending fighters on the ground, but Hezbollah is, coming across an international border, building a militia in order to attack the civilian citizens of Syria.

In addition to that, Iranians are on the ground, and Iran is actively helping to support Hezbollah, which, as we all know, is a surrogate working with Iran, and they are contributing significantly to this violence. Just last week, obviously Hezbollah intervened very, very significantly. There are several thousands of Hezbollah militia forces on the ground in Syria who are contributing to this violence, and we condemn that and suggest that those who are encouraging it and support it should retreat from that position and obviously become part of the constructive solution rather than part of the problem.

With respect to Assad making some gains in the last days, the answer is, yeah, he’s made a few gains in the last days. But this has gone up and down in a seesaw, as we all know, and it will. And that’s part of the problem. That’s exactly what we’re trying to say needs – calls for a political solution. Because it will continue to go up and down, and the only loser in that are the people of Syria and the country of Syria itself. So that’s why we are trying to pursue this alternative route, complicated and difficult, as I said, as it is.

And finally, with respect to Assad and the future of Syria, just as a matter of practical negotiation, I’d ask anybody of common sense: Can a person who has allegedly used gas against his own people; can a person who has killed more than 70,000, upwards of 100,000 people; can a person who has used artillery shells and missiles and Scuds and tanks against women and children and university students – can that person possibly be judged by any reasonable person to have the credibility and legitimacy to lead that country in the future? I think the answer to that is obvious.

Now, needless to say, that’s at the center of this struggle. And that’s why this negotiation is not easy. But already the Russians signed – as did other nations – an agreement in Geneva to have a transitional government by mutual consent with full executive authority. So that’s the first step, folks. If we can get to that, then we begin to get to the resolution of the other issues of the future of Syria. In the end, the people of Syria must decide whether Assad has that future or doesn’t, and what’s going to happen.

QUESTION: Thank you so much. Indira Lakshmanan from Bloomberg News. Secretary Kerry, if I could start with you. As we know, the Syrian opposition has not yet agreed to participate in Geneva. And meanwhile, as you’ve just been saying yourself, President Assad’s hand has been strengthened as new weapons and foreign fighters have come in from Iran and Lebanese Hezbollah. So as the international community has failed to change both sides’ calculations, what can you possibly hope to accomplish in Geneva?

And secondary to that, you also brought up how President Obama spoke to the Lebanese President yesterday. So what is the U.S. doing, and what messages is it sending to the Lebanese and the Syrian opposition to prevent the Syrian conflict from spilling over to Lebanon?

And for Foreign Minister Judeh, what is Jordan’s position on the arming of extremist groups such as al-Nusrah by other Arab nations, which is causing concern in the West because of their extremist agenda? And is Jordan concerned about the growing presence of Hezbollah and Iranians amid the fighting? Thank you.

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, let me just answer that very quickly. With respect to the question of the gains on the ground of what has happened, as I said to you, I think that’s very temporary. If Bashar al-Assad thinks that the gains that he’s made in the last few days are going to be determinative of this, then he is miscalculating just as he did when he engaged in this struggle against his own people. And the fact is that support for the opposition is growing. The United States is providing additional support, more support. Other countries are providing more support. And I am convinced that support will only grow.

So there is no – in the end, I don’t believe there’s a military victory for Assad that is going to somehow justify the gains he’s made in the last days. What I do think is that he will ultimately realize, as will those supporting him, that this situation is going to get more dangerous, more destructive, and much more damaging to the prospects of the region if it continues in its course. And hopefully they will come to the realization that it needs a political settlement.

That’s why people last year went to Geneva and suggested that it had to have a political settlement, and that’s why President Putin has joined with President Obama and Foreign Minister Lavrov and with myself and others in helping to try to find a way to move forward to have a peaceful resolution. Nobody benefits from that. There will be more foreign fighters, there will be more extremists, there will be more danger to the volatility of the region. There may be more ethnic cleansing, more massacres. Syria may break up into different parts. Nobody will benefit from that continued struggle.

And that’s the virtue, I think – that’s why Geneva is important. It may be that Geneva – Geneva’s not going to be easy. I’ve said that. I have no illusions. It’s not going to happen overnight, it’s not going to be a two-day, three-day event. It’s going to take some time. People are going to have to work at it. But ultimately, responsible nations need to come to understand that the benefit of a political settlement is in everybody’s interest. And I think that's true for Lebanon and that’s true for Iran. And hopefully, Iranians could find themselves even finding a way to be contributing somehow to a solution rather than making the problem worse.

So that’s what we hope to achieve, and I think that with respect to the Lebanon issue, of course we’re deeply concerned about this spilling over into Lebanon. Lebanon is volatile enough without Hezbollah overtly engaging in this activity across the border. And what that does is openly put Lebanon at risk. So you have this major force in Lebanon – Hezbollah – which was – which is a part of the governing, which has chosen, on behalf of all of the Lebanese people, to drag them into this. That’s exactly the kind of danger that we are trying to avoid and that’s precisely why this kind of meeting and the efforts that come out of it are so important.

FOREIGN MINISTER JUDEH: Well, I certainly agree with the main components of the Secretary’s answer, and I want to say that this is a subject that we’ve been asked about many a time – arming the rebels – I mean, early on. And our position was always arming who? And do we have addresses and do we have CVs? And it’s important for us to look at the future of Syria. We are a country that neighbors Syria, and therefore, while we don’t interfere in the internal affairs of Syria, we are certainly affected by the outcome of what’s going on in Syria and we have the same worries and concerns that my good friend, the Secretary of State, alluded to, the – God forbid, the possible fragmentation of Syria or the creation of different entities within Syria, and we’ve always been against that. And if you recall, in my introductory remarks I spoke of the need to preserve the territorial integrity of Syria and not have this potential fragmentation.

And again, the presence of extremist organizations and non-Syrian fighters on the ground is of concern to many of us – those countries that are neighboring Syria and those countries that are interested in preserving, like I said, the territorial integrity and the safety and security of the Syrian people.

So, again, this brings us around to what we are all trying to achieve, and that is a political solution between people who represent all of Syria, represent all the ethnic and religious sectors of the Syrian society – and it is a complex society, and therefore it has to be an all-inclusive process. So we are indeed concerned of these potential dangers, current and potential dangers, and we’re certainly trying to resolve them through this diplomatic and political effort.

I think we have one more question maybe. (In Arabic.)

QUESTION: (In Arabic.)

FOREIGN MINISTER JUDEH: Go ahead.

QUESTION: (In Arabic.)

FOREIGN MINISTER JUDEH: (In Arabic.)

SECRETARY KERRY: The --

QUESTION: (In Arabic.) Shall I repeat the question?

SECRETARY KERRY: No, no, I have the question, I just didn’t know if I was – (laughter.) Look what I did to him already. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

SECRETARY KERRY: The President of the United States has made it clear that he does not intend to put American forces on the ground in Syria, but he has also made it clear that he intends to support the broad-based opposition and he has taken no options off the table with respect to how that support may be provided or what kind of support it might be. So I think we have to hope that Bashar Assad and his regime will understand the meaning of that, and the Iranians and others will understand the meaning of that.

I think that the President will keep those options available to him short of American forces on the ground. The President obviously is deeply concerned, as are all of us, about the question of chemical weapons. And we are currently doing what the President said we would do, which is making our analysis of exactly what happened, when and how, in order to be able to make judgments about what the President called a redline for him. And he has made it clear that remains a redline, and we will go forward from there in the days ahead.

FOREIGN MINISTER JUDEH: (In Arabic.) We are out of time and --

QUESTION: Thank you very much.

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.

Meets With Staff and Families of Embassy Muscat

AMBASSADOR HOLTZ: Good morning, everybody. It is my very great pleasure to welcome Secretary of State John F. Kerry to Oman. On behalf of our entire mission, I would like to express my sincere gratitude for your leadership, vision, and constant support of our efforts to promote U.S. interests in Oman and in the region.

Secretary Kerry has a personal appreciation for the work we do here in Muscat and in embassies around the world because he grew up in the Foreign Service. His long tenure in the United States Senate, particularly in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and his deep knowledge of the Middle East region make him intimately familiar with our work. He also knows and salutes the important role our families play in helping us accomplish our tasks, and he knows without our locally employed teams across the globe we could not succeed.

The Secretary is with us today to highlight the important contributions each of you makes every day to strengthen the partnership between the United States and Oman as we work together to promote security and stability in the region and increase trade and investment between our nations.

Our outstanding embassy staff takes on all manner of tough jobs, from making sure the embassy is safe and secure to stretching our budgets so we can continue to operate effectively. I can assure you, Mr. Secretary, that you have before you here today an exceptionally talented team and their families. I’m proud of each and every one of them. I know you share my admiration for all that they do.

Secretary Kerry has said many times that he’s proud to represent everyone who works in American embassies around the world and greatly appreciates the difficult, daunting, and increasingly complex work that we do. Let us take this opportunity to let him know we are equally proud to have him representing us around the world and leading the Department of State.

Ladies and gentlemen, please join me in warmly welcoming Secretary Kerry. (Applause.)

SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you very much, Ambassador. Thank you very, very much. I appreciate the introduction. I appreciate your leadership here, and thank you. Where’s Paul Malik? Is he here somewhere hiding? Where’s Paul?

PARTICIPANT: Back here.

SECRETARY KERRY: Oh, wonderful. Thank you. Our new deputy chief of mission and somebody who’s helped make this trip a great success. Good morning, everybody. Assalamu alaikum.

PARTICIPANTS: Wa alaikum assalaam

SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you. How are you? Wow, woke up. (Laughter.) Everybody’s awake. I like that. That’s fantastic. It’s so nice to see. I walked in here and everybody was so quiet. I wondered if you were just still asleep. (Laughter.)

Anyway, hi guys. How are you? Tell me about these uniforms you have on. What are these about? Is this school?

PARTICIPANT: Yes. It’s a school. TAISM.

SECRETARY KERRY: TAISM school? How come you have three people here? Everybody else at school? (Laughter.) So you guys skipped school. Well, you got to come up here and be with me. I want to protect you from your teachers. (Laughter.) No, no, come on up here. I’m glad you're here. Bring the others. Yes, come on guys. How old are you?

PARTICIPANT: Ten.

SECRETARY KERRY: How old are you?

PARTICIPANT: Ten, ten. (Laughter.)

SECRETARY KERRY: Is that a special year, 10 years ago? (Laughter.) I want to know what’s going on here. Anyway, how are you young man?

PARTICIPANT: Good.

SECRETARY KERRY: Where do you go to school?

PARTICIPANT: TAISM.

SECRETARY KERRY: TAISM. You’re all at the same school?

PARTICIPANT: Yeah.

SECRETARY KERRY: So how come you’re all dressed up?

PARTICIPANT: My dad made me. (Laughter.)

SECRETARY KERRY: Who’s your dad? Thank you very much. (Laughter.) Nice to see you. I think it looks great. I think it looks great. He’s ready to be a senator. (Laughter.) Anyway, you’re how old?

PARTICIPANT: Thirteen.

SECRETARY KERRY: Thirteen. Wow. He’s two years older than I was when I was a young Foreign Service officer’s son. (Laughter.) And I started this journey that many of you are on, so it’s very special for me to be able to visit with you. Thank you.

I just want to say to everybody, first of all, you are lucky to be in a wonderful place like Oman. It is so beautiful, so beautiful. And I had a wonderful meeting with His Majesty Sultan Qaboos yesterday. He is a very, very thoughtful, wise leader who spends a lot of time thinking about issues, as I think you know. And we value – we being the United States and a lot of people in the world – value his sense of the future and his efforts to try to diversify the economy, build for the future, listen to people.

Obviously, there is a transition taking place throughout the Middle East, throughout the Arab world, and nobody quite knows sort of how it’s all going to unfold. But some leaders have been ahead of the curve and looking carefully at how to empower people, create a transition, but do it in a way that’s thoughtful and works for everybody. And I think that His Majesty has been particularly thoughtful about that.

I know you have a legislature; you have a very active debate that goes on. Ministers get grilled on TV, not unlike the way they get grilled in the United States, something a little more politely I think, actually. (Laughter.) But it’s a pleasure for me to be able to be in a country that is contributing as much to the possibilities of peace. And I value his advice and the advice of other leaders in Oman with respect to the region, the Palestinian-Israeli peace process, the issues of Iran, the issues of all of the countries that are going through a transition, economic transition in the region.

And there’s a lot for us to be working on, and all of you know that because you’re working on it every single day in so many ways. I want to thank all of the Foreign Service officers, all of the civil servants. A few of you may be political appointees. Some of you are doing TDY duty from one agency or another. Some of you represent one agency or another, Justice Department, Commerce Department, and so far.

And many of you critically are local employees, Omanis hired here and even some third-country nationals. We simply couldn’t do this job without you, and everybody wants to join me in saying thank you to our local employees for the extraordinary job that you do. (Applause.)

I understand – I – somebody slipped me something earlier. I gather we have – who have we got here? Where do we have him? Wazir Khatib? Where's Wazir?

PARTICIPANT: Right here.

SECRETARY KERRY: Thirty-seven years. Thirty-seven years. (Applause.) And Fida Jawad. Where’s Fida? (Applause.) Thirty-seven years. (Applause.) You guys must have been three years old when you got hired – (laughter) – when they started working, it’s amazing. And then finally Gopal (inaudible). Only 32 years. I don't know what to say about it. Where’s Gopal? Is Gopal not here?

PARTICIPANT: Still working the embassies. (Laughter.)

SECRETARY KERRY: Gopal’s making the place work while not being here, shirking your duty here with me, which is fabulous. And I want to thank Colonel Paul Ross and Colonel Todd Lyons for their work in the building. Are they over here, colonels? Thank you for your work in helping (inaudible). (Applause.)

And more important than ever, many of us have learned through sad events in various parts of the world that security is always an issue, and I want to thank Nick Porter, the RSO here for his terrific job in helping not just with this trip, but to keep everybody safe and work on security all the time.

Now I understand you guys have a great tradition that in November you have a Thanksgiving lunch, correct? And everybody has a Thanksgiving lunch for local employees. And then local folks give you a (inaudible) lunch. Is that right? That’s a great new tradition. I love it. Thank you for doing that. And if I’m here sometime in November I can have a (inaudible) lunch. (Laughter.) I just saw some pheasants somewhere. I don't know if you serve pheasant (inaudible). But there are a few around.

Thank you. How are you? You were asleep a moment ago. (Laughter.) Now she’s all full of energy and ready to go.

Can I just say to everybody --

PARTICIPANT: (Inaudible.)

SECRETARY KERRY: Do you want to look at the speech?

PARTICIPANT: (Inaudible.)

SECRETARY KERRY: Oh, okay. (Laughter.) Thank you. Thank you very much.

I just want to say very quickly, because I'd like to have a chance to shake hands and say hello and take a few pictures and everything, I gave a speech yesterday in Washington to a bunch of our Foreign Service officers who are training in Washington and about to go out to various parts of the world. And as all of you know, we had some sad events, some difficult events, over the last year with Benghazi, and Ankara, Turkey and some other places.

And so it reminds us that you’re not wearing a uniform and you’re not troops, but you are on the frontlines of diplomacy. And when you are in other countries, when you are traveling in various places, less so here than in some places, but it’s always a challenge. And it’s one that we’re not going to shrink away from. It’s one that we shouldn’t shy away from.

This is not a light undertaking. It’s not a simple undertaking. What we are doing is engaged in trying to reach out to people in the world and prove to people that peace is possible, that relationships are possible, that you don’t have to hate people, that you don’t have to blow people up that you’ve never met, don’t know, and have no real agenda that would improve things, just blow people up, create terror without any organizing principle around which life is going to be better for people.

We have a different point of view. And happily, we share it with most of the people of the world. Most people on this planet want peace. Most people on this planet would like nothing more than to live their lives free of oppression and torture and violence. And it takes work to push back against those things. Because we saw what happened in the last century with World War I and World War II, with Korea and Vietnam, and the Cold War. We can spend a lot of money fighting, or we can do a lot to invest in people, in education, in health, and in the possibilities of life, let families grow up without burying their children.

So I think this effort that we are all engaged in to reach out to other countries, to cross cultural barriers, to try to promote your values but not do it a way that is oppressive and that doesn’t give people choice – this is as valuable an enterprise as anybody could engage in in life. We are lucky. We get up every single day and feel excited about the possibilities of what we’re doing, every single one of you, honestly. It doesn’t matter whether you’re a first time in a consulate office and the work you do is interviewing and working on visas. It doesn’t matter whether you’re going out and doing some kind of a family reunification issue. Whatever it is, every one of you is an ambassador. And even those of you who are local employees, whether you are Omani or some other nationality in the region, you’re not American, you’re still an ambassador of a set of values about how people ought to be treated and how we ought to try to work together.

So I come to you today as a way to say thank you on behalf of the President of the United States, on behalf of the American people. I know you go away from families, you travel, you pack a lot, it’s not easy, kids go to different schools (inaudible) whatever. It’s complicated. But let me tell you something, there is no more valuable career or endeavor. And I just wanted to say a profound thank you to every single one of you for being part of it. And it’s an honor for me to be here in Oman with you. Thank you very much. I 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.

Yemen National Unity Day

On behalf of President Obama and the people of the United States, I extend my warmest wishes to the Yemeni people on their 23^rd National Unity Day.

Yemen has made important strides advancing the country’s democratic transition. Yemenis from all walks of life have come together to chart a new course for their country through their National Dialogue, setting an example for the region of meaningful change through negotiation, inclusion, and reconciliation.

We applaud the Yemeni people’s commitment to peaceful political change. We also remember those who made the ultimate sacrifice in support of political reform, including those who lost their lives in the horrific terrorist attack against military parade rehearsals for last year’s National Unity Day celebration.

We will continue to support the Yemeni people in their efforts to build a unified, stable, democratic, and prosperous Yemen.

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.

• ISRAEL/PALESTINIANS
  • U.S. Position on Engagement with Hamas Unchanged
• MIDDLE EAST PEACE
  • Israeli Settlement Activity / Arab League Peace Initiative / Secretary Kerry Working with Both Sides
• DEPARTMENT
  • Menendez Bill / FY 2014 Budget Funding Request
• LIBYA
  • Emails of Benghazi Talking Points / Accountability Review Board (ARB) Report
  • Secretary Kerry's Briefings on the ARB / Recommendations / Administrative Leave
• SYRIA/IRAN
  • U.S. Continuing Multi Lateral Approach / Iran's Involvement / U.S. Working with UN Partners to Determine Attendees, Participation in Peace Conference
• DEPARTMENT
  • Secretary Kerry's Meetings / Readouts
• INDIA/PAKISTAN
  • India - Pakistan Relationship
• JAPAN
  • Mayor Hashimoto's Comments
• PHILIPPINES/TAIWAN
  • U.S. Position / Investigation on Death of Taiwanese Fishing Boat Master Ongoing
• JAPAN
  • Ambassador Davies' Discussions / Issue of Abductions
• IRAQ
  • Recent Terrorists Attacks in Baghdad
• BURMA
  • Positive Reforms Made
• LIBYA
  • CIA Talking Points

The video is available with closed captioning on YouTube.

1:45 p.m. EDT

MS. PSAKI: Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you for your patience. I have nothing at the top. We wanted to wait until, of course, the President’s press conference was over. So with that, why don’t we get to what’s on your minds?

Brad.

QUESTION: I have a question particular to the press conference, actually. Do you have any comment on Erdogan’s reiteration that he plans to go to Gaza again?

MS. PSAKI: Well, Brad, we have spoken to this, or I should say the Secretary has spoken to this in the past, and I would point you to that. We would refer you to Turkish officials to discuss any proposed travel and the timing and specifics on that. As we’ve said consistently, we oppose engagement with Hamas, a foreign terrorist organization which remains a destabilizing force in Gaza and the region. And we urge all parties who share our interest in the creation of a Palestinian state to take steps that promote the resumption of peace talks between the Palestinians and Israel. As you know, this is a big focus of the Secretary’s. He’s been spending quite a bit of time on this particular issue, and has expressed his concerns in the past.

QUESTION: So you stand by the Secretary’s earlier assertion that it would be a bad idea for --

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have anything new to update you on.

QUESTION: But you just said you oppose engagement with Hamas.

MS. PSAKI: We do. That has been our consistent position.

QUESTION: And the Secretary said that it was a bad idea to go there.

MS. PSAKI: He has said that in the past.

QUESTION: And you just referred to that position. So you don’t stand by it now?

MS. PSAKI: I’m just referring you to what the Secretary has already said about this particular issue. And as you know, he’s very focused on moving towards getting both sides back to the table and making sure that actions taken outside of that are in a positive direction.

QUESTION: I would like to follow-up on that point.

QUESTION: Sure.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: But you are – if Hamas were to abide by the Quartet conditions, which is renouncing violence, recognizing Israel and so on, then you would be ready to engage, correct?

MS. PSAKI: Well, we’re not getting ahead of any process that hasn’t yet taken place. I was just describing what our position is on engagement with Hamas. That remains our position.

QUESTION: I’m saying that there is that flexibility, should this happen.

MS. PSAKI: You are familiar with the specifics. I don’t think I need to outline them further.

Arshad, did you have another on this particular --

QUESTION: No, sort of related. You noted that the Secretary has spent a lot of his time on trying to revive Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. Today we have a story out of Israel saying that court documents show that Israel plans to retroactively declare legal four formerly unauthorized outposts. Is this good? Does this help peace – the process?

MS. PSAKI: Well, the Secretary, and the President, in fact, have both spoken to settlements in the past, and our position is clear that we don’t accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity. Pertaining to your specific question about the current conditions, we recognize that continued settlement activity is counterproductive to the cause of peace and that an independent Palestine must be viable with real borders that have to be drawn. And as we’ve said many times, we believe it is important for both sides to take action to build the trust and confidence on which a lasting peace must be built.

QUESTION: So is this specific thing counterproductive, in your view?

MS. PSAKI: I think I was making a broad point, of which this is applicable, of acts of settlement activity and of actions that are counterproductive to the cause of peace, but more broadly because I think the context is very important here. As you know, the Secretary speaks regularly with both Prime Minister Netanyahu and Tzipi Livni, and he met with her just last week, and he’s spoken with the Prime Minister in recent days as well. And there are ongoing conversations, and there’s a commitment – and they’ve spoken publicly about this – to moving toward a path to peace. And so we’re hopeful that that continues to be the case, and he’ll be continuing to work on this next week.

QUESTION: Has he or anybody else in the State Department raised – has he raised this specific issue, this specific legalization of formerly unauthorized settler outposts? And if he has not, has anybody else in the Department done so?

MS. PSAKI: Well, we regularly raise this issue, the broad issue, with the Israeli Government. I’m not aware of a new raising of this particular issue.

QUESTION: Can you check?

MS. PSAKI: I’m happy to check and see if there’s more --

QUESTION: And related to that, the Arab – the Gulf Arab states – well, the Arab states generally, I think, feel that they made a fairly significant gesture – and it’s one that the Secretary himself lauded as a very significant, important gesture – in essentially modifying the Arab Peace Initiative so as to acknowledge a possibility of swaps rather than sticking to the 1967 Green Line. They see that, and the Secretary sees that, as a very positive gesture, and I think they have been waiting to see what, if anything, the Israeli Government might do in a sort of positive direction. Are you not dismayed that the Israeli Government should’ve chosen to authorize or legalize these settlements, which previously even they themselves had regarded as illegal and unauthorized, right as you’re trying to put together peace talks?

MS. PSAKI: Well, let’s just dial back for a moment just to the events that transpired around the Arab League. It was representatives of the Arab League. They reaffirmed their commitment to the Arab Peace Initiative with comparable swaps. As you know – as you noted, the Secretary did feel that was a positive step. And in fact, many of the Israelis, including Livni herself, spoke out about how that was a positive step.

What we’ve seen – we know this is difficult, and we’re not underestimating that, the challenge of moving this path forward. But we’ve seen from both sides an openness to continuing the discussion. And while time is of the essence here, the Secretary is taking the time to do that. So I don’t want to link the two together, and I don’t want to ascribe the feelings about either side about any specific activity.

QUESTION: Well, yeah, but you talk about trying to create a context in which you can resume peace negotiations, and then you regard this step as counterproductive. And I don’t see how it’s possible, if you’re trying to look at the big picture, not to link them. You are trying to create an atmosphere to resume talks; the Israelis have done something that you regard as counterproductive; the Secretary doesn’t appear to have raised it with anybody; you’re not sure if anybody in the building has raised it with the Israelis.

MS. PSAKI: I didn’t confirm that one way or the other. I said we raised it --

QUESTION: You – I thought you said --

MS. PSAKI: Well, let me just clarify.

QUESTION: You didn’t say that he had raised it with anybody.

MS. PSAKI: I said we raise it regularly. We do raise it regularly.

QUESTION: Not this specific issue, though. We’re talking about --

MS. PSAKI: Correct. I said I wasn’t aware of a specific recent raising. It doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. I’m happy to check on that for you. In this case, I mean, as the Secretary – let me go back to just the broader point here, which is that – and the Secretary has said this many times – that it’s about both sides agreeing that there are conditions to get back to the table. That’s why he’s working with both sides and talking to both sides. That is the significance of the steps of the Arab League and their reaffirmation of the Arab Peace Initiative.

So what I was saying is I don’t want to ascribe for the Palestinian side their emotions or the Israeli side about their emotions. I was conveying that this is a step that we’ve long said is not conducive to creating an environment, and we feel the same in this case as well.

QUESTION: Why can’t you say that this isn’t a show of bad faith on the Israelis’ part?

MS. PSAKI: Again, I think by saying that this is not a step that’s conducive to creating an environment makes that clear, but I think the broader context here of the Secretary’s efforts, the efforts by both sides in recent weeks is important as well, because there’s been ongoing discussions, ongoing meetings that are in an effort to move back to the table to have talks.

QUESTION: Is there anything that the U.S. is prepared to offer to Israel in exchange for a cessation of the legalization of these and other settlements in the occupied West Bank?

MS. PSAKI: I’m not going to get ahead of any conditions or discussions or anything along those lines. It’s important to note – and the Secretary has said this himself – that this is a particular issue where he wants the discussions and negotiations and conversations to be private, and specifically in order to preserve the possibility that both sides will come back to the table. So I know there’s lots of reports out there, and we will do our best to tell you when they’re inaccurate, but we’re not going to speculate on what conditions would be.

QUESTION: Jen, the problem is is that you have – you’re saying both sides are open to negotiations, and then you’re praising the Arabs for this Arab Peace Initiative, and then for the Israelis you can’t point to anything they’ve done at all that shows an openness to negotiations.

MS. PSAKI: Well, I’d refute that, in that what I did say --

QUESTION: Okay, show us what it’s done that shows an openness to negotiations.

MS. PSAKI: Okay. And I don’t want to get ahead of, Brad, again, where we are in these discussions. This is still in a preliminary stage. The Secretary has had countless meetings. You’ve seen the positive comments by many on the Israeli side about the possibility of peace. I was pointing to that, the openness to it.

QUESTION: So a concrete offer from the Arab world for peace with Israel is the Arab step, and the Israeli step is some people made some comments that peace is nice. That’s a real bold statement.

MS. PSAKI: Well, the Arab League, Brad, and I know you know this, but they would tell you this too, is not speaking on behalf of the conditions on the Palestinian side.

QUESTION: Actually it was, because the Palestinians are part of the Arab League and they endorsed that proposal as well.

MS. PSAKI: They were not laying out --

QUESTION: They were in the delegation there.

MS. PSAKI: They were not laying out a negotiating proposal on behalf --

QUESTION: I think they would disagree. That is a firm proposal. That is a peace proposal. That’s not the flowery language of “peace is good.” That – where do you get that that’s not a negotiating position?

MS. PSAKI: I’m just – I’m ascribing the fact that both sides, the Israelis and the Palestinians, need to convey with each other what their conditions are. Many of them have been publicly stated. The reason why we felt the Arab Peace Initiative was – so let me go back to this point – significant is because it affirmed for both sides that if they did come to an agreement, that they would be supportive – all of these Arab countries would be supportive of those efforts. But it was – it wasn’t conveying this is exactly where the negotiation will go.

QUESTION: Well, back to the original question: What concretely has Israel done to show its openness to negotiations and its commitment to peace in recent times?

MS. PSAKI: I would send you to the Israelis to talk to them about their openness. What I pointed to --

QUESTION: (Off mike.)

MS. PSAKI: What I pointed to, Brad, was public statements that have been made by a number of officials about the openness to the possibility of a peace – of peace.

QUESTION: So we can’t say they’re open; we can say just that they say they’re open, correct?

MS. PSAKI: Again, I think you should speak to them. I was pointing to public comments that were made.

QUESTION: Can I follow on two things here? Just a moment ago, you said you would do your best to identify where reports about the peace initiative are inaccurate. So is it inaccurate – are the reports inaccurate that there was an agreement or an understanding between Secretary Kerry and the Israelis not to have any new settlement approvals or anything new other than the things that were already in train while these initial steps to restart talks were happening?

And then secondly, I’m sorry to jump around, but just back quickly --

MS. PSAKI: That’s okay.

QUESTION: -- on Erdogan and Gaza: Will the Secretary raise his previous opposition to the Gaza visit when he sees the President this afternoon?

MS. PSAKI: Well, let me take your first one first, in proper order. What I also said is that the Secretary wants to keep his private conversations and private discussions private. And any discussion about what he has or hasn’t discussed is applicable to that. And in terms of different reports I was referring to, there’s been broad reports out there about all sorts of things. I wish I had a specific example for you. But more importantly, he wants to keep his discussions private. And from here and in general, I don’t think we’re going to be in a case of confirming or denying any specific agreement that was or wasn’t discussed.

On your second question, in terms of whether – he has raised this issue in the past. He does have a meeting later this afternoon with Foreign Minister Davutoglu, and it will be on a range of topics. So I can’t tell you yet what will be discussed in that meeting.

QUESTION: Jen, can I ask also, if you’re trying to steer us clear of inaccurate reporting – there’s a report out in a Palestinian online journal today that they’re hoping – that the Palestinians are saying that Secretary Kerry has said that they’re hoping to resume the talks in June. Is that a timetable that fits in with your understanding of where we’re going on this?

MS. PSAKI: I have seen – I haven’t seen the ones today. I have seen recent reports about a deadline specific. I can tell you affirmatively that the Secretary has not set a deadline publicly or privately. His focus is on getting this right and on both sides working it out between each other, and that’s why he’s taking the time to spend so much time with both parties.

QUESTION: And on a June restart, is that something you think is feasible?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t want to speculate on that. The Secretary is, of course, headed back to continue discussions next week. Obviously time is of the essence here, and he’s said that himself. But I don’t want to get ahead of the discussions and where they will or won’t go.

QUESTION: If time is of the essence, how long are you willing to give this kind of initial phase to try and bring the two sides back to the negotiating table?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t want to give a timeline for that, Jo, because he’s continuing to have these discussions. He talks about it nearly every day, or talks to parties who care about it nearly every day. But I don’t think it would be helpful to the process for me to give a timeline.

QUESTION: Are we talking weeks or months or years, as it has been already?

MS. PSAKI: Well, the Secretary himself has spoken about why the timeline, over the course of the next year or two, is important. But beyond that, I don’t want to speculate about weeks, months or anything along those lines, or any phases or questions about that.

QUESTION: Jen, could you tell us if the Secretary, in preparation for his trip next week, is he planning to meet with any high-level Palestinian officials, perhaps in Washington?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any scheduled meetings in front of me for that. Next week’s trip is still coming together. I’m sure as we get closer, we’ll be able to provide you with a detailed list of who he’ll be meeting with.

QUESTION: Okay. And just a quick follow-up on the settlement issue. Since the meetings in Europe last week, and there was a lot of rumors about the cessation of settlement activities. In fact, the Israelis announced expansion just last Monday. So has the Secretary himself spoken to Prime Minister Netanyahu on this particular issue, on the increase of settlements in this particular case?

MS. PSAKI: I spoke to this just a little bit earlier. I mean, as you know, because long before I came up here, there were many people who were prior – were serving up here before me who talk – have spoken about how this issue is regularly raised. It’s the case here. I don’t have anything new to tell you about a recent conversation.

Go ahead, Jill.

QUESTION: Another subject.

MS. PSAKI: Up on the Hill, Mr. Menendez has introduced this bill which is basically carrying out some of the ARB recommendations. I’d love a comment, number one, about that by you. And then also, why – the President today went out of his way to mention this at the – in the Rose Garden. Why shouldn’t we interpret that and this bill at the same time as really kind of damage control for the President to show that he is doing something about a very hot subject, which is Benghazi?

MS. PSAKI: Well, let me just start with the Menendez bill specifically. We of course have seen the legislation that he proposed. It’s strong legislation that would continue this – his commitment, our shared commitment to our personnel overseas, and we applaud his work on this and his leadership and look forward to working with him.

I would point to something the President said, and you touched on this a little bit, but he talked about how there are a range of ways that we can help protect our personnel overseas. I think this is actually the opposite of politicizing it. They’re talking about what’s important about this debate we’ve been having publicly. The Secretary has raised this, as has the President, today and in the past several days. While there’s been a lot of talk about emails and other issues, what their focus is on is protecting the men and women who are serving around the world and taking many steps we can do to achieve that.

Let me just give you a couple of things on this. So in terms of the funding, in the FY 2013[i] budget, the funding request was for 4.4 billion to increase security protection and operations at high-threat posts and permit new construction projects as well as program enhancements necessary to ensure safe and secure facilities for our personnel overseas. The funding provides for constructing secure diplomatic facilities, meeting a key independent Accountability Review Board recommendations. In addition, the request includes ongoing funding for facility maintenance and operations.

That’s part of it. Funding is part of it. Legislation is part of it. But the President – I would just point you to his remarks, on what he said. He said we’re continuing to review our security at high-threat posts, including the size and nature of our presence, improving training for those headed to dangerous posts, increasing intelligence and warning capabilities. And he also talked about how he’s directed the Defense Department to ensure that our military can respond quick in times of crisis.

This has brought to the surface, the security of personnel serving overseas. It was an opportunity to talk about all the steps that we can take together to protect men and women overseas and educate the American public on what steps can be taken. And otherwise, I’d send you to my former colleagues over there. There are more specifics on it.

QUESTION: And you mentioned the emails that were released. Overall, in this building, what is the reaction to that release? Do you think it will quell the debate? Well, let’s start with that.

MS. PSAKI: Well, the White House release yesterday allows the American public, including all of you, to see firsthand the conversation that took place over the course of emails. It does confirm that these were CIA-drafted and CIA-finalized talking points, and that a number of the concerns raised in this building were separately, on a different track, raised in that building as well. I leave that to all of you and to others to determine whether it quells the concern. But I think it certainly does put a lot of facts and clarity for people.

QUESTION: So if it’s such a good thing, why did you wait more than nine months to do this?

MS. PSAKI: Well, they’ve been released now --

QUESTION: Couldn’t you have --

MS. PSAKI: Brad, I don’t want to look into a rearview mirror on that.

QUESTION: You don’t want to look forward, you don’t want to look backward. You only want to look --

MS. PSAKI: I do want to look forward.

QUESTION: You do?

MS. PSAKI: I’m all about looking forward. That’s what the implementation of the ARB’s about.

QUESTION: Well, you don’t want to prejudge – you don’t want to prejudge anything or predetermine --

MS. PSAKI: Well, that’s separate.

QUESTION: Brad’s got a reasonable question --

MS. PSAKI: Okay.

QUESTION: -- which is why didn’t you – why not have released this quite some time ago?

MS. PSAKI: Well, these were emails, as you know, that were released by the White House. I would point you to them for the specifics on the timing.

QUESTION: On the same topic. Carney at a White House briefing on November 28^th, referenced the State Department and the White House, and he said regarding changes made to the talking points, he said: “The White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that were made by either of these two institutions were changing the word ‘consulate’ to ‘diplomatic facility’ because ‘consulate’ was inaccurate.”

Now that the emails have been released and it’s clear that there was more changes than just the changing of “consulate” to “diplomatic facility” by Victoria Nuland, David Adams, Tommy Vietor, John Brennan, does that statement about Carney – about the involvement of the White House and the State Department being limited just to that one change, is that accurate?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I think you asked a couple of questions there. So let me just broadly say that what you saw from the emails were that issues were – it was raised to take some of the issues to a higher level, to have a discussion at a higher level. We’ve talked a little bit about why the concerns were raised. They were in part because of the ongoing FBI investigation. Those were concerns that we now know and we’ve known that the CIA also shared. There were issues raised about sharing more information with Congress than had – we had been sharing, the State Department had shared publicly. That was also an issue that was raised and that was shared through the process.

So I would point you to the White House for any specifics about issues that were – statements that were made from there. But we’ve talked quite a bit about the issues that were raised here, why they were raised. And now what we’ve seen from the emails, the new information that is now public, is that these were concerns that were shared by our friends in the intel community as well.

One thing I would just also like to point out is that on the issue of – and one of the issues that Toria raised was the need to ensure that the points were accurate and consistent and that the reference to prior warnings – and this was kind of an issue that was in one of the paragraphs – would not influence those not fully aware of the situation on the ground. This is a concern that we now know publicly was also shared by the CIA. We also know – and if you look back, and this is all public – that she was right to be cautious because as reporting overnight has shown, and these well-publicized warnings were not specific to the attack.

So let me just point you to a couple of statements that were made. DNI Director Clapper said on October 9^th, “The challenge” – which is after these emails – “The challenge is always a tactical warning, the exact insights ahead of time that such an attack is going to take place. And obviously we did not have that.” Matt Olsen, Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, said on September 19^th, “There was no specific intelligence regarding an imminent attack prior to September 11^th on our post in Benghazi.” Finally, the ARB found – the board found that the intelligence provided no immediate specific tactical warning of September 11^th attacks. These were – these warnings that were included in there were – could have sent a message that would have made a conclusion, that we – that was one of the concerns that was raised.

QUESTION: I didn’t follow the first point that you read, what you – would you mind rereading the first point? Because I did not understand it.

MS. PSAKI: Which – I’m sorry, which – what was your specific question?

QUESTION: When you began reading, you made a point about how the talking points were put together and the concerns that Toria raised, and I just don’t understand it. I mean, I can – I don’t mean to bore anybody. I can go back and reread it later on the transcript, but I just didn’t get the import of that.

MS. PSAKI: I am happy to repeat what I said. I think the larger point here is that we learned from the release of all of the emails that the concerns that were expressed from this building were shared separately and independently by the CIA and the intel community. And that’s what’s kind of been new in the reporting here.

QUESTION: Can we go back to something that was raised the other day, which is why it is intrinsically reasonable to raise a question about telling Congress more than you’ve told the American people when the government does, at times, do just that, most recently in the letter about the varying degrees of confidence in the intelligence community that chemical weapons have indeed been used by the Syrian Government?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I would warn you against linking the two. Obviously, they’re very separate situations. This was a very fluid situation, as we all remember. This was just a couple of days after these tragic events. The information was very fluid. As we know from looking back and from the statements I just read, a lot of the information was inaccurate. The question was not about whether we should release information. In fact, at some point in the emails, Toria actually said she would need more points for the podium to explain it and to explain that.

But when you provide points – and this is just a process sort of issue – when you provide guidance or talking points and you, yourself, the Administration, is not explaining it to the American people or explaining it from the Administration, you leave open the option for analysis or reading into things that, given the fluidity of the situation, we were very sensitive about.

QUESTION: No, but you’re mixing two things here, though, and I think it’s good to disentangle them. One is the question of the accuracy of what went into the talking points. I completely understand a desire to ensure that whatever went into them was accurate. The second issue, though, is not accuracy but “We’re telling Congress more than we’ve said publicly.” And I don’t see why that is intrinsically a persuasive argument for changing them because the U.S. Government routinely tells Congress things that it does not necessarily tell the rest of the country or world at large.

MS. PSAKI: What I was trying --

QUESTION: Accuracy, I get.

MS. PSAKI: What I was --

QUESTION: But I don’t get the second point.

MS. PSAKI: What I was conveying, Arshad, is this is a case – and there are many; I’m not saying this is isolated. But given the focus on this tragic event, given how the information was flowing inside and out, clearly we know now that we didn’t even know all the specifics of what happened or didn’t happen then at the time. There was a warranted concern about providing information that could be read into and make conclusions about that wasn’t decisive. And some of the --

QUESTION: But that’s not the point you’re making. I mean, that goes to accuracy.

MS. PSAKI: No, that is the point I’m making because the concerns expressed about the warnings – which were shared, again, by the State Department as well as the intel community – were that this information could be analyzed or read into in a different way that didn’t express its meaning, that somebody from Congress could possibly read into an inaccurate point – unintentionally, I will say – that there were specific warnings. We know there weren’t specific warnings about this specific attack. That’s the – that was the concern that was raised by our friends in the intel community.

More broadly speaking, you want to be able to explain, whether it’s to Congress or to others, what information you’re providing and the backup for it. And there wasn’t certainty about some of these points in there.

QUESTION: On that same point, in the email traffic released yesterday, it was stated by a CIA official that, “The State Department had major reservations with much or most of the document. We revised the document with their concerns in mind.” Is that accurate?

MS. PSAKI: Again – and I think I touched on this with your previous question – one of the pieces that has been now reported out in today off of yesterday, the release of the emails and the briefings that have taken place, is that the deputy director of the CIA shared the concerns separately that were raised from many in this building and was the person who ultimately finalized those talking points. So those decisions were, again, made by the intel community.

QUESTION: But his boss disagreed in that email trail and said it was --

MS. PSAKI: You would have to speak to them over there about that, and I encourage you to reach out to them to discuss it.

Goyal.

QUESTION: New subject? A couple of questions on South Asia?

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: But I still have questions.

MS. PSAKI: Okay. We’ll finish. Go ahead, Margaret.

QUESTION: Sorry. On embassy security, when you were answering Jill’s question here, it sounded like you were talking about requests for funding. What has this building done to implement what was proposed in the ARB in the months up to this point with the resources you have?

MS. PSAKI: Well, what I was pointing to is that there are several ways to help protect our men and women serving overseas. Funding is one of them. So I just wanted to outline what had been requested in the budget, which is an important piece. There’s a new piece of legislation, which Jill, of course, asked about that Senator Menendez has proposed. In terms of implementing, one, I would say that we, of course, have implemented the 29 recommendations of the ARB.

Let me run you through a couple of things that the Secretary himself has been doing. Even before he became Secretary, he was engaged in the Senate’s oversight role, where he organized classified and unclassified briefings and hearings, chaired a major hearing on embassy security and Benghazi, and talked very personally about the inherent risks in diplomacy and particularly expeditionary diplomacy. He was at Andrews Air Force Base when the remains of the fallen from Benghazi came home, including some from Massachusetts. And he exchanged personal notes with the Stevens family that fall.

During his transition period in January, Secretary Kerry’s very first briefing with Under Secretary Kennedy was on security. And his first day on the job, he – the – he went to – excuse me – the Diplomatic Security’s command center for a long briefing. He receives a daily verbal briefing at 8:30 from Under Secretary Kennedy. He attends weekly meetings with Tom Donilon and Secretary Hagel. And he’s very focused on continuing to implement, asks for regular updates on ARB and what’s happening with them. And you’ve heard him talk about how we need to take a forward-looking approach here. There’s a multifaceted aspect of that, which includes budget and requesting and getting funding from the budget. It includes a number of the pieces that the President spoke about that would come, of course, from the White House. And the Secretary is a ready partner in that.

QUESTION: But what concretely has been done? Because that legislation that the President talked about sounded like what we heard in this room from the ARB investigators. It didn’t sound like anything concretely had been done up to this point with what you have so far.

MS. PSAKI: I’m not sure I’m understanding your question, because of course the ARB --

QUESTION: How many agents have you hired, like what have you actually done at facilities, Arabic language training programs, all that stuff, those concrete things --

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: Have they --

MS. PSAKI: Let me run through it. And thank you for clarifying. So I mentioned how the ARB made 29 recommendations to the Department. So far, we’ve addressed nearly all of the recommendations. Let me give you some specific examples. The Department improved training for our employees headed to high-threat posts and has expanded the number of posts where such additional security training is required. The Department established a high-threat board to review our presence at high-threat, high-risk posts. The Department created 151 new Diplomatic Security positions: 48 are expected to begin this July and another 48 are planned to begin in early September. And finally, the Department has enhanced ongoing efforts to significantly upgrade language capacity, especially Arabic, among American employees, including DS agents.

Obviously – and the larger point I was making, Margaret, is that this is part of what we’re doing, but what the President was saying today, and what the Secretary wholeheartedly agrees with, is that we need to continue working on this from a multifaceted approach.

QUESTION: And one last question. It’s just Eric Holder yesterday said he was pleased with the concrete action being taken to find those responsible for the attack on the U.S. mission. Is there any update on what that actually means?

MS. PSAKI: I wouldn’t have that from here for you. I’d send you to our law enforcement colleagues for any update on that.

QUESTION: So no update on who attacked the U.S. --

MS. PSAKI: Not from here. I don’t have any specifics for you.

QUESTION: Can I just quickly follow up on Margaret’s points? The additional training for these employees, the hiring of these security personnel – given the sequester, where is this money coming from?

MS. PSAKI: That’s a good question. I’ll have to – I’ll – I’m happy to take that question and get you some specifics on the funding.

QUESTION: Yeah. Please.

MS. PSAKI: Obviously, there’s new funding that will be implemented hopefully over the course of time, but we’ll get you something – or everybody back something – on that.

QUESTION: Okay. Great. Thank you.

MS. PSAKI: Jill.

QUESTION: Jen, there is another thing that doesn’t have to do with money here in the Menendez bill, and it’s part of the ARB, which says it will authorize disciplinary action in cases of unsatisfactory leadership by senior officials related to a security incident that does not presently exist – in other words, in the future. Does that have any retroactive effect on the people who are – I believe there are four who are kind of in this limbo of not being fired and yet not really working and still drawing pay.

MS. PSAKI: Well, you’d have to ask Senator Menendez the specifics of his legislation. But let me give you kind of an update or just tell you kind of – give you a response on your specific question. One thing, just so everybody is aware, the Accountability Review Board’s recommendation on this specific issue said that unsatisfactory leadership performance by senior officials in relation to the security incident under review should be a potential basis for discipline recommendations by future ARBs – excuse me – and would recommend a revision of Department regulations or amendment to the relevant statute to this end. So that was actually in the ARB.

In terms of these specific individuals you asked about, Secretary Clinton, as you know, began an administrative process to review the status of the four individuals placed on administrative leave. That review process continues. Secretary Kerry has been briefed regularly and will be making a decision soon. No, I can’t define what soon means, just to preempt a question. And decisions will be made about the status of these employees. None of these individuals – and I believe Patrick touched on this, so let me just reiterate for those of you who were not here – none of these individuals identified by the Accountability Review Board are in the positions held prior to the report’s release and at the time of the attack.

QUESTION: But they’re still all getting a salary five months after they were put on administrative leave, right?

MS. PSAKI: Well, this process, Brad, can take some time. That’s why the Secretary asked for regular updates and we’ll be making a decision to --

QUESTION: Are they still coming to the building, or do they get to go to, like, the beach?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have anything specific about their locations.

QUESTION: Well, no, I mean, do they have to show up to work? Or can they draw this salary from home?

MS. PSAKI: I’m not familiar. I don’t have in front of me their specific roles. I’ll take a look and see if there’s anything more specific I can get back to you.

QUESTION: Yeah. There was something I didn’t understand about that. You said none of the four individuals concerned are now in their prior roles, and you’ve also said that they’re on administrative leave. And I think it might be useful to understand whether they have taken up other roles or whether they are on administrative leave and therefore are not actually working.

MS. PSAKI: Let me take a closer look and see what else I can share with you in response to that question.

QUESTION: Can we move on to Syria?

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: A BBC chemical weapons report today, although inconclusive, strongly indicates that chemical weapons devices may have been used in Syria in the recent weeks. Would this report cause you to harden your stance and language towards Syria?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I would point you to what the President actually just said at his press conference about this, that we are continuing the multilateral approach to working with our partners around the world, including the Syrian opposition. We are doing our own due diligence on this. We’re also encouraging the Syrian regime to let in the investigators. I don’t have anything new, conclusive for you about a new report of evidence from another country, though.

QUESTION: Do --

QUESTION: Sorry. Would the U.S. agree to Iran being part of the Syria conference in Geneva?

MS. PSAKI: We’ve talked about this quite a bit. This – the question of attendees and participation is something we’re still working through, we’ll continue to work through with the UN. I don’t have an update for you on that today.

QUESTION: But just linked to that is that while the President was giving his news conference today --

MS. PSAKI: In the rain.

QUESTION: -- in the rain, although he had an umbrella, also --

MS. PSAKI: True.

QUESTION: -- the Russian Foreign Minister was – there were headlines coming out on that. And he’s saying that Iran must participate and that there were some Western states – and what he said, there was a desire by some Western states to narrow the circle of external participants. Is the U.S. particularly ruling out Iran in this one, or have you already said that?

MS. PSAKI: Again, I know I talked about this a little bit the other day. We are not ruling in or out. We are working with our UN partners. We are working with members of the London 11, who the Secretary will be meeting with next week. And we’re mainly working through the UN to determine the participation in this conference.

We have seen the remarks of the Russians. Again, it’s not a surprise. They’ve expressed that publicly in the past. And we’ll work through the participation with all parties. I would also point you to the fact that the Secretary had a lengthy meeting with Foreign Minister Lavrov just two days ago – if I’m getting the timing here correctly --

QUESTION: I know. His comments came out today, so --

MS. PSAKI: I understand.

QUESTION: And this just --

MS. PSAKI: And they’ve said that in the past as well. I just don’t have anything new for you on participation in the event.

QUESTION: But the U.S. will participate, correct? Or are you not ruling yourselves in?

MS. PSAKI: We are ruling the U.S. in, Brad.

QUESTION: Russia will participate.

MS. PSAKI: That is correct.

QUESTION: So you are --

MS. PSAKI: I was speaking --

QUESTION: -- ruling some in.

MS. PSAKI: I was speaking, Brad – and thank you for your clarification. I’m not sure anyone else was confused, but the --

QUESTION: No, but this notion that it’s the UN’s decision; they’re not going to tell the U.S. not to show up.

MS. PSAKI: We are working closely with them to determine participation.

QUESTION: Where do you get the right to decide on the participants?

MS. PSAKI: We’re working with all --

QUESTION: Who’s going to be --

MS. PSAKI: We’re working with all of our partners to do that, Brad. Many people have a role and a say in this.

QUESTION: So the Iranians have a say in this or not? Just the United States and the United Nations and the partners you want.

MS. PSAKI: Again, Brad, I think we’re all familiar with the origin of the idea for this conference, the UN. We look forward to them playing a prominent role here, and we’ll work with them. And as we have more to announce, we’ll let you know.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Why Lavrov can say – insist on Iran’s participation and you can’t tell us what’s your position on this?

MS. PSAKI: Again, because we don’t want to predetermine the participation in this conference. The goal here, which is very important to remind everyone of, is to get both sides back to the table to work toward a path toward a political transition. So when we have more to say on who will participate, we’re happy to share that with all of you.

QUESTION: Does this position imply that you may accept Iran to participate --

MS. PSAKI: I’m not --

QUESTION: -- in the conference?

MS. PSAKI: I’m not ruling – I wouldn’t rule – I mean, I wouldn’t evaluate what I’m saying one way or the other.

Jill.

QUESTION: Is the U.S. willing to put on the table the idea of having Assad stay in a ceremonial role as president until at some point in 2014 as one of the potential agenda items?

MS. PSAKI: We have not – again, the agenda is part of what we’ll work through at the UN. But our position on that particular issue has been very clear that Assad must go. We wish it was long ago, but it still is a case we’re working and pressing toward. It’s up to the Syrian people to determine the timeline and the path of that.

QUESTION: But shouldn’t that be an issue that should be discussed? I mean, how someone leaves office, that – you start to get down into the process. If this is what it would take in order to stop the slaughter, shouldn’t that be on the table?

MS. PSAKI: I’m certain there will be a robust discussion about what should be on the agenda. That’s taking place now. Let me just run through for you – I think everybody has this, but also so everybody’s aware of all the pieces.

As everybody knows, the Secretary just returned from Sweden, where he had a lengthy meeting with Foreign Minister Lavrov focused on planning ahead. Today the P-3 political directors are meeting here to discuss a range of Middle East issues, including preparation for the upcoming Geneva 2 conference.

Next week, the Secretary will be participating in a meeting in Jordan with the London 11. And separately, as you’ve all seen, there is a meeting of the Syrian opposition, of the SOC, in Istanbul. This meeting has a general – has a broad – it’s a general assembly meeting. It has a broad agenda, including expanding membership, and they will certainly, as they’ve said publicly, be discussing this conference there as well.

QUESTION: The P-3 political directors being?

MS. PSAKI: That would be the UK, France, and the United States.

QUESTION: Do you have a date for --

QUESTION: Can you explain to us how – you’re saying that you are working on this. Is it working group level? You said the London 11. I mean, how are you working on this? How are you wading through it? I mean, is it – at what level? Who’s participating in these sort of preparation talks?

MS. PSAKI: Many levels, but including the Secretary, who has been in touch with cording – excuse me – coordinating closely with the Secretary General, with the Joint Special Representative Brahimi, with Foreign Minister Lavrov, and foreign ministers from the Friends of Syria Core Group. The Secretary will be participating in this meeting in Jordan. Under Secretary Wendy Sherman is participating in the P-3 political directors meeting, of course, appropriately, today. But there are a number of people in this building who are working on this process and hopeful about ongoing steps.

QUESTION: And you called it Geneva 2, right? So does that mean you pick up where you left off last June 30^th?

MS. PSAKI: Well, again, the agenda is still being discussed. This is building on Geneva 1. A lot has happened since then, and including our doubling of aid and efforts we have made to work with the Syrian opposition and with the SMC. So I’m not going to prejudge the agenda for this meeting.

QUESTION: Is the issue of Iran, is that the – right now the thorniest issue or something that you feel that needs to be dealt with and that could open the door then to the conference happening? Is that the main stumbling block right now?

MS. PSAKI: I would leave that for you to define, but I wouldn’t validate that. I mean, the issue here at play is: Where is this? When is it going to be? These are all things we’re working through. What’s the agenda going to be? Who’s going to participate? The question of Iran’s participation is certainly a part of that, but there are a number of other factors. And at the end of the day, having the – creating an environment where this can be a – provide a path to a political transition is the end goal, and that’s what we’re, of course, focused on.

QUESTION: Jen, can I ask – the Geneva 1 was signed on June 30^th last year and it’s now mid- May of the following year. Has this been a wasted year? Has the diplomatic process just evaporated over the past few months? Why did it take so long for a new impetus to be given to trying to bring the two sides back together – or together, not back together?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I would refute the notion of that. There has been a lot that has happened over the last year, as I just touched on, including increasing violence, including increased bloodshed and more tragic deaths, a growth in the number of refugees --

QUESTION: Doesn’t that reinforce her point? How does that refute it?

MS. PSAKI: I was more – make – but I was refuting the point that the diplomatic piece has been stalled. This is something that we have been working with the Syrian opposition to expand their membership, focus on the moderate members, working with the SMC. We saw that – some progress made and on Istanbul in that regard. Certainly – and we said this at the time that – the fact that the Secretary and Foreign Minister Lavrov went out and stood together and talked about the importance of actually putting this in place is --

QUESTION: That was last week in Moscow --

MS. PSAKI: That was --

QUESTION: -- or the week before --

MS. PSAKI: And we’re – look, we’re focused on looking ahead here to what we can do. I would refute the notion, though, that there was a wasted year. This is a tragic event and tragic deaths and tragic bloodshed has happened in Syria. That’s why we’re so focused on it. But we --

QUESTION: I have one more. Yesterday before the House, Under Secretary Sherman said that the intelligence community believed that chemical weapons had been – small amounts of chemical weapons had been used at least twice. I wondered if you could tell us where and when.

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have anything more specific for you on that. Obviously, that was – and again, I’m not going to read out a private briefing that Secretary --

QUESTION: No, no. This was --

QUESTION: She said that in public.

MS. PSAKI: She said it in public?

QUESTION: She said that in public, yeah.

MS. PSAKI: It sounds very similar. I’d have to look back at the remarks. I don’t have anything new for you in regard to chemical weapons. Obviously, there’s been lots of reports about incidents, and that’s what we’re looking into.

QUESTION: New subject?

MS. PSAKI: Go ahead, Jill.

QUESTION: A new subject as well.

QUESTION: On Syria?

MS. PSAKI: Okay. One more Syria, then we’ll go back to Jill.

QUESTION: Do you think that a political settlement on Syria is possible without a change in the military situation on the ground in Syria?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I’m going to take this opportunity to kind of refute – and I know Patrick did this yesterday, but let me do this again. We’re working on multiple tracks here. One is certainly the political solution, the political transition. That’s what we’re focused on with this conference. At the same time, we are focused on increasing our aid to the opposition. I don’t have anything new to announce for you, of course, but you’ve seen what we’ve done over the course of the last couple of weeks. Options remain on the table to do that. There is no link – so let me just make sure this is absolutely clear – between the conference and when it would held and any decisions that may or may not happen about additional aid that would be provided.

QUESTION: New subject?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I promised Jill I would go back to her.

QUESTION: Yeah, it’s a Boston question. There are reports that Tamerlan Tsarnaev met with a Chechen refugee in New Hampshire, which started me thinking: Where did the Chechen refugees come from? Is it the State Department that deals with taking people in as refugees? Do you have any figures on how many came in, or what was the overall reason for giving them refugee status?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have anything specific on that for you, Jill. I’m happy to look into it. I don’t know that there will be additional details to share, but I’m happy to take a closer look at it for you.

QUESTION: Can I ask a small Syria one, just to close that out?

MS. PSAKI: Sure. Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: I believe we have had reports suggesting that the London 11 meeting in Jordan will take place on the 21^st. Does that sound right? Or do you have – yet have a date that you can tell us for that meeting?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t yet, and we would certainly leave it to our friends in Jordan to announce. It will be next week, so I expect we’ll have details in the short term.

QUESTION: New subject.

MS. PSAKI: Go ahead, Goyal.

QUESTION: Thank you. Question on Mr. Nawaz Sharif, who is going to be the next Prime Minister of Pakistan. He is saying that he will have evolving relations with India and he will clear the mistrust between the two countries going on for a number of years. My question is: What role do you think U.S. will play in this new India-Pakistan relationship? And of course, also, U.S.’s (inaudible).

MS. PSAKI: Well, Goyal, we talked about this a little bit the other day. We’ve seen those reports, and I would point you to the fact that Mr. Sharif also said that he’s looking forward to working with the U.S. on our relationship. But in terms of the scope and how a developing relationship with Pakistan and India would take place, that would be up to those two parties to work out amongst themselves.

QUESTION: And also as far as his ceremony is concerned, is the U.S. sending anybody for his ceremony? And also, is Secretary’s going to be in the region any time soon?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any update for you on either one, no scheduling announcements or any announcements on anyone attending, but I’m happy to look into it for you.

Why don’t we go to the back? You’ve been very patient.

QUESTION: Hi, my name is Takashi from Japanese newspaper Asahi. Osaka City Mayor Hashimoto recently made a comment on the so-called “comfort women” issue, arguing that even though it is unacceptable from the moral perspective value, but the comfort women were necessary during the war period. And he also argued that it is not fair that only Japan is criticized by the United States and other countries, because there are other country military that were provided sexual service by prostitute. And do U.S. has any position on his comment or criticism against the United States?

MS. PSAKI: We have seen, of course, those comments. Mayor Hashimoto’s comments were outrageous and offensive. As the United States has stated previously, what happened in that era to these women who were trafficked for sexual purposes is deplorable and clearly a grave human rights violation of enormous proportions. We extend, again, our sincere and deep sympathy to the victims, and we hope that Japan will continue to work with its neighbors to address this and other issues arising from the past and cultivate relationships that allow them to move forward.

QUESTION: Do you describe this issue sex slave or comfort women?

MS. PSAKI: Again, I don’t know that I’m going to define it. You kind of laid out the specific details there, and we have described this issue in the past as comfort women[ii].

Go ahead in the back.

QUESTION: It’s about Taiwan and Philippines. So yesterday in Manila, American Ambassador to the Philippines Harry Thomas talked to the reporters and expressed confidence that the two sides will work together, and these things will be resolved through negotiation. And he said “we” applaud Philippines’ expression of regret over this incident. So do you consider that his statement represented the position of the U.S.?

MS. PSAKI: Well, we’ve talked about this quite a bit over the last couple of days, before I went to Sweden, while I was in Sweden. And we’ve expressed, of course, our regret for the death of this individual. We continue to urge both parties to ensure – to work together and to ensure maritime safety, and refrain from actions that could further escalate tensions. But it is up for the people of the Philippines and Taiwan authority to determine the steps moving forward.

QUESTION: Follow-up here?

QUESTION: But does the U.S. applaud the Philippines’ expression of regret?

MS. PSAKI: That is not for us to define from here.

QUESTION: But we cannot --

MS. PSAKI: Go ahead.

QUESTION: Jen, here is something that Patrick said yesterday: He said the U.S. welcomes the Philippines Government’s pledge to conduct thorough and expeditious investigation into the incident and cooperate promptly and fully with the Taiwanese investigators. The fact of the matter is, when the Taiwanese investigators arrived in Manila, there was no government official there to receive them, there was no meetings scheduled, and the justice secretary even rejected the idea of a joint investigation. What is your comment on this? The shifting positions of the Philippine Government, which actually enraged a lot of people in Taiwan.

MS. PSAKI: Well, I have not seen those reports you’re referencing. I know Patrick said this yesterday, we continue to welcome the Philippine Government’s pledge to conduct a thorough investigation in this case. We’re hopeful they will move forward on that. I have not seen those reports you referenced, so I’ll have to take a closer look at those.

QUESTION: One other – another note. Would you urge the Philippine Government to actually cooperate with Taiwanese investigators? Would you urge them to conduct a joint investigation with their Taiwanese colleagues?

Another question I have here before we move to another people, Taiwan has sent warships and patrol boats to the areas of the incident to actually escort and protect its fishing boats. How do you – is the U.S. notified of this in advance? How do you see that?

MS. PSAKI: Well, we are aware that the Taiwan Navy and Taiwan Coast Guard conducted an exercise south of Taiwan today. Questions about the conduct of that exercise would of course be appropriately directed to Taiwan authorities. And Patrick did say this yesterday as well, but we urge both Taiwan and the Philippines to exercise restraint and address the events of last week and take steps to minimize the likelihood of future confrontations.

QUESTION: What about joint investigation, Philippine and Taiwanese?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t want to speculate. Again, the Philippines have said – Philippine Government, I should say, has pledged to conduct a thorough and expeditious investigation and we encourage them to do so.

QUESTION: When an American dies in a potentially hostile incident abroad, you often ask for joint investigations or collaboration with the FBI. Why should other countries not expect the same?

MS. PSAKI: Again, Brad, the Philippine Government is conducting an investigation. We encourage them to do so. I don’t think I’m going to foray into this any further today.

QUESTION: Can I go back to Japan?

QUESTION: Jennifer, can we go to Iraq?

MS. PSAKI: Into – back to Japan?

QUESTION: Yeah, I want to – the visit by a Japanese adviser to North Korea today. Do you know the nature of those talks? Do you think it will be helpful? Japan is also talking about that this could be about payment for abductees from more than a decade ago. Do you think that their payment could undermine the allied front against Pyongyang?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I don’t know if you’ve seen this, but we’re happy to provide it to others post the briefing, but Ambassador Davies did speak to this a little bit in a kind of short press conference. He addressed this a bit. And I would point you to comments he made. I can’t speculate on the purpose of that visit. I know that he will be discussing that further with his counterparts in Japan.

On the issue of abductions, of course we take that very seriously. We’ve continued – continuously raised this issue with North Korean authorities. We stand firmly with Japan as it seeks to resolve that issue. But his meetings are ongoing – Ambassador Davies, that is – in Japan today and tomorrow. And I know that he said that he expects to continue discussing this in that time period.

QUESTION: But would you see this as helpful towards resolving the tensions with North Korea? Anything to do with the previous tensions with North Korea? I mean, is this a helpful step? We see that the South Koreans are not happy about it. The Chinese seem to be much more pleased about. So where would you stand on --

MS. PSAKI: Again, it’s hard for me – or, I should say, impossible for me to speak to that without knowing the specifics on the purpose of the visit. There will be more discussions on that with Ambassador Davies during his meetings.

QUESTION: Jennifer, I wondered if I could ask a question on Iraq.

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: Okay, if you would comment on the deteriorating situation, the spike in violence, the entry of PKK fighters in the north, and in fact, the very hostile rhetoric towards your guest, Erdogan, from Prime Minister Maliki.

MS. PSAKI: Well, broadly speaking, the risk of sectarian conflict is always a concern given Iraq’s history. We’ve seen, of course, the recent reports and we condemn the terrorist attacks perpetrated in Baghdad and the surrounding provinces. This deliberate targeting of innocent people and particular sects in an effort to sow instability and division is reprehensible and our condolences go out to the victims of these attacks and their families. More broadly speaking, we remain, of course, committed to supporting Iraq’s democratic system. We know that in this pivotal time, it’s going to take some time, but we’re always concerned about acts of violence and those reports that we’ve seen in recent days.

QUESTION: Okay. Mr. Maliki accused Mr. Erdogan of being party to – in aiding and abetting this sectarian schism that has taken place in Iraq. Is that something – an issue that the Secretary of State Kerry is likely to discuss --

MS. PSAKI: I have not seen --

QUESTION: -- with Mr. Erdogan?

MS. PSAKI: -- that specific report. I actually have to go shortly to go to this – to go to this bilateral meeting. More to say, I’m sure, on it tomorrow. So let me just take one more. And you’ve been very patient in the back. I saw you at the press conference, so you must have run over here very quickly.

QUESTION: Yes. Highly important question to ask you on Burma: The Burmese – the President of Myanmar is visiting the capital next week. Will the Secretary be meeting him separately in addition his meetings at the White House?

MS. PSAKI: Thank you for your question. I am – and I will check on this for you. I believe because of the schedule that this will be a White House-specific visit. I don’t think there’s anything that’s specific to the Secretary, but let me check on that, and we’ll get you more if there’s anything on his schedule related to the visit.

QUESTION: Is human rights (inaudible)? I say that because of the things happening inside Burma on the Rohingya Muslims, human rights violation over them, this is not the right time for him to come here or for him to invite to Washington. Do you agree with their views?

MS. PSAKI: Well, again, we all know the history of Burma. They’ve made a number of positive reforms in recent years. We all know that the previous Secretary was there, the President was recently there. They’ve recently released over 850 political prisoners. They’ve eased restrictions on the media and increasingly respect freedoms of expression, assembly, and movement. But this is obviously an ongoing discussion. I’m sure it will be part of the visit when they come, when the President comes next week, and I would refer you to the White House for more specifics on that.

Thank you, everyone.

QUESTION: Can I get just one clarification?

MS. PSAKI: Sure. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Just from earlier, when you said that Nuland didn’t want to prejudice the investigation, but then a CIA official wrote back to Nuland that the FBI did not have major concerns with the talking points. And then Nuland responded at 9:23 p.m. that night saying that members of what she called “my building’s leadership” are consulting with NSS. Who from this building consulted with NSS over the talking points at 9 p.m. that night? And can we expect any kind of release of those documents, those conversations?

MS. PSAKI: Well, the emails have been released, all of the emails, as I understand it. The most important point here is that the concerns shared – and we saw this from reporting overnight from briefings as well as from the emails – the concerns expressed by Toria were shared separately by the CIA. They were – ultimately had the pen on these talking points and made the call on what should be included in them. . .

Thank you, everyone.

QUESTION: My question was about the FBI, not the CIA --

MS. PSAKI: I understand, but these were CIA talking points.

QUESTION: Right.

MS. PSAKI: They made the call on what would not prejudice an investigation. They expressed similar concerns and they made adjustments accordingly. But I would point you to them for further clarification.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:45 p.m.)

# # #

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. Policy Toward Iran

The Nuclear Challenge

Iran’s nuclear activity – in violation of its international obligations and in defiance of the international community – is one of the greatest global concerns we face. A nuclear-armed Iran would pose a threat to the region, to the world, and to the future of the global nuclear proliferation regime. It would risk an arms race in a region already rife with violence and conflict. A nuclear weapon would embolden a regime that already spreads instability through its proxies and threatens chokepoints in the global economy. It would put the world’s most dangerous weapons into the hands of leaders who speak openly about wiping one of our closest allies, the state of Israel, off the map. In confronting this challenge, our policy has been clear: we are determined to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. Our preference is to resolve this through diplomacy. However, as President Obama has stated unequivocally, we will not allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon, and there should be no doubt that the United States will use all elements of American power to achieve that objective.

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei has asked why it is that the international community does not believe that Iran’s nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only. The answer is simple: Iran has consistently concealed its nuclear activities and continues to do so, denying required access and information to the International Atomic Energy Agency. As a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran has responsibilities to the international community, and it is that blatant disregard for those responsibilities that has made Iran the subject of four UN Security Council resolutions imposing mandatory sanctions.

From his very first months in office, President Obama put forward a clear choice to the Iranian government: Meet your international responsibilities on your nuclear program and reap the benefits of being a full member of the international community, or face the prospect of further pressure and isolation. Unfortunately Iran has so far chosen isolation. There is still time for it to change course, but that time is not indefinite. I want to be clear that our policy is not aimed at regime change, but rather at changing the regime’s behavior.

The Dual-Track Policy

Since this Administration took office in 2009, we have pursued a dual-track policy. Working with the P5+1 – the five members of the UN Security Council – China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, plus Germany, under the auspices of the European Union – we have actively pursued a diplomatic solution to international concerns over Iran’s nuclear program. As a result of Iran’s continuing disregard for its international obligations, we have ratcheted up the pressure on the Iranian government. We have built and led a global coalition to create the toughest, most comprehensive sanctions to date on the Iranian regime. The international community is united in its determination to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran.

Today, Iran is isolated and sanctions are having a real impact on the ground, exacerbated by the regime’s own mismanagement of its economy. Iran exports over 1 million fewer barrels of crude oil each day than it did in 2011, costing Iran between $3-$5 billion per month. All 20 importers of Iranian oil have either significantly reduced or eliminated oil purchases from Iran. Financial sanctions have crippled Iran’s access to the international financial system and fueled the depreciation of the value of Iran’s currency to less than half of what it was last year. Foreign direct investment into Iran has decreased dramatically as major oil companies and international firms as diverse as Ernst & Young, Daimler AG, Caterpillar, ENI, Total, and hundreds more have divested themselves from Iran. The International Monetary Fund projects the Iranian economy will contract in 2013, a significant decrease from the over 7 percent growth six years ago, and far below the performance of neighboring oil-exporting countries. Put simply, the Iranian economy is in a downward spiral, with no prospect for near-term relief.

And we continue to increase the pressure. Iranian oil exports will continue to decline as we implement the law through our engagement with the last remaining six importers of Iranian oil. Iran’s currency will remain volatile as we block Iran’s revenue streams and block its access to funds held abroad. And we will continue to track, identify, and designate individuals and entities assisting Iran’s proliferation efforts and attempting to evade sanctions on Iran. Last week, the State Department sanctioned four Iranian companies and one individual for providing the Iranian government with goods, technology, and services that increase Iran’s ability to enrich uranium, which is prohibited by UN Security Council resolutions. On March 14, the State and Treasury Departments imposed sanctions on Dr. Dimitris Cambis and his company Impire Shipping for operating vessels on behalf of the National Iranian Tanker Company (NITC) that disguised the Iranian origin of the crude oil. On July 1, the Iran Freedom and Counter-Proliferation Act of 2012 takes full effect, targeting an array of sectors and industries in Iran. Looking forward, as long as Iran continues on its current unproductive path, the Administration will continue to assess and implement potential additional sanctions on sectors and industries that can serve as pressure points. We look forward to continued strong collaboration with members of Congress to develop smart sanctions and increase pressure on the regime, while maintaining the strong coalition we have built through sustained diplomatic efforts with partners.

In fact, one of the keys to our successful ratcheting up of the pressure on Iran is that we are not doing so alone. The European Union has enacted its own stringent sanctions regime, including an oil import ban that resulted in all 27 EU member states ceasing oil purchases from Iran. Australia, Canada, South Korea, Japan, and others have enacted their own sets of domestic measures, strengthening the international sanctions regime and sending a clear message to Iran: adhere to your international obligations, or face increasing pressure from the international community. And, even among partners who are frankly skeptical of sanctions, we have seen robust implementation of UN Security Council resolutions and cooperation on specific sanctions issues. We continue to coordinate closely with all of our international partners, ensuring stringent implementation of existing sanctions and encouraging strong domestic measures on Iran. As we move forward, it will be critical that we continue to move together and not take steps that undo the progress made so far. Doing such would signal divisions to Iran that it could and likely would exploit.

Even as we significantly increase pressure on the Iranian regime, we remain committed to ensuring that legitimate, humanitarian trade can continue for the benefit of the Iranian people. We take no pleasure in any hardship our sanctions might cause the Iranian people in their everyday lives, and it is U.S. policy to not target Iranian imports of humanitarian items. We have worked hard to ensure U.S. regulations contain an explicit exception from sanctions for transactions for the sale of agricultural commodities, food, medicine, or medical devices to Iran as long as the transactions do not involve a designated entity or otherwise proscribed conduct. And when natural disasters have struck Iran, we have been ready to assist. Following a tragic earthquake in northwest Iran in August 2012, the Administration issued a general license to facilitate U.S. support to the Iranian people as they responded to and rebuilt from the natural disaster. In all our efforts on Iran, we have demonstrated that supporting the Iranian people and pressuring the policies of their government are not mutually exclusive.

As we have built unprecedented pressure on the Iranian regime, we have also intensified our efforts towards pursuing a diplomatic solution to the nuclear issue. Since his first days in office, the President has emphasized our readiness, working with members of the P5+1 to seek a negotiated resolution regarding Iran’s nuclear program. The P5+1 has been incredibly unified, and we have worked closely and well with the Russians and Chinese. On February 26, 2013, the P5+1 met with Iranian representatives in Almaty, where the P5+1 jointly presented Iran with an updated, balanced proposal that offered Iran a real opportunity to take steps toward reducing tensions and creating the time and space to negotiate a comprehensive solution to the nuclear issue. As in prior talks, Iran was presented with a strong and united message: address the international’s community’s concerns or face mounting pressure. Interestingly, Iran’s initial public response was positive and they signaled a potential turning point.

Yet, when on April 5, 2013, the P5+1 returned to Almaty to hear Iran’s formal response to our proposal, the Iranians once again fell short. While the P5+1 had a substantive exchange of views with Iran during the talks, in the end, Iran’s counterproposal to the P5+1 initiative was very disappointing. According to this counterproposal Iran would place little or no constraint on its current nuclear activities, while demanding that major sanctions be removed immediately. Given the significant gulf between the two sides, the P5+1 members did not believe scheduling another round was warranted at that time, and instead agreed to return to capitals to discuss the latest developments with their respective governments. They agreed that EU High Representative Catherine Ashton would then follow up with Iran on next steps, and indeed Ashton and Iran’s Chief Nuclear Negotiator Saeed Jalili are scheduled to meet in Istanbul today, May 15.

We are looking for signs that Iran is prepared to move to address substantively all aspects of the proposal we discussed in Almaty. We are not interested in talks for talks’ sake, but we must give diplomacy every chance to succeed. And, while we leave the door open to diplomacy, we will continue to maintain unrelenting and increasing pressure.

We have approached these negotiations realistically, conscious of our difficult history. We continue to seek concrete results in our talks, not empty promises. The onus is on Iran.

Support for Terrorism

Beyond its illicit nuclear activity, we also have grave concerns about Iran’s destabilizing activities in the Middle East, particularly its support for Bashar Asad in Syria; its support for terrorist organizations like Hizballah; and its unacceptable attacks on innocent civilians worldwide. These activities are not going unchecked.

Iran is the world’s foremost state sponsor of terrorism, which it uses as a strategic tool of its foreign policy. Led by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC)-Qods Force and the Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS), the “Iran Threat Network” comprises an alliance of surrogates, proxies, and partners such as Hizballah, HAMAS, and Iraqi Shi’a militants, among others. Iran funds, trains, and equips these terrorist organizations, in whole or in part, to use in attacks around the world. This clandestine threat network destabilizes countries throughout the Middle East and threatens regional security. Iran’s leaders have aimed most of their threats at one of our closest allies, blatantly declaring their desire to see the destruction of the state of Israel. We have a moral obligation to ensure that Iran never has the tools to make good on that threat.

Israel is not Iran’s only target, however. Iranian national Mansour Arbabsiar pled guilty last year to plotting with members of the Qods Force to murder the Saudi Arabian ambassador by bombing a crowded restaurant here in Washington, DC. The attempt to assassinate a foreign diplomat in our nation’s capital is an intolerable escalation of Iranian terrorist activity.

Iran has also sponsored and directed terrorist attacks against Israeli civilian and diplomatic targets worldwide. On February 13, 2012, a magnetic bomb was placed under the vehicle of an Israeli diplomat’s wife in New Delhi, India, seriously injuring her and three Indian nationals. The following day, a similar device was discovered under a vehicle belonging to the Israeli embassy in Tbilisi, Georgia, and safely defused. At the same time, Thai police arrested three Iranian nationals in Bangkok in connection with explosions at a private residence that subsequently revealed bomb-making materials and makeshift grenades intended for use in attacks against Israeli targets.

In June 2012, Kenyan authorities arrested two Iranian members of the Qods Force. Armed with 33 pounds of military-grade plastic explosives, they planned deadly attacks on Western and Israeli targets. On May 6, a Kenyan court sentenced them to life imprisonment for terrorism-related offenses.

Lebanese Hizballah continues to be a key partner and substantial part of Iran’s threat network. Iran provides hundreds of millions of dollars to Hizballah annually and has long been Hizballah’s primary trainer and arms supplier. Hizballah and the Iranian leadership share a worldview and strategic vision and are seeking to exploit the current unrest in the Middle East and North Africa to their advantage. We remain focused on Hizballah activity worldwide, and have devoted a great deal of diplomatic effort over the past several years to raising awareness of Hizballah activity with European partners, well before last summer’s attack in Bulgaria, in which six Israeli tourists were killed in a terrorist bombing, and arrest in Cyprus of a suspected Hizballah operative.

Thwarted attacks involving Iranians and Iranian proxies like Hizballah in Cyprus, Thailand, and Kenya – to name a few examples – show a clear willingness on the part of our international partners to target and prosecute Iranian terrorist activity. As evidenced by these disruption and prosecution efforts across Africa, East Asia, and Europe, we and our international partners have become increasingly effective at targeting Iranian support for terrorism.

Regional Meddling and Support for Asad

In Syria, Iran has made it clear that it fears losing its closest ally and will stop at no cost, borne by both the Syrian and Iranian people, to prop up the Asad regime. Today, Iran is training, arming, funding, aiding and abetting the Asad regime and its atrocious crackdown on its own people. It is coordinating its intervention in Syria with Hizballah, which is itself engaged in training pro-regime militants who attack Syrian civilians, and in direct fighting on behalf of the Asad regime against the Syrian people. Iran and Hizballah fighters are also directing the activities of Iraqi militia groups which have been enlisted to join in the Asad regime’s war against the Syrian people. Iran has shown that it is willing to potentially destabilize an entire region if it means keeping the Syrian regime as an ally. Countering such efforts remains a key priority for the Administration and we are focused on preventing Iran from continuing to support the Syrian regime financially, materially, and logistically. The Administration has used its authorities in several executive orders to highlight the role of Iran in the Syrian regime’s violation of human rights and hold accountable those responsible.

These facts further highlight Iran’s continued efforts to expand its nefarious interference in the region. In January, Yemeni authorities seized, in Yemeni territorial waters, a 40-ton Iranian shipment of weapons and explosives destined for Iranian-supported Huthi extremists. These activities interfere with Yemen’s ongoing political transition, and are destabilizing to the wider region. It is no surprise then that, according to a 2013 Zogby survey of 20 Arab and Muslim-majority countries, Iran is now viewed unfavorably in a majority of Arab countries and its appeal to mainstream Arab public opinion has virtually collapsed from its 2006 peak.

As Iran’s isolation grows, we are working through existing regional counter-terrorism partnerships to address the Iranian threat, and the interdiction in Yemen is a successful example of that cooperation. We are also deepening our military partnerships across the region. We consult regularly on security matters with our partners in the Persian Gulf and maintain a substantial presence in the region, to keep a watchful eye on Iran, counter potential Iranian aggression, reassure our allies, and protect the free flow of commerce through the Strait of Hormuz. We are also in close and constant contact with Israel to coordinate our policies and have taken unprecedented steps to protect Israel’s Qualitative Military Edge – including support for the Iron Dome defense system to stop Iranian-supported militant groups from firing Iranian-supplied rockets into Israeli communities.

Levinson, Abedini, and Hekmati Cases

Just as we are concerned about Iran’s destabilizing regional activities abroad, we remain concerned about Iran’s treatment of U.S. citizens detained and missing in Iran. The U.S. government is dedicated to the return of American citizen Robert Levinson and U.S.-Iranian dual nationals Saeed Abedini and Amir Hekmati. Mr. Levinson went missing from Kish Island, Iran, on March 9, 2007, and his whereabouts remain unknown. We continue to call on the Iranian government to make good on its promises to assist the U.S. government in finding Mr. Levinson so that he can be reunited with his family. Mr. Hekmati, a former U.S. Marine who served in Afghanistan, was detained in Iran since August 2011, and endured a closed-door trial with little regard for fairness or transparency. Mr. Abedini has been detained in Iran since September 2012 on charges related to his religious beliefs, and reportedly has suffered physical abuse by Iranian officials in prison. Despite our repeated requests, Iranian authorities have failed to provide them with adequate medical treatment or permit visits from our protecting power. We will continue to raise these cases directly and publicly as we also pursue all available options until all three of these Americans return home safely.

Human Rights

We are equally disturbed by the regime’s ongoing campaign of repression against its own people. Such oppression has included the harassment and intimidation of family members of those who speak out for freedoms, the torture of political prisoners, and the limitation of freedom of expression and access to information. These acts of aggression have created a culture of fear in which few dare to voice dissent or challenge regime officials. Students, lawyers, journalists, and bloggers, ethnic and religious minorities, artists and human rights activists are all targets for abuse, intimidation, or discrimination.

Labeled by press advocacy group Reporters Without Borders as an “enemy of the internet,” Iran filters online content and blocks access to the internet to prevent Iranian people from acquiring knowledge and unbiased information about their own country and the outside world. We are committed to raise the cost of repression and help Iranians break through the “electronic curtain” the regime is erecting to communicate with one another and share their story with the world.

As Dr. Martin Luther King said, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere,” and this is true, too, as we advocate for the rights and freedoms of the Iranian people. We have helped raise awareness of regime abuses and held Iranian officials responsible for their actions. Working with the authorities you provided us, we have imposed sanctions – including asset freezes and visa bans – on 30 Iranian individuals and entities for engaging in serious human rights abuses or censorship activities that limit freedom of expression, including the IRGC, the MOIS, Iran’s Cyber Police, and the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting. And while we know that public discussion of these incidents does not always help the people taking risks on the ground, make no mistake: we have stood – and will continue to stand – fully and firmly behind the aspirations of the Iranian people.

We have lent our voice to those the regime has tried to silence, speaking out in defense of numerous political prisoners, such as noted human rights defender Nasrin Sotoudeh, Christian pastor Youcef Nadarkhani, journalist Zhila Bani-Yaghoub, and Kurdish rights activist Seddigh Kaboudvand. We will continue to highlight such cases and coordinate our actions with our international partners, as we did in 2011 at the UN Human Rights Council to create the mandate of the Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in Iran, whose exhaustive reports have detailed the extent of unspeakable abuses in Iran. Likewise, we will continue to support the annual Canadian-led resolution at the UN General Assembly to condemn Iran’s human rights practices, a measure which has passed for 10 consecutive years.

Outreach to the Iranian People

Coupled with our concerns about human rights are our concerns about the well-being of the Iranian people. Every day, we hear from the Iranian people directly through our public diplomacy programs and Farsi-language social media platforms. The Virtual Embassy Tehran, launched in December 2011, has over 2 million hits and our Farsi-language Facebook, Twitter, Google+, and YouTube channel have also been enormously successful. The 170 videos on our YouTube channel have more than 1 million views and our Facebook page has over 120,000 fans, 60 percent of whom are inside of Iran and who access our sites even though the Iranian regime blocks the site.

What we see through our interactions is that the Iranian people are being detrimentally affected by the misplaced priorities, corruption and mismanagement of their government. Instead of meeting the needs of its own people, the Iranian regime has chosen to spend enormous amounts of its money and resources to support the Asad regime as well as its militant proxies around the world, and to pursue the development of weapons of mass destruction. Instead of investing in its people, Iran continues to restrain their vast potential through censorship, oppression, and severe limitations on their social, political and even academic freedoms.

As the President and the Secretary have said, in the United States our own communities have been enhanced by the contributions of Iranian Americans. We know that the Iranian people come from a great civilization whose accomplishments have earned the respect of the world. That is why in his 2013 Nowruz message, the President emphasized that there is no good reason for Iranians to be denied the opportunities enjoyed by people in other countries.

Iranians deserve the same freedoms and rights as people everywhere and all nations would benefit from the talents and creativity of the Iranian people, especially its youth. It is a shame that much of the world realizes this and the Iranian government has yet to do so.

Presidential Elections

Let me conclude by addressing a topic we are watching closely: Iran’s June 14 presidential election. Following the last election in 2009, when the regime violently quashed the hopes and dreams of ordinary Iranians who went into the street to demand their fundamental rights, we have seen a deliberate and unrelenting level of repression in the lead-up to these elections.

As we speak, behind closed doors, Iran’s unelected and unaccountable Guardian Council is vetting Iranian presidential contenders, using vague criteria to eliminate potential candidates. Without a transparent process, it is difficult for us to say whether Iran’s elections will be free, fair, or represent the will of the Iranian people.

We take no sides in Iran’s presidential election. The decision about who leads Iran is for the Iranian people, who should have every opportunity to express freely and openly their opinions, ideas, and hopes for the future of their country. But we do call on the Iranian authorities to conduct a free and fair election that not only conforms to international standards of transparency and accountability but is just and represents the will of the Iranian people.

Conclusion

In sum, Iranians deserve better. Their government has chosen to isolate them, stunt their economic growth, repress their ability to speak freely, and connect the people of Iran with the most heinous acts of terrorism and regional adventurism. Iran’s government can choose to end these policies at any time and put their people’s well being first.

As the President said, we have no illusions about the difficulty of overcoming decades of mistrust. It will take a serious and sustained effort to resolve the many differences between Iran and the United States. We do not expect to always agree, but rather for Iran to be an honest and responsible member of the international community, a community where members honor their commitments and keep their word or pay the price.

We share Congress’ concern about Iran and want to continue our hand in hand efforts to ensure that Iran does not continue on a path that threatens the peace and stability of the region and tramples the freedoms of its citizens. We welcome your ideas on how we can sustain and expand our efforts.

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.