Briefing by Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs P.J. Crowley

Philip J. Crowley
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Public Affairs

Via Teleconference

Washington, DC

February 9, 2010

OPERATOR: Welcome and thank you for standing by. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode, and for the question-and-answer session of today’s conference. At that time, you may press *1 if you’d like to ask a question. I would also like to inform all parties this call is being recorded. If you have any objections, you may disconnect at this time.

I would now like to turn the call over to Mr. P.J. Crowley. Thank you, sir. You may begin.

MR. CROWLEY: Well, thank you very much and good afternoon. I feel here at the State Department that we should have a weather board behind us where you can see the low-pressure system and expected bands of snowfall and so on and so forth. But we thought it was a good idea to check in with everybody in between storms here in Washington, D.C. As we’ve all seen, Washington, D.C. doesn’t necessarily do snow all that well.

But I do wish to commend – I know there are 40-something folks on the phone. We’re happy you checked in, but we’ve got to give gold stars to the magnificent seven that are here, your intrepid leaders who are here in the State Department itself. So, gold stars to all that are here.

I’ll go right to questions here in a second, but just simply want to flag for everybody a statement that the Secretary put out a while ago discussing how sad she was at the passing of Congressman Jack Murtha, someone that she worked very closely with when she was on the Senate Foreign Relations – or Senate Armed Services Committee, and Chairman Murtha, of course, on the House Armed Services Committee.

But with that, we’ll go right to questions. I thought what we’d do here, since we’ve got a combination of a in-house gaggle and an out-house phone call, is that we’ll take a handful of questions here in the room and then turn it over to the operator to field some questions from the phones, and then we’ll just go back and forth as long as there’s interest.

So anyway, first --

QUESTION: Before we get serious about --

MR. CROWLEY: Yes.

QUESTION: -- Iran and other things, are her Hill appearances (inaudible) cancelled yet?

MR. CROWLEY: I think her Hill appearances are at least postponed. I think the Congress has decided at least to push them back to Thursday. Beyond that, obviously, we’ll await further weather developments.

QUESTION: And what is she doing today, by the way?

MR. CROWLEY: Today, she is here in Washington, D.C. and is on the – I think she’s had a lunch with Rahm Emanuel, Chief of Staff at the White House, as well as taking various phone calls with key staff, also doing some budget preparation. For those who are storm watchers, she actually enjoyed a drive yesterday back to Washington from her house in Chappaqua.

QUESTION: She didn’t drive, did she?

MR. CROWLEY: I think fair to say the Diplomatic Service drove her.

QUESTION: Well, can we start off with Iran, then?

MR. CROWLEY: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: They were quoting a Pentagon official as saying that the U.S. visa sanctions resolution on Iran, quote-un-quote, “within weeks.” I’m wondering, does that sound --

MR. CROWLEY: A high-level – (laughter) – Pentagon official.

QUESTION: A high-level one. I’m wondering if that sort of jives with your understanding of what the timeline might be where we are. Are the P-5+1 planning on having another telephonic conference following the developments over the past couple of days of enrichments?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, certainly, we have always attached urgency to the – to Iran’s nuclear ambitions, and with this step that we thought was unnecessary, since Iran does have clear alternatives that would provide the enriched fuel for the Tehran research reactor and give Iran the ability to have medical isotopes that have a clear humanitarian purpose. So the international community has bent over backwards to try to make available to Iran the benefits of a civilian nuclear program, and we regret that once again, Iran has missed an opportunity to engage constructively and seriously with the international community so that it would clarify its nuclear ambitions.

We have and will continue to consult with our counterparts within the P-5+1 process. I’ve got nothing to project specifically. There was a conference call last Friday and I would expect there will be further consultations in the coming days. But this certainly deepens the international community’s concern about Iran’s nuclear programs. This was an unnecessary step. In fact, by every indication, it is counterproductive to Iran’s specific interest. There are clear alternatives that will provide Iran the fuel to produce medical isotopes. And so we regret that this has taken this step.

While we have a sense of urgency about this, we’re going to be very deliberate in our approach – take this step by step together with our partners. So I wouldn’t project any particular timeline, but clearly, we – this deepens our concern and we’re going to take the appropriate steps, both on the engagement track and on the pressure track – continue to refine our ideas, continue to share them with the P-5+1 and build an appropriate strategy going forward.

QUESTION: Is it your view that China is now isolated with strong statements from Russia just today, I think it was, in reaction to the Iranian drive to enrich to 20 percent?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, I’m not sure Iran is isolated, per se.

QUESTION: No --

MR. CROWLEY: I’m sorry, I’m sorry. I wouldn’t say that – China is an integral part of the P-5+1 process. They have signed on to every statement and every step the international community has taken up to this point. Clearly, we have had a difference of viewpoint in terms of what the next steps should be. But with this action by Iran, it clearly strengthens our hand in terms of convincing not only China, but other countries that we need to make sure that we are looking not only at engagement, but also at pressure so that should Iran continue down this path, that there will be a consequence and will be a price to pay for it.

QUESTION: But if they’re not isolated, what are they? I mean, they’re the only ones not talking about sanctions. All the other ones, including the Russians now, are talking about sanctions. So what’s the word (inaudible)?

MR. CROWLEY: And I understand, and we are talking about sanctions as well, and we will continue to make the case to China as we go forward. And we would hope that at the point that we are prepared to formally present the international community’s ideas before the Security Council that China will be there with us.

QUESTION: And where are we in terms of the actual sanctions being proposed and worked out?

MR. CROWLEY: I think we’re still developing our ideas, and I would not project at what point that we would put something on the table. But clearly, we’re moving in that direction.

QUESTION: P.J., just one on the sanctions. You know, there is a theory that sanctions ultimately don’t work for a variety of reasons. I mean, why would it be different this time that sanctions would work?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, first of all, there are sanctions that are already in place, and they do have an impact. We believe that the prospect of this pressure track has – can have an economic impact, but also has a very significant political impact.

QUESTION: What’s that mean?

MR. CROWLEY: The Iranian people want to have a different relationship with other countries in the region and with the West and with the United States. And ultimately, the Iranian people, the Iranian Government will have to evaluate what are the costs of the current course that they’re on, and whether whatever perceived value that the nuclear program has, whether it is worth the cost that Iran is paying and will continue to pay.

So we think that this can have impact. We’re looking at ways in which we can put additional pressure on the Iranian Government without increasing the burden on the Iranian people. And we think that there’s room for this pressure track along with the engagement track. And as we refine our ideas, we are clearly looking to make sure that whatever steps we take are effective, have an impact, and send a very strong signal to Iran to change course.

QUESTION: Can you actually definitively say that it’s not the objective of the U.S. Government to create such dissension among the people of Iran that they would overthrow the government? Is that the ultimate reason, one of the reasons for sanctions?

MR. CROWLEY: No. I would say that the purpose of these sanctions is to put pressure on the Iranian government, that the course it’s on is not constructive, and that – to continue to show Iran that the international community is united and determined to prevent Iran from becoming a declared and demonstrated nuclear power.

So this is the approach that we have taken. It’s the approach that has attracted unanimous support from the international community, and now we’re continuing to put together our ideas on how we can make the strongest possible impact and send the strongest possible signal to the Iranian Government.

QUESTION: But it doesn’t seem to have support from China still, which kind of goes back to the problem of isolation. If you don’t want to say they’re isolating, they stood in the way, arguably, of climate change, there’s been this flap over Google. I mean, at what point is the U.S. going to acknowledge the – what seems to be a major problem?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, that’s a different issue.

QUESTION: But it all goes to China-U.S. relations.

MR. CROWLEY: Well, no. First and foremost, let’s talk about the relations between Iran and the international community, and – no one is happy with the course that Iran has taken over the past several months. We’ve bent over backwards to invite Iran into a process where it could engage constructively and find ways in which Iran could clarify its nuclear programs and its intentions and find a way, as with the proposal on the Tehran research reactor, where it could enjoy the benefits of a civilian nuclear program, while reassuring the international community about its nuclear ambitions.

So the fact that it’s taken this step deepens the concern the international community has about the true nature of Iran’s nuclear program. So I think that Iran is increasingly isolated, and to the extent that it now clearly is unwilling to engage constructively. It’s taken this affirmative step. It puts us in a much stronger position in terms of moving ahead on the pressure track.

In terms of the U.S. relationship with China, as we’ve said, this is a – it’s arguably the most important and could be the most complex bilateral relationship in the world today. It is much broader, much deeper, much more stable than it has been at any point in the last 20 or 30 years. Do we have a lot of issues that we discuss regularly with China? We do, whether it’s the role that we play within the Security Council, whether it’s on climate change, whether it’s on the global economic situation, whether it’s on regional security. This is – it underscores the breadth of the relationship, the importance of the relationship, and we will continue to engage China on all of these issues as we have repeatedly over the past year.

So let’s separate the two. I mean, there is some overlap here, but we think at the end of the day, the international community is united in its concern about the risk that Iran poses to the region and more broadly, and we think that we’re in a very strong position to take decisive action.

QUESTION: This vacillation between --

QUESTION: Can we go back to the timing for a second, because we got off the track. You’ve said that you didn’t want to put a timeline on (inaudible), but the way I’ll ask it is: Would you like to see this done in the Security Council by the end of the month since (inaudible) now? Would you go that far that you’d like to see it done (inaudible)?

MR. CROWLEY: We’re not putting any particular timetable on it. What we want is that – effective action, a strong statement, and we think we can get that. But we’ll – we have – when we get to that point, we’ll know it, and we’re still – in the meantime, we’re still doing our consultations within the P-5+1 process.

QUESTION: The vacillation you’ve talked about on the part of the leadership; we’ve had statements by Ahmadinejad, statements by the foreign minister, and various officials back and forth about this answering the international community. You’ve said that it indicates some inability or confusion on their part or dissenting in trying to answer. But could it also be their wanting to simply play the clock out, continue to confuse the international community? How do you interpret what they’re doing?

MR. CROWLEY: They’re working against their own long-term self interest. There are clear alternatives that are available to Iran if their concern is, in fact, being able to continue the operation of the Tehran research reactor, to be able to produce medical isotopes of importance and value to the Iranian people. There are – the proposal put on the table by the international community last fall is one way. We’ve expressed a willingness to work with them for the importation of medical isotopes if that’s their true concern.

So this action was unnecessary, it’s provocative, and it deepens our concern about what Iran’s real intentions are. There have been a number of contradictory statements coming out of the Iranian leadership in recent days and weeks. It’s difficult for us to explain them, but I think we are clear in terms of what we expect Iran to do. We’ve given them ample opportunity to engage constructively. And the fact that they are unwilling to do so puts us in a stronger position when it comes to convincing the international community that it’s time to take additional steps on the pressure front.

QUESTION: P.J., one question on your last (inaudible).

MR. CROWLEY: I do want to make sure that we go to questions from callers.

QUESTION: Based on the offer, as I understand it, you said and apparently, Ambassador Davies said the same thing in Vienna – about an offer to help them with the importation of medical isotopes if that’s, as you say, their real interest – is this an offer that’s separate from the IAEA proposal? Is it something that the U.S. itself is saying that the U.S. will help them to import medical isotopes presumably from a third country? And how would that even work?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, I think what we were saying is that there are alternatives. The Iranian decision to improve their processing to 20 percent is an unnecessary step. It may be actually a step that today Iran is not capable of actually doing. I mean, there are technical considerations, but our point is if Iran feels it has a specific need, we are willing to engage constructively and try to identify ways in which the international community and potentially the United States can meet that need.

But it is the absence of any movement by Iran over the past four or five months since the TRR proposal was put on the table that we feel demonstrates that the justification of not only continuing on the engagement front, but also aggressively pursuing the pressure front.

QUESTION: But that sounds like a separate proposal from the --

MR. CROWLEY: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- IAEA proposal. So it is? So you’re, in fact – in fact, making a new offer of --

MR. CROWLEY: Well, what --

QUESTION: -- another way that they could get around --

MR. CROWLEY: What we were – what we’re saying is that – okay, we put forward a good-faith proposal; we thought it was practical; it was doable. But if Iran didn’t want to accept that proposal, there are others that are available. What has to – what really has to happen here is for Iran to sit down, identify what it really feels it needs to do, and work with the international community constructively on potential solutions, and in doing so, start to build confidence that – about its intentions.

But the fact that it’s taken this provocative step and seemingly walked away from the TRR proposal is moving in a different direction deepens our concerns, and we will take the appropriate lesson from that.

QUESTION: Can I ask one on a different subject? Is that okay?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, let – do we want to – Operator, you want to go and take a handful of calls from the phone bank and then we’ll come back to the group in the room? Operator?

OPERATOR: Thank you. We will now begin the question-and-answer session. If you would like to ask a question, please press *1 on your phone and make sure your phone is on an unmute status so we may record your name clearly.

We do have a couple questions in queue. Our first question goes from Foster Klug. Go ahead. Your line is open.

QUESTION: Hello, can you hear me?

MR. CROWLEY: We can.

QUESTION: Yeah, this is Foster with the AP. Thanks for doing this. I wanted to ask about the Ukraine, if you could comment on the election, and specifically if you have any comments about whether this might be concerning as a shift towards Russia.

And then on North Korea, if you could comment on – their nuclear negotiators are in China. Are there any plans for U.S. officials to meet up with Kim Kye Gwan? Or – there’s some speculation that they might be traveling somewhere else. Do you know of any other places that these guys are traveling specifically? It might be a long shot, but is the U.S. --

MR. CROWLEY: “These guys” meaning North Korea?

QUESTION: Kim Kye Gwan, yeah, yeah. Are they coming to – I mean, it sounds a bit wild, but any plans for them to come to the U.S.? Thanks.

MR. CROWLEY: On the latter point, no and no. Obviously, we absolutely support interaction between North Korean officials and our Six-Party partners. So the fact that Kim Kye Gwan is in Beijing, I think he’ll hear the same message from the Chinese that he’s heard from the United States. We obviously take note of the public statements by North Korea over the past 24 hours. I mean, these are similar to what North Korea said to us back in December when our delegation was in Pyongyang.

So North Korea is saying the right things, that the Six-Party process should resume and that it remains committed to denuclearization, but the right words must be followed by action. Words by themselves are not sufficient. So we expect that that will be the message that the Chinese deliver to Kim Kye Gwan while he’s in Beijing, that North Korea should allow China to schedule the next Six-P – I’m sorry, Six-Party meeting and North Korea should again commit itself to the obligations that it made previously.

On Ukraine, obviously, the United States commends the Ukrainian people on the February 7 second round of presidential elections. International observers have assessed as – in their preliminary conclusions that this was a constructive and positive election. There was a clear choice among candidates in a calm atmosphere that was followed freely by the media in Ukraine. We welcomed the high turnout. And we think that this reflects another step in the consolidation of Ukraine’s democracy.

QUESTION: What about the bit about whether this is a shift towards Russia?

MR. CROWLEY: I don’t know that we see it that way. But let’s first await the formal outcome and then we will be able to judge what Ukraine’s future policies will be.

QUESTION: I just wanted one there about – you didn’t really mention – no, you did not even allude to Yanukovych, who apparently won this election. And why is that? I mean, why don’t you mention his name–

MR. CROWLEY: Well, let’s wait. I didn’t mention Tymoshenko’s name, either. So let’s wait until the results are official, and then we will have more to say.

Okay. Next? Next caller?

OPERATOR: Thank you. The next call comes from Sam Kim. Go ahead, your line is open.

QUESTION: Thank you. Thanks for having this. I also have a question on North Korea. You just mentioned that State Department supports this interaction between North Korea and the negotiator and other Six-Party partners. But do you think these diplomatic activities between China and North Korea are positive to the resumption of the Six-Party talks?

MR. CROWLEY: We would hope so. I mean, China is the chair of the Six-Party process, so it has a leadership role to play, one which we have long valued. We think that China and the United States, you know, see the current situation in – with respect to North Korea very similarly.

And you know, we would hope that the North Korean delegation will receive a very firm message, you know, similar to the one that we provided back in December, and that, you know, North Korea will heed its advice.

QUESTION: I have one more question on North Korea. Do you have any update on the second U.S. citizen detained in North Korea?

MR. CROWLEY: No update.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR. CROWLEY: But clearly, we obviously welcome the return to the United States over the weekend of Robert Park, and we hope to find out more about the second U.S. citizen as quickly as we can.

QUESTION: Are we still seeking consular access to him?

MR. CROWLEY: Yes, we are.

QUESTION: Okay, thank you.

OPERATOR: Thank you. Our next question comes from Josh Rogin. Go ahead, your line is open.

QUESTION: Thank you very much. And my question is on the French announcement that they will sell the Mistral class amphibious assault ship to Russia. This will be the first major arms sale to Russia from a NATO country, and objections have been raised in Georgia and the Baltic States and others.

What is the State Department’s comments on this sale? And have there been any contacts between the State Department and the French over this recently?

MR. CROWLEY: Josh, that’s a fair question. I am not aware of any specific contact. Obviously, I think the Secretary of Defense has had something to say about this in the last 24 hours. Obviously, it is something that we will consult with the French on, and other countries in the region.

QUESTION: Okay. And as a quick follow-up, lawmakers on Capitol Hill have connected this issue to their ongoing negotiations with the State Department over their Iran sanctions legislation. In other words, they are saying that if France continues with this sale, Congress might not go along with the country exemption under the sanctions that the State Department is seeking. Could I have your comment on that issue?

MR. CROWLEY: I wouldn’t blend the two together. We are working with Congress regarding the prospective Iran sanctions legislation. It underscores the seriousness by which not only the Executive Branch, but the Legislative Branch views current developments with respect to Iran.

But one of the issues we will be talking to Congress about is to make sure that the President receives sufficient flexibility to be able to work with other countries effectively for our shared goal of finding ways to put appropriate pressure on Iran to change course.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: How is that working along or coming – what would be your ideal date for them to reach an agreement and send it to the President?

MR. CROWLEY: I don’t think we have any timetable on the sanctions legislation, either.

QUESTION: Could you give us any details of how you’re working with Congress.

MR. CROWLEY: Well, I mean, the Secretary is about to go up on the Hill. It wouldn’t surprise me in her four hearings this month that this issue comes up.

OPERATOR: Thank you. Our next question comes from Kim Ghattas. Go ahead, your line is open.

QUESTION: Hi, P.J. Thanks for doing this. I had two questions. First of all, on Iran and the offer to help Iran procure itself medical isotopes from a third-country source, is this – I am unclear whether this is something new. Or has this been put on the table before? And if it is new, is this a goodwill gesture that is also meant to test Iran’s intentions?

And then, a second question on comments coming out of Moscow. Russia’s top military officer is saying that the U.S. missile defense plans are a threat to Russian national security. Do you see this as part of the continued back-and-forth that you have with the Russians on the issue of missile defense, in general, or are they reacting very specifically to the revamped plan and the announcement that you were deploying missiles in Romania?

MR. CROWLEY: On the first issue, look. The – Iran, I think, has concerns – we don’t see them as valid, but at least they might have concerns – they don’t trust the international community. They don’t trust the United States. And we have put forward what we think is a realistic, good faith proposal for the international community to provide for Iran’s legitimate needs for very specific purposes.

If Iran didn’t trust the proposal that we put on the table last fall – and one has to always note that the initial Iranian reaction by its negotiating team in Geneva was positive, and then the subsequent reaction from leadership back in Tehran was negative. But I think all we are saying is that, “Look, if you want the international community to sit down and constructively look at various alternatives so that you can have the benefits of a civilian nuclear program, we are willing to explore those alternatives, and in doing so, perhaps build some confidence that might lead to more constructive engagement on broader issues.”

It is the unwillingness of Iran to do any meaningful follow-up to the one negotiating session that we had in Geneva that deepens our concern about what Iran’s true intentions are.

So this just shows that the United States, the international community have bent over backwards. We have remained extremely flexible. We are trying to find a way to address Iran’s legitimate needs, but in doing so, to continue to address the legitimate proliferation concerns that the international community has.

We remain ready to work with Iran on this issue. But in the absence of constructive engagement by Iran, that is expressly why the President, the Secretary of State, and others have said that we are now paying significant attention to that second track, because Iran is unwilling to come to the table and try to work through these issues.

On the issue of Russia, we have been very forthcoming and transparent regarding our plans for missile defense in Europe, and in particular, this new phased, adaptive approach. Our missile defense architecture in Europe is in no way aimed at Russia, but rather at the emerging ballistic missile threat from Iran.

We have had extensive discussions with Russia for months and years on this issue. And, in fact, we have, on multiple occasions, offered to Iran the opportunity to –

QUESTION: To Russia?

MR. CROWLEY: – more closely on missile defense. I’m sorry, Russia.

QUESTION: That would be interesting.

MR. CROWLEY: Yes, yes. So we will obviously continue to talk to Russia about whatever concerns it has. But we have been very clear that our missile plans for Europe are in no way directed at Russia.

QUESTION: If I may, just a quick follow-up. Did you discuss the specifics of Romania with them? Did they know that this was coming?

MR. CROWLEY: I can’t say that we – I think we have had discussions with Russia on our revised plans. It wouldn’t surprise me if, since last week, we’ve clarified what this step means and does not mean.

I can’t say that we necessarily had a specific conversation prior to the announcement last week, but we have outlined with the Russians what we are going to do broadly. So I don’t think that this came as a total surprise. Missile defense was one of the issues that the Secretary talked with Foreign Minister Lavrov with last week when they were together in London.

QUESTION: Thanks.

QUESTION: Can you say something to Haiti?

MR. CROWLEY: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: There have been a number of reports that the detained Americans have directed complaints toward the State Department, that they feel that they are not being adequately cared for, that they lack important medicine for diabetes and other complaints, and they are not being (inaudible).

MR. CROWLEY: Well, let’s take those two issues separately. We have had regular consular access and meetings with the 10 American citizens. I believe we have facilitated getting medicine to, or other needs to, our citizens. We are doing exactly what we would do with detained Americans anywhere in the world.

As to their legal representation, it’s hard to comment on kind of the back-and-forth among the lawyers. The choice of legal representation is one that the American citizens themselves make. In our consular sessions with them, we’ve apprised them of available legal representation, but the choice of who will represent them and what their strategy is, these are private decisions; these are not part of the conversations that we have with them. We are monitoring the course of their legal process, and – to make sure that we think it’s in accord with Haitian law. And we will continue to do that.

QUESTION: I know you have been asked, and some State Department officials have responded, in regard to the whole issue of whether they might be allowed to come back to the United States and face some kind of legal proceedings here. Is there any update on that?

MR. CROWLEY: No change. This is a Haitian legal process. The matters right now involve whether these individuals have broken Haitian law. We have talked to Haitian officials in general terms about the – about their ability to conduct this procedure. If they want to explore alternative avenues with us, we will be happy to have that conversation.

QUESTION: And do you know if there are any other Americans, apart from this group of 10, in custody for child abduction-related –

MR. CROWLEY: There are other Americans in custody. I don’t know what their charges are. I don’t know if they are similar to this group or not.

QUESTION: Taken into custody after the earthquake?

MR. CROWLEY: I think there were some that were in custody before the earthquake.

QUESTION: And any number – sorry –

MR. CROWLEY: I don’t –

QUESTION: Some Americans?

MR. CROWLEY: Mm-hmm. I don’t think that the 10 are the only Americans in custody.

QUESTION: And for the same –

MR. CROWLEY: I don’t know. I don’t know. These are better questions to ask down in Port-au-Prince than here.

Other questions from callers before we wrap up?

OPERATOR: Yes, we do have quite a bit of questions on the phone. Our next question comes from Kirit Radia. Go ahead, your line is open.

QUESTION: Hey, P.J. It’s Kirit, can you hear me?

MR. CROWLEY: I can. Taking a break from shoveling?

QUESTION: Yes, it’s been a lot of shoveling this weekend.

I had a question for you about Haiti and the distribution of aid down there. Who does the U.S. Government regard as ultimately being in charge of distribution of aid in Haiti right now?

MR. CROWLEY: I am going to enlist Gordon Duguid, who has much more knowledge from on the ground than I do. Gordon?

MR. DUGUID: Yeah, thank you, P.J. Kirit, the United Nations is ultimately in charge of what is a United Nations relief effort, an international relief effort. However, they are advising the Haitian Government on what they see as the capabilities of the international community. The Haitian Government itself is setting priorities, and asking for particular demands from the international community.

Now having said that, you have to then divide up the types of – the different types of aid. Currently, food distribution is being organized and run by the World Food Program. And they have gone to a distribution – a primary distribution of 16 fixed sites, which are located, in consultation with the Government of Haiti, near some of the largest concentrations of internally displaced people. And those 16 sites, however, are not the total of distribution, but they are certainly the main areas of distribution. This is moving on from an earlier distribution system where there were four clusters that were run by the United Nations which centered around – one cluster was for medical needs, one cluster was for food aid, one cluster was for shelter, and so on.

MR. CROWLEY: I think, Kirit – P.J. again – just to expand on that, and what’s crucial about the 16 sites, is the shift in the kinds of goods that are being distributed – rice, other staples – that allow for more sustained feeding of a broader percentage of the population over time.

I think yesterday 15 of these 16 sites were active. I think on Sunday, 14 of the 16 sites were active, and 2 of the sites involved churches, where there were church services going on. But as Gordon said, what this network has allowed us to do is to push out more food that allows people to have sustained feeding for, like, a two-week period of time.

QUESTION: Okay. And then I guess part of that – I do have two follow-ups. Who was in charge of shelter, do you know? My understanding was that was a Haitian initiative, that they were going to take the lead on that one. Is that correct?

MR. DUGUID: Not to my knowledge, that Haitian officials themselves are responsible for the distribution of all of the shelter. The Haitians have certainly identified places where they wish to establish camps for the internally displaced. The shelter distribution is being handled by the UN through NGOs. Also, the United States itself has done, through our – the U.S. military, the distribution of some shelter kits. And I know that the U.S. and France have joined together to help establish one camp near the Presidential Palace.

So, my information may be a couple of days old, Kirit, but again, this is a UN-led effort in conjunction with the Haitian Government. I don’t know that the Haitian Government itself, although it has the strategic capacity to make decisions, actually has the people on the ground to implement many of their strategic –

MR. CROWLEY: Yes, and this – and P.J. again. I mean, this is a crucial intermediate objective for the international effort. And – but you know– obviously, whatever locations are established for shelter, make sure you’ve got the proper conditions, sanitary conditions there, and some of the areas in which shelter will be constructed are waiting for debris removal, which is ongoing there now.

And so, I mean, there are lots of people that are involved in this process. But it will be the Haitian Government that ultimately decides where it wants to establish major sheltering locations, and then will work with the UN and the international community to make sure that the conditions that are established can support the population for an extended period of time.

QUESTION: Got it. And my last question on this was where, in this whole big picture of the UN being in charge and coordinating this, does President Clinton factor in? I know that last Tuesday he was announced as the aid, I guess, coordinator. But there has been some question about his role.

MR. CROWLEY: That is a fair question. I would probably direct that to the UN.

QUESTION: What does the U.S. Government consider to be President Clinton’s role in this whole process?

MR. CROWLEY: I will take that question if we have a particular point of view.

QUESTION: Okay, thanks.

OPERATOR: Thank you. We do have one – another question. Laura Rozen. Go ahead, your line is open.

QUESTION: Hi. Thanks, P.J. I understand the IAEA has observers at Natanz today. And can you give a sense of what is the understanding of what Iran is doing at Natanz, how technically prepared they were, starting today, to higher-enrich to 20 percent? And related to that –

MR. CROWLEY: Laura, on that one I will defer to the IAEA. They have the inspectors on the ground, and I am sure that they will be reporting to the leadership of the IAEA as to what they have observed.

QUESTION: Okay. And then related, you know, the Iranian foreign minister met in Munich over the weekend with the IAEA head and several allied foreign ministers. You know, did you all pick up from them, from allied countries, you know, what is the sense of what the gaps are between, I guess, the Western TRR offer and what Iran says it wants? Or, you know, were you getting from them that, you know, it’s just a waste of time, that it’s a bogus, you know, conversation on the Iranian side?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, I think what we have gotten over the past few days is a lot of mixed signals from Iran. But, unfortunately, what we are seeing with the step that it announced over the last 24 hours, and the steps it’s taken today, is that the gap is unfortunately widening between what we would like to see Iran do and what it’s actually doing.

So, we know what Iran should do. And regrettably, the steps they have taken over the last 24 hours move us farther from our desired end state. But as I said, it puts us in a stronger position to make the argument that while the engagement track remains open and available, we should continue our work to put additional pressure on the Iranian Government so that if they continue on the path that they’re on – unwilling to engage the international community, unwilling to address the concerns that we have about their nuclear ambitions – that there will be a price to pay.

QUESTION: Thanks. Just a quick follow-up. How is this sort of more flexible offer or alternative, you know, isotope offer being conveyed to Iran?

MR. CROWLEY: I think our colleague, Glyn Davies in Vienna, has had those kinds of discussions within the IAEA. But I think our large –

QUESTION: Directly or indirectly?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, our larger point is that we – even today we stand ready to work with Iran, to meet its legitimate needs, and to work to address – but – let me rephrase this.

We stand ready to work with Iran. We stand ready to address its legitimate needs. But we need to see Iran come to the table prepared to address our concerns and the concerns of the international community regarding its nuclear ambitions.

QUESTION: Thanks.

MR. CROWLEY: I think there is still, like, one more?

OPERATOR: Yes, we do have one more from –

MR. CROWLEY: Make this one the last one.

OPERATOR: Okay. Tom Ackerman, your line is open.

QUESTION: Thanks. My question was already addressed.

MR. CROWLEY: Well, with that, we should man the shovels. And best of luck, and we will see you when we see you again. Thanks very much.

Former President Clinton's Role in Haiti

Office of the Spokesman

Washington, DC

February 9, 2010

Question Taken at the February 9, 2010 Telephone Conference Call

Question: How does the U.S. Government view former President Clinton’s role in Haiti?

Answer: The United States is pleased that the UN Secretary-General has asked former President Clinton to take on an expanded role as UN Special Envoy for Haiti. We understand that President Clinton will assume a leadership role in coordinating international aid efforts from emergency response to recovery and reconstruction in Haiti. The United States applauds this decision, and looks forward to continuing to work with former President Clinton in his expanded role. For further details on President Clinton’s expanded role, I refer you to the United Nations.

U.S. Welcomes Western Sahara Talks

Philip J. Crowley
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Public Affairs

Washington, DC

February 9, 2010

The U.S. welcomes the announcement of the second round of informal talks on the Western Sahara, which will take place February 10-11, 2010. We call upon the parties to continue negotiations under the auspices of the UN Secretary-General. The United States maintains full support for the Secretary-General and his Personal Envoy, Ambassador Chris Ross, in their efforts to reach a mutually-agreed solution.

Secretary Clinton To Travel to Qatar and Saudi Arabia

Philip J. Crowley
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Public Affairs

Washington, DC

February 9, 2010

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will travel to Qatar and Saudi Arabia from February 13-16.

In Qatar on February 14, she will meet with Amir Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al-Thani, as well as Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim Al-Thani. Secretary Clinton will also speak at the U.S.-Islamic World Forum, being hosted by the Qatari Government and the Saban Center on the evening of February 14.

During her February 15-16 visit to Saudi Arabia, Secretary Clinton will meet with King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud as well as Foreign Minister Prince Saud Al-Faisal.

Statement on Congressman Jack Murtha

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State

Washington, DC

February 8, 2010

I was deeply saddened to hear of the passing of Congressman Jack Murtha. From the battlefields of Vietnam to the hills of Western Pennsylvania to the halls of Congress, Jack Murtha lived by the Marine Corps credo "Semper Fidelis," never wavering in his faithful commitment to the country he loved and the men and women who bravely defend her. In war and in peace, he fought for what he knew was right, even when it was unpopular. He was a fierce advocate for working families struggling with a changing economy and for better health care and equipment for service members. And over the course of more than three decades in Congress, he became one of our nation's most respected voices on national security and foreign policy. Presidents of both parties sought his advice and generations of colleagues looked to him for leadership and wisdom. As Senator from New York serving on the Armed Services Committee, I was fortunate to call Jack a friend and mentor. And as Secretary of State, I continued to rely on his expertise and judgment. I knew that Jack would always shoot straight, like the Marine he was, and never shy away from a difficult question or a tough fight. Today our country has lost a decorated war hero and a distinguished public servant. The men and women of our armed forces have lost a tireless champion. And the people of Pennsylvania's 12th district have lost a neighbor, an advocate, and a true friend. My thoughts and prayers are with them and with Jack's beloved wife Joyce and their family. He will be sorely missed.

 

Interview With CNN's Candy Crowley for State of the Union

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State

Washington, DC

February 4, 2010

QUESTION: First of all, thank you so much. It’s an honor to have you on this first show. I wanted to talk to you first about the past month. We have seen a would-be terrorist frighten a lot of people on a plane over Detroit, we have gotten Usama bin Ladin’s tape, and we have now been warned by the U.S. Government that it is certain that there will be an attempted attack on the U.S. or on Americans in the next one to six months. Is there a reason Americans should not look at that and think the risk factor is up?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, Candy, first of all, congratulations on your new show. I really wish you well. You have a lot to contribute to Sunday morning television.

I think what’s fair for Americans to think is that we have had a continuing threat from al-Qaida and related terrorist organizations over many years now. It hasn’t gone away. We have contained it. We’ve worked very hard to do so. But over the last six months, we have seen attacks foiled, people arrested and charged, so that you have to be constantly vigilant. And that’s what everybody working in this government at all levels attempts to do.

In the last month, because of the high-profile attempt on the airplane, people’s attention became very focused. But a bin Ladin tape is nothing new; it comes and goes depending upon when he decides to do it. But I think it’s really important for people to just go along with their daily lives. I mean, you can’t be deterred or discouraged or fearful about what’s happening, and we just have to do everything we can to keep America safe.

QUESTION: Can you give me a feel for is the risk higher, is al-Qaida stronger now than a year ago?

SECRETARY CLINTON: It’s very difficult to make that kind of assessment because they’ve always been plotting against us. I was a senator from New York on 9/11. I was honored to serve the people of New York until I took this job. I thought about it every day. I got intelligence every day, somebody was thinking about that or we picked up information about a plot there. So to me, who has followed this very closely since 9/11, I don’t see them as stronger, but I see that they are more creative, more flexible, more agile. They evolve. They are, unfortunately, a very committed, clever, diabolical group of terrorists who are always looking for weaknesses and openings, and we just have to stay alert.

QUESTION: If they’re more agile and more clever, are there more of them? And doesn't that sort of add up to more risk?

SECRETARY CLINTON: I don’t know if there are more of them. We have certainly degraded their capacity in Afghanistan and Pakistan. We know that. As the President said the other night, we have killed and captured a significant number of al-Qaida’s top leadership as well as people in the Taliban organizations in Afghanistan and Pakistan who cooperate with them.

We see some new areas of threat emanating from Somalia and Yemen. But whether that’s now in the cumulative greater, or whether because the numbers in Afghanistan and Pakistan have decreased, it’s about the same but with the unfortunate fact that they are committed to killing and destroying innocent people in their own countries as well as around the world, including the United States.

QUESTION: While we’re in that region, let me ask you about Afghanistan. U.S. troops cannot get out of there unless there is a stable Afghan Government. Hamid Karzai, as of this point, does not have a full cabinet. They are now trying to bring in not just foot soldiers, bring them back into the fold, not just Taliban foot soldiers, but some higher-ups. Do you have any doubt in your mind that Hamid Karzai can get his act together and put together a stable government?

SECRETARY CLINTON: I think that the strategy that the United States and more than 44 countries are pursuing in Afghanistan obviously requires that we have a good partner in President Karzai and the Afghan Government. That doesn't mean that we’ll always do what he wants or he will always do what we want, but we do expect to see a level of competency and capacity.

QUESTION: Have you seen it?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes, actually, there are areas of very positive cooperation. He may not have a full cabinet, but the cabinet members he has are people who many of us view as honest and effective, productive. We work with them on a daily basis – the defense minister, the finance minster – people who are really producing results for Afghanistan.

I’ve spent a lot of time with President Karzai, most recently about a 90-minute one-on-one conversation in London. I think he has really stepped up since his second inaugural address. He laid out a roadmap there. He is trying to follow that roadmap. But I always remind myself that, what, five or six years into a new nation that has no history of democracy, let’s be realistic about the kind of support that this new government and the president needs. So I think we have to put this into a more balanced perspective. It’s neither as bad or as good, just like most of life and most of the situations I deal with around the world. And I think we have developed a much stronger understanding and partnership in the last year going forward.

QUESTION: So no doubts that Karzai is the man to pull this together?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, he is the president of the country and I very much respect the authority that he has. He has asked for help, most recently at the London conference, but he also has his own ideas, as do the Afghan people. So in any relationship with any country, think of some of our oldest allies like France or England, you’re not always going to get 100 percent agreement, but you work with the leaders and you work with the people. We’re not yet turning the corner, but we are sort of inching our way forward to being able to do so. So I think, on balance, we are in this with people and countries who are committed to the same outcome.

QUESTION: Shall we leave the Karzai doubt question on the table?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I mean, I don’t agree with any other single leader in the world. I mean, I don’t – I mean, obviously, we have a lot --

QUESTION: I just think that’s a little different from are you a little worried that he’s not going to be able to pull this off. And I pursue it only because that’s the only way U.S. troops are going to get pulled out.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, but see, I think that we have looked at President Karzai through a lens that is not rooted in reality. I mean, we do business with leaders all the time, some of whom are great American allies, that have a lot of questions raised about them. But we do an assessment: What’s in the best interest of America? What’s in our national security? What advances our interests and our values? What keeps Americans safe?

And so why should we take one leader out and put him apart from all the other leaders we deal with and raise all those doubts, instead of saying, look, we’ve got work to do and we’re doing it. We are doing it day by day and I think we are making progress.

(Break.)

QUESTION: I wanted to bring your attention to something that President Obama said in his inaugural a little more than a year ago: “We will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.” Has Iran unclenched its fist?

SECRETARY CLINTON: No.

QUESTION: How about North Korea?

SECRETARY CLINTON: No, not to the extent we would like to see them. But I think that’s – that is not all to the story. Engagement has brought us a lot in the last year. Let’s take North Korea first and then we’ll go to Iran.

In North Korea, when we said that we were willing to work with North Korea if they were serious about returning to the Six-Party Talks and about denuclearizing in an irreversible way, they basically did not respond in the first instance. But because we were willing to engage, we ended up getting a very strong sanctions regime against North Korea that China signed onto and Russia signed onto and right now is being enforced around the world.

QUESTION: Did the extended hand of the U.S. help in any way that you can point to?

SECRETARY CLINTON: It did. Because we extended it, a neighbor like China knew we were going the extra mile and all of a sudden said you’re not just standing there hurling insults at them, you’ve said all right, fine, we’re willing to work with them. They haven’t responded, so we’re going to sign on to these very tough measures.

Similarly, in Iran, I don’t know what the outcome would have been if the Iranian Government hadn’t made the decision it made following the elections to become so repressive. But the fact is, because we engaged, the rest of the world has really begun to see Iran the way we see it. When we started last year talking about the threats that Iran’s nuclear program posed, Russia and other countries said, well, we don’t see it that way. But through very slow and steady diplomacy, plus the fact that we had a two-track process – yes, we reached out on engagement to Iran, but we always had the second track, which is that we would have to try to get the world community to take stronger measures if they didn’t respond on the engagement front.

QUESTION: I want to turn to Haiti for a minute. We’re in there with a lot of people. They’re doing a lot of talking, and what they’re finding is Haitians saying we wish the American Government would come in here and take over because they don’t think their government is capable in the post-rescue period of rebuilding Haiti. What’s wrong with that idea?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Candy, I’m very proud of what not only our country has done, both our military and particularly our civilians and our new USAID Administrator Raj Shah – everybody has just stepped up and performed admirably. So have other countries. This has been a global response. But the fact is there is a legitimate government with authority in Haiti despite the --

QUESTION: A really weak government.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, the fact is that we were working with them before the earthquake. One of my goals as Secretary of State, which the President agreed with, was for us to work with that government and try to help them implement a national development plan. And we had spent a lot of time on that. In fact, what’s so tragically ironic is that, literally, the night before the earthquake, on PBS there was a – the NewsHour had a long segment about the progress that was being made in Haiti under this very same government. Unfortunately, all of that was upended by the earthquake.

What we’re doing along with our international partners is to work with the Haitian Government so that there is a mechanism for coordination. They have to be part of it because they have the legal authorities. Unless a government or a bunch of governments is going to occupy Haiti, which would have all kinds of very unfortunate implications, we have to help support the Haitian people and their government. There’s a lot of talk going on, a lot of conference calls flying back and forth, the trip that I made to Montreal for the conference, and I’m confident we’re going to come up with a system.

QUESTION: UN envoy to Haiti, you may know, is Bill Clinton.

SECRETARY CLINTON: I do know.

QUESTION: I’m just curious how that works exactly. Does he give you reports? Does he call up and say, “Hello, Secretary of State?” (Laughter.) And really, who’s the boss here?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, he was appointed, again, months and months ago and was working on the private sector. He had brought hundreds of business people from around the world to sign contracts to employ people in Haiti. And now he’s been asked by Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to continue and enhance his role because of the earthquake.

He talks to the people who I work with. He doesn't – it’s not me. It’s Raj Shah and Cheryl Mills and all the other teams.

QUESTION: He doesn't say, “Give me the big Kahuna here?” (Laughter.)

SECRETARY CLINTON: No, I mean, he talks to people who are really working on this 24 hours a day. Obviously, we talk about it, too. We have a special place in our heart for Haiti, having gone there during our honeymoon many years ago. And it’s a place that is captivating. The people are so resilient and they deserve so much better than what they’ve gotten over their history. And I think Bill is committed, as I am, to doing everything we can.

QUESTION: If you were to say to the American people this country is the most dangerous to Americans and to the U.S., where is that country?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Candy, in terms of a country, obviously, a nuclear-armed country like North Korea or Iran pose both a real or a potential threat.

QUESTION: And you’re convinced Iran has nuclear --

SECRETARY CLINTON: No, no, no. But we believe that their behavior certainly is evidence of their intentions. And how close they are may be the subject of some debate, but the failure to disclose the facility at Qom, the failure to accept what was a very reasonable offer by Russia, France, and the U.S. through the IAEA to take their uranium, their low-enriched uranium and return it for their research reactor. I mean, there’s just – it’s like an old saying that if you see a turtle on a fencepost in the middle of the woods, he didn’t get there by accident, right? Somebody put him there. And so you draw conclusions from what you see Iran doing.

But I think that most of us believe the greater threats are the transnational non-state networks, primarily the extremists, the fundamentalist Islamic extremists who are connected – al-Qaida in the Arab Peninsula, al-Qaida in Pakistan and Afghanistan, al-Qaida in the Maghreb. I mean, the kind of connectivity that exists. And they continue to try to increase the sophistication of their capacity, the attacks that they’re going to make. And the biggest nightmare that any of us have is that one of these terrorist member organizations within this syndicate of terror will get their hands on a weapon of mass destruction. So that’s really the most threatening prospect we see.

(Break.)

QUESTION: When you look at the biggest success in the past year for the open hand, where is your – I mean, the Middle East is still pretty much a mess despite some really bright minds over there trying to work it out. We’ve talked about Iran and North Korea and others. Where is there success of specifically engagement?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Again, I would say that this has been a very successful year for the following reasons. First, it’s almost hard to remember how poorly much of the world viewed the United States when President Obama came into office. And both his election and his persona, combined with the approach we took of seeking to find the basis for engagement on mutual respect and mutual interest, has really created a much more open, receptive atmosphere. We are working in many difficult situations in every continent, but I think we’re being received in a positive way, which gives us a better chance to find common ground.

Now, I am fairly realistic about foreign policy, and countries don’t just give up what they view as their interests in order to make nice with you. It takes a lot of effort. But I really feel that the engagement was the first stage. We had to change the mindset of not just leaders but of their populations. We are moving toward a new nuclear arms treaty with Russia, something that has been a high priority with us. We have reset our relationship. The Russians have been very positive in discussions about sanctions on Iran and on many other important matters. I’m not sure that would have been predicted a year ago. We do have a very comprehensive engagement with India, with China, with other big countries, from South Africa to Turkey to Brazil, and we are working together on areas of mutual interest or where the United States can be a facilitator.

So I think that when I look back on this past year, I see a lot of positive trends. Now, this year, 2010, has to be a year of implementing and building on the positive foundation that we’ve built.

QUESTION: A quick question on healthcare, which seems to be stalled, which – and that’s probably the best we can say about it. Are you getting a little déjà vu watching this? (Laughter.)

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, it’s really hard. It is a complex issue that touches everybody about which both people and interests have really strong feelings. But I haven’t given up yet and I know the White House hasn’t given up and I don’t think a lot of the members of Congress have given up, so I’m not sure that this last chapter has been written.

QUESTION: Have you called anybody on the Hill or have you talked to the White House? Are you dispensing the wisdom of your time trying to figure this out?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, when I’m asked, I am very happy to respond. I mean, it’s not anything I have direct responsibility for, but I’ve had a number of conversations and both in the White House and on the Hill and with others who are playing a constructive role. And I, like I think many Americans, hope that there can be a positive outcome.

QUESTION: So I want to do a quick lightning round with you. First of all, Colts or the Saints?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Oh, I don’t answer football questions because, to be honest, I don’t follow it. Now, if my husband were sitting here, he would give you a very long exegesis as to why one team was better than the other, but I’ll just leave it to see what happens at the Super Bowl.

QUESTION: In between talking about Haiti, he doesn't say I need you to root for --

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, no, because neither of them are our teams. I mean, there’s not a New York team. I mean, so we’re just interested observers.

QUESTION: Who are watching the game with or are you on the phone with foreign leaders?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, if they call me, I’m on the phone with them. Otherwise, it’ll be my family.

QUESTION: And finally, just as the mother – recently the mother of a groom, as the mother of the bride, have you found that dress yet?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, if you don’t tell anybody, Candy, we’re still looking. Yeah, and it’s a new status for me being an MOTB, but I’m very proud to have that status.

QUESTION: Good luck on the search. That’s all I have to say. As you know, it’s --

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you. But your son – you didn’t have to go buy a dress, so that’s good. That was not part of --

QUESTION: Exactly. So no Chelsea dress either.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I don’t have a dress yet, no, and Chelsea doesn't either. But we’re working on it.

QUESTION: Well, good luck. And do you think it’s – which is harder, Middle East peace or negotiating this wedding? (Laughter.)

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I’d probably call it a draw about now. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Well, good luck with both, actually.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you.

QUESTION: I really appreciate your being here.

SECRETARY CLINTON: And good luck to you.

QUESTION: Thank you so much. I appreciate it.

SECRETARY CLINTON: You’re welcome.

Briefing by Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs P.J. Crowley

Philip J. Crowley
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Public Affairs

Washington, DC

February 5, 2010

MR. CROWLEY: Let the record show here at 11:45 on a snowy Friday morning in Washington, D.C., there were at least 30 people here who do not watch the weather reports – (laughter) – and do not heed the advice of public safety officials. But we’re glad you’re here. So let’s run through some things here and we’ll make this as rapid as you desire and get everybody out of the elements before the snow really hits. As we all know, Washington, D.C., does not do snow well.

First of all, we condemn the series of bombing attacks against Shia pilgrims in Iraq over this past week, and our thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families. Attacking men, women, and children engaged in religious pilgrimage is reprehensible and exposes the cynical immorality of the terrorists who seek to replace Iraq’s hard-won progress with violence and intimidation. And we think that they will not succeed in breaking the will of the Iraqi people.

In terms of senior government officials moving about the world, obviously, the Munich Conference will be coming up this weekend and the U.S. delegation is led by General Jim Jones, the National Security Advisor, but the State Department contingent will include Deputy Secretary Jim Steinberg as well as Special Representative Richard Holbrooke. And there will obviously be a full range of discussions on European security issues.

Deputy Secretary Steinberg arrived in Munich from Yerevan, where yesterday he met with President Sargisian and Foreign Minister Nalbandian in Armenia to continue to work with the government on its steps towards full normalization of relations with Turkey. And while he is in Munich, the Deputy Secretary will meet with Turkish Foreign Minister Davutoglu and also President Aliyev of Azerbaijan.

I can also report that this morning, Under Secretary Bill Burns participated in a P-5+1 conference call with his counterparts from the European Union and China and Russia, about a 90-minute call. They discussed both tracks, both the pressure track and the negotiation track; discussed next steps in the process, both in terms of negotiation, took stock of the recent comments by Iran, but also continue to evaluate potential actions on the pressure track as well.

With that, I’ll take your questions.

QUESTION: P.J., on that subject of the recent comments, how are you interpreting – or is there any change in the way that Under Secretary Burns understands those recent comments, I presume by Ahmadinejad?

MR. CROWLEY: All I can say is that to the extent that these comments will signal – would signal a change in perspective by Iran with respect to, for example, the Tehran research reactor deal, no – there’s been no change in the position as stated by the Iranian representative at the IAEA.

QUESTION: So --

QUESTION: When you said counterparts, did that include the Chinese political director, or was it, in fact, the sous chef at the Embassy? (Laughter.)

QUESTION: It’s a very important position in China. (Laughter.)

MR. CROWLEY: Let us shows that the wire services are channeling our distinguished colleague from AP.

The Chinese representative including the – included their assistant secretary for arms control. As a practical matter, He Yafei, who has been their political director, is transitioning to become their new ambassador at the IAEA, so we thought it was at – given that there – there’s a vacancy in their political director position, we thought it was an appropriate representation. And my understanding is he was a vigorous participant in the discussion.

QUESTION: Can you give us his name and exact title? Is he a vice foreign minister or –

MR. CROWLEY: I’ll get that, yeah. He – no, he – huh?

QUESTION: Is he a vice foreign minister, which is usually our analog to an assistant secretary?

MR. CROWLEY: He – okay, we’ll get you his name and title.

QUESTION: Did they – I’m sorry if I missed it, but did they actually agree on any additional sanctions or language regarding --

MR. CROWLEY: That wasn’t the intent of the call. I think they – I wasn’t a participant in the call so I – it’s hard to characterize it other than they had a detailed discussion of where we are in the process and shared ideas on both tracks. But beyond that, I’ll leave it there.

QUESTION: Could I ask you a question, a couple on North Korea? Mr. Park has been released – is it actually correct – released? Do you know where he is and do you have any comment on that?

MR. CROWLEY: North Korean authorities have informed both us and the Swedish Embassy in Pyongyang, which serves as our protecting power, that they plan to release him. We would expect – we have consular officials standing by in Beijing to greet him. But as to whether he has been released and is now in the care of the Swedish Embassy, it’s unclear at this point. But we expect him to travel in the – today and we will be standing by to offer him whatever assistance he needs as he makes his way back to the United States.

QUESTION: And any commentary on that? Do you welcome this?

MR. CROWLEY: Of course, we welcome the decision to release him. And beyond that, we look forward to his safe travel back to the United States.

QUESTION: And is there any agreement with the North Korean officials in exchange for his release? Was any – did they ask for anything or did you guys give them any assurances that – to facilitate the release?

MR. CROWLEY: They announced that they have released him and we welcome that news.

QUESTION: Unilaterally? There’s no – there was no --

QUESTION: You said “planned to release him.”

MR. CROWLEY: Well, they have announced a decision to release him, and we welcome that news. And we look forward to, obviously, having him back here in the United States and would expect him to travel directly back here.

QUESTION: Was there any pressure by the United States or did you give them any assurances?

MR. CROWLEY: I mean, we have – from the moment we became aware that he was in North Korea, we have pressed for consular access. I don’t think that that was ever granted. But we are grateful that this has been resolved expeditiously.

QUESTION: What about the other Americans? Is there any --

QUESTION: But there were no agreements?

MR. CROWLEY: We still don’t have any information on the other --

QUESTION: Nothing?

QUESTION: No information?

MR. CROWLEY: No information.

QUESTION: What can (inaudible) his condition?

MR. CROWLEY: I mean, we – when we get – when we – when – I mean, my understanding is he will travel from Pyongyang to Beijing and we’ll have a chance to talk with him once he gets there.

QUESTION: Has anybody seen him yet? (Inaudible.)

MR. CROWLEY: We don’t have any – an embassy in – (laughter) – in Pyongyang, so --

QUESTION: (Inaudible) whether the Swedes have seen him.

MR. CROWLEY: Well, we – obviously, they will be facilitating his travel and we’ll obviously have a chance to talk to him and look forward to it.

QUESTION: It will be today?

MR. CROWLEY: I think he will travel from Pyongyang – if everything, as we understand it, goes according to plan, he’ll travel to Beijing sometime today.

QUESTION: And then when would he come to the U.S.?

MR. CROWLEY: I’ll leave it to his family to announce follow-on travel plans.

QUESTION: Can I ask a question about Haiti and – I’m sorry.

QUESTION: Could I just do one more on North Korea? There are reports that there’s a senior party Chinese official who’s going to Pyongyang to talk nukes, I think it’s next week. Do you know anything of those reports?

MR. CROWLEY: I’ll defer to the Government of China on that. The Chinese senior officials have regular discussions with North Korea. We value that leadership by China. And I think we believe on this issue our message to North Korea is very direct and very consistent and shared across the Six-Party process, which is making clear to North Korea that it needs to come back to the Six-Party process and take affirmative steps towards denuclearization.

QUESTION: And just one more on North Korea, if I could.

MR. CROWLEY: Sure.

QUESTION: These reports about the – you know, the currency changes and great hunger, economic problems that they’re having right now, do you – is there any light that you can shed on how serious this situation is? Because they’ve actually said that they’ve had some riots as a result of this.

MR. CROWLEY: I think we – this has been an area of significant interest and concern by the United States going back many, many years. The United States has been fully supportive through the years of the World Food Program and its efforts in North Korea. And we regret – regretted the fact that North Korea ceased its cooperation with the World Food Program – I want to say last year. And we stand ready, if North Korea’s prepared to request assistance, that the United States would again be fully supportive of international efforts to help feed the North Korean population.

And this underscores why it is vitally important for North Korea to make the correct choice going forward. This – the isolation that it finds itself – or the isolation that North Korea faces, it is not – it’s not good for the North Korean people. They have demonstrated selectively in recent years the ability to have a market economy. There’ve been modest steps within North Korea to allow private enterprise to go forward. And it appears that government steps recently regarding restricting markets and taking devaluation – devaluating its currency has had a disastrous effect on the North Korean people.

But this is why we continue to stress to North Korea that your people can have a brighter future if you are willing to work constructively with the international community, choose to apply your resources to feed your people rather than applying your resources to build missiles and other weaponry that potentially destabilizes the region.

QUESTION: P.J., just on North Korea, last thing, can you please just say definitively there was no deal made, there was no quid pro quo? Can you say that the U.S. did not give any assurances?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, since – other than requesting consular access to this individual, we’ve had no substantive discussions with North Korea. We think that these cases should be based on humanitarian grounds and we’re grateful at this step by North Korea, just as we were grateful last year when the journalists were released.

QUESTION: But that happened after a Bill Clinton visit, and the two issues were tied.

MR. CROWLEY: I understand. I understand.

QUESTION: So was there any assurance given in this case? Can you say no –

MR. CROWLEY: We had no substantive – there was no deal involved here.

QUESTION: Sir, on Haiti, the Haitian authorities yesterday said that the 10 Americans who were – who’ve just been charged should be tried in Haiti. I don’t know if this has been addressed already, but are you appealing this, trying to – I mean, with all the respect for Haitian sovereignty, do you think – are you trying to get them back to the U.S. to have them tried here? Or how does that work, exactly?

MR. CROWLEY: No. We have not had any discussions with Haitian officials about shifting prosecution to the United States. This is a Haitian legal process. Obviously, the 10 American citizens have been charged under Haitian law. The legal process will continue in the coming weeks. We are monitoring this process closely. We continue to talk to Haitian officials about how the case is going to be – to unfold. But it is – it’s their process and we will continue to provide the kind of consular services that – and support to our American citizens that we provide anywhere in the world. I mean, they have their own legal representation, so – but we will provide support in any way we can.

QUESTION: Does the U.S. have any position on the legitimacy of the charges?

MR. CROWLEY: I would – it’s probably inappropriate to comment on the specific charges while the case is unfolding.

QUESTION: You do in the case of Iran, for instance. The hikers, you said those are illegitimate.

MR. CROWLEY: Actually, we have not been able to observe any legal process with respect to the hikers, so I think there’s a difference in terms of a process that we have, the opportunity to see, because we have an embassy in Port-au-Prince. We have personnel there. We have regular contact with Haitian officials, and so we’ll have the opportunity over time to evaluate how this case is proceeding. We have none of those benefits with respect to Tehran. So I wouldn’t draw a comparison between one and the other.

Clearly, we are there because the Haitian Government needs our help. And – but in this particular case, there were 10 Americans arrested and it would appear, based on the reporting that we have seen, that they were in possession of children without – and were attempting to move those children out of Haiti without – the authorization of the Haitian Government. We recognize that that is a potential violation of Haitian law. And the judge in this case has interviewed the American citizens, he’s evaluated the evidence that has been presented to him, he has affirmed three charges against them, and we will continue to monitor this as it goes forward.

QUESTION: The prime minister of Haiti has complained that the case is becoming a distraction, and that instead of focusing on the thousands who are dead and the thousands who still need help, all the world’s attention is now focused on those 10 Americans. Do you think that’s fair?

MR. CROWLEY: I’ll leave it to the prime minister to – I mean, he’s – I mean, we don’t think it’s a distraction in the sense that we continue to provide support every day to the Haitian Government and the people of Haiti. I mean, to the extent the prime minister has concerns about Haiti’s ability to proceed with this case and wants to talk to the United States about that, we’ll be happy to engage him.

QUESTION: P.J., a question about the charges: You just said that there were three charges. There was some confusion about the (inaudible).

MR. CROWLEY: Yeah. And I’ll defer to the Haitian Government. I’ve heard two and I’ve heard three. Fair enough. I don’t profess to be the authority on exactly what the charges are.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR. CROWLEY: Okay. Go home, man the shovels and – (laughter) – get ready for the storm.

Attacks on Iraqi Shi'a Pilgrims

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State

Washington, DC

February 5, 2010

The United States condemns the series of bombing attacks against Shi’a pilgrims in Iraq over the past week. Our thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families. Attacking men, women and children engaged in religious pilgrimage is reprehensible and exposes the cynical immorality of the terrorists who seek to replace Iraq’s hard-won progress with violence and intimidation. They will not succeed in breaking the will of the Iraqi people. Iraqis are committed to realizing the promise of their democracy. There is no better rebuke to those who traffic in terror.

Background Briefing on Northern Ireland

Senior Department Official
Senior Official

Via Teleconference

Washington, DC

February 5, 2010

OPERATOR: Welcome, and thank you for standing by. At this time, all participants are on a listen-only mode until the question-and-answer session of today’s conference. At that time, press *1 if you’d like to ask a question. I would like to inform all parties that this call is being recorded. If you have any objections, please disconnect at this time. I now would like to turn the call over to Mr. P.J. Crowley. Sir, you may begin.

MR. CROWLEY: Thank you very much, and good morning – or, depending on where you are, good afternoon.

Obviously, you heard a short time ago from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, welcoming the developments in Northern Ireland and the decision by its political leaders to move towards devolution of policing and justice powers as a critical step in the process of bringing full authority to Northern Ireland.

We thought that we would just have a senior Administration official kind of walk through a little bit of the background of that – the United States support for the parties as they have reached this critical decision. For your knowledge, in reporting this background session, obviously, attribute it to a senior Administration official. But we have [Senior Administration Official], who has in his portfolio and has been working with the parties for the last year to help them reach this important point.

So with that, [Senior Administration Official], you might have a few opening comments, and then we’ll take your questions.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Thanks, P.J. Hi, guys.

I just thought I would take a minute to kind of set the context and walk through the way in which the Secretary and the U.S. Government has engaged in this process over the course of the past year since the Obama Administration came into office, capped off by pretty intensive engagement here in the past few weeks.

You all probably know that Secretary Clinton has a longstanding commitment to the peace process in Northern Ireland that began in her days as First Lady. She’s got a personal investment in it and close personal relationships with many of the key players in Northern Ireland. And quite early on in her tenure, the leadership of Northern Ireland – the first minister and the deputy first minister – came to the United States around St. Patrick’s Day and met with her to talk about the ways in which she and the U.S. could be supportive in working through the devolution of policing and justice, and the other remaining outstanding issues from the Good Friday and St. Andrews agreements. And she made the decision, not too long after that, that she would be personally engaged at a very sort of regular – at regular intervals, and that she would use her own good offices and build on her own good relationships to lead the U.S. efforts with respect to the peace process in Northern Ireland.

At the same time, she also made the decision to appoint an economic envoy for Northern Ireland, Declan Kelly, to help the people and the leadership of Northern Ireland realize the benefits of the peace that they had built – to leverage investment, to promote opportunities for more investment in trade going both ways in the U.S. and Northern Ireland, and dispatched Declan to begin an intensive work program over there.

And as a sort of signal of her commitment, she made a trip to Belfast that many of you will remember, in October, and in the course of that trip not only had intensive discussions about how to help facilitate the terms of what ultimately became the agreement today, but also gave a speech to the parliament, to the Assembly, the Northern Ireland Assembly at Stormont, where she talked about her support for the process for devolution and the United States Government’s broader support for moving this process forward and consolidating the gains over the past decade.

She also, on a regular basis, was in touch with First Minister Robinson, Deputy First Minister McGuinness. She had phone calls at various times with other leaders in Northern Ireland, including Reg Empey, Arlene Foster, talked regularly to Secretary of State Woodword. He visited the States on a couple of occasions. And at one point in the fall last year, she sent Jake Sullivan, Deputy Chief of Staff to the Secretary, to Northern Ireland, along with Declan Kelly, to do an intensive day of sessions with the parties to talk about the ways in which we could be helpful in facilitating and supporting the work that they were doing.

And over the course of the past three weeks, as the discussions have intensified, her engagement also intensified. She did a round of calls with the stakeholders, with Sinn Fein and the DUP and the UUP, with Gordon Brown. She spoke with both Secretary of State Woodward and Foreign Minister Martin and has sort of stood by – and stood by, looking for the critical moments where she might be able to place a call that would help provide the sort of support and encouragement that she felt the parties needed to get across the finish line.

And that has been against the backdrop of her view that the overall U.S. role in all of this is to do exactly that, to be the encourager, the facilitator, a supporter, and in both her personal capacity and the U.S. government as a whole, to provide support beyond mere encouragement through the economic envoy.

And so in the coming days or weeks, she’ll welcome First Minister Robinson and Deputy First Minister McGuinness back to the U.S. to start talking about how we can build on this through further investment and economic opportunity in Northern Ireland. And she envisions a continuing role over the course of the next year that looked a lot like the past year as this agreement moves forward into the implementation phase.

So with that, I’d be happy to take your questions.

OPERATOR: Thank you. We’ll begin the question-and-answer session. If you would like to ask a question, please press *1. Please unmute your phone and record your name clearly when prompted. Again, that’s *1.

Jill Dougherty, your line is open.

QUESTION: Okay. Thank you. Thanks, [Senior Administration Official]. I appreciate your doing this. Could you tell us, was there anything that the Secretary said in the telephone conversations that you’ve had recently that changed the equation or pushed people, you know, further down the road toward this agreement?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, I think that she would be the first to say that this was an agreement that was forged by the parties in Northern Ireland and wouldn’t want to take credit for having changed the equation. She feels like it was really the parties working through the process that got them where they needed to go. That being said – and she would add to that, obviously, Brown – Prime Minister Brown and Taoiseach Cowen and playing a critical role in brokering, in a very intensive way, what was happening.

So with that backdrop, I think her role was really both as a diplomat, but also as a former politician, being able to speak frankly with the parties about the considerations that they faced and how they could work through them to display leadership even in the face of certain challenges and constraints in their communities, across communities. And that type of advice, I think, was something that she felt was helpful in the process and was – allowed her to bring a sort of unique perspective.

I think the other piece of it was that she was able to talk to them about the ways in which they could leverage the benefits of this accord on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland, that the United States’s support on the investment, the economic investment side once an agreement was reached, showing that there was forward progress and stability and strong institutions in Northern Ireland would pay dividends that would result in better opportunities for the people of Northern Ireland.

I would say in those two critical respects, her contributions had a positive impact on the process. But above all, it was – she was expressing her view that the United States is here to support the deal more than do the deal, and that the credit for that really goes to the parties themselves and then to the British and Irish Governments.

OPERATOR: Laura Marlowe from Irish Times, your line is open.

QUESTION: Hello, [Senior Administration Official]. Can you tell us a bit more about these economic dividends you just mentioned? That would be my first question. I also wondered – you said she was looking – she stood by looking for the critical moment when she might be able to place a call to help them across the finish line. I wondered, did she actually make a call within the last 24 hours that was sort of the game clincher?

And finally, do you have any idea of the date of First Minister Robinson and Deputy First Minister McGuinness’s visit to Washington? But most of all, what would be the size of the U.S. commitment to investment? Can you give us any amounts or even ballpark figures?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Sorry, I’m just making sure to write down the three questions so I didn’t forget any of them.

With respect to the economic investment, this is less about direct U.S. contribution – U.S. Government contribution – so it’s hard to talk about size. It’s more about leveraging the sort of power of the private sector, both in the United States and around the world, to see Northern Ireland as a place where there are many investment opportunities that can benefit both the people of Northern Ireland, the people of the entire island of Ireland, and the people of the United States.

And so her strategy was to appoint an economic envoy, Declan Kelly, who has strong ties on both sides of the Atlantic, who has a clear strategy for promoting investment by American companies and other companies in Northern Ireland, and promoting investment by Northern Ireland companies in the United States and elsewhere. And that resulted in – so far has resulted in a number of efforts in terms of working with companies.

And over the course of the next year, Declan, who can speak to this in much more detail than I can, will be looking to make announcements about investment opportunities, about decisions taken by companies to go ahead and invest in Northern Ireland. So I can’t put a dollar figure on it, but that’s the basic strategy. And having a single point person who has her full backing, who traveled with her when she went to Belfast, who met with senior economic leaders in Northern Ireland, who brought with him a trade mission of major U.S. investors, to have that kind of force projection – economic force projection – she sees as being the best way for the United States to help promote economic dividends in Northern Ireland.

And she sees that, in turn, as having significant political benefits, because the more that the people of Northern Ireland see their lives changed and improved and their opportunities increase because of the peace and stability that has been brought about by this series of agreements, the more likely the momentum continues.

With respect to a call in the last 24 hours, she didn’t make a call in the last 24 hours because she believed that having been in regular touch with the British Government and the Irish Government, and we at the staff level having been in regular touch with all of the players over there, that within the last 24 hours, this had reached a stage where it really was about the DUP working through its own internal party processes and coming to a final decision, and that she didn’t have a particular role to play in that. But within the last week, she has spoken with the parties and with Prime Minister Brown. And so as this set of negotiations reached a critical stage over the course of the past 10 or 20 days or so, she found time to reach out to the parties to talk to them about how to get to this final outcome.

And then in terms of firm dates for when First Minister Robinson and Deputy First Minister McGuinness will visit the U.S., those haven’t been set yet. As she earlier today, she spoke with both of them this morning, and we’re – they’re going to work out a time that works for them to come over and for her to host them in a way that is going to be most productive towards producing the kinds of economic investment opportunities that she talked about and that we’re committed to helping Northern Ireland with.

QUESTION: Thank you. Thanks.

OPERATOR: Colm Heatley with Bloomberg News, your line is open.

QUESTION: Hi, thanks. I’m wondering if you could tell me more about the planned investment conference for Northern Ireland. It’s supposed to take place in early spring. And Gerry Adams today mentioned that Hillary Clinton was going to organize the event. Give me some idea of the scale of it, when it’s likely to happen, who might be involved.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I think that our plan right now is to take this one step at a time.

And the first step is going to be, as the Secretary said earlier today, to have First Minister Robinson and Deputy First Minister McGuinness come to Washington, sit down with her and Declan Kelly and other senior officials here at the State Department, and really think through in a step-wise way – and involve also the people at Invest Northern Ireland and other senior leaders in the Northern Ireland assembly, really think through in a step-wise way what the best timing, strategy, and shape of the entire investment enterprise will be. And whether that takes the form of a one-off conference or whether it takes some other form, I think is something she wants to do further consultations on before she announces any details or makes any decisions.

So I would say that our current thinking is to take this one step at a time, that she is absolutely committed to aggressive action in the near term on investment. But the precise strategy is something that has to be the result of a collective conversation of all of the stakeholders.

QUESTION: Okay. So there’s no real date, then, at all, and it isn’t actually final if it’s going to be a conference, as such?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: No, there’s no date. And whether it looks like a conference of the sort that you saw – I can’t recall exactly when it was, maybe 2007 – is still under discussion with the British Government, the Irish Government, the parties in Northern Ireland, everybody who’s got a stake in this. It’s all still under discussion.

QUESTION: Okay. And just finally, then when do you think you would have a better idea about that? It’ll be (inaudible)?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I think we’ll have a better idea after she meets with the first minister and the deputy first minister.

QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.

OPERATOR: Again, if you would like to ask a question, please press *1. I show no further questions.

MR. CROWLEY: Okay. Thank you very, very much. And obviously, this is an issue that we will remain focused on, committed to, will provide further details after we continue the conversations that [Senior Administration Official] has just mentioned with our counterparts and the other governments. So thanks very much, and shovel hard later on this afternoon.

 

Remarks on the Situation in Northern Ireland

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State

Treaty Room

Washington, DC

February 5, 2010

SECRETARY CLINTON: Good morning. Good morning, everyone. Well, today is a very positive day for Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland has taken another important step toward a full and lasting peace. Its political leaders have agreed on a roadmap and timeline for the devolution of policing and justice powers, and they’ve taken other productive steps as well. The accord they announced today will help consolidate the hard-won gains of the past decade.

Now, this has not been an easy road. There were plenty of bumps along the way. I have been in regular contact with the parties during the past year and, especially since my trip to Belfast in October, and I know that the way forward was far from clear. So I really want to applaud all of the parties for ultimately choosing negotiations over confrontation. In finalizing this deal, Peter Robinson and Martin McGuinness and their teams displayed the kind of leadership that the people of Northern Ireland deserve.

I want to recognize the leadership and the patient resolve of Prime Minister Brown and Taoiseach Cowen, as well as Northern Ireland Secretary Shaun Woodward and Irish Foreign Minister Micheal Martin. They have resolutely focused on moving this process forward, forging common ground, and reaching an outcome that will keep Northern Ireland on the path of peace and stability.

Now, this is not the end of the journey. So far, the devolution process has enabled Northern Ireland’s leaders to enact a range of needed reforms, from health to housing to environmental safety. Now they have even greater authority, and with that authority comes greater responsibility. They must continue to lead. The people of Northern Ireland are poised to build a thriving society on this stronger foundation – a country where neighbors can live free from fear and all people have the potential to fulfill their God-given rights.

This is a dream nurtured for so long in the hearts of people across Northern Ireland. It is also a dream that lives far beyond its borders, in countries and communities where ethnic and religious conflicts persist. This latest success in Northern Ireland points the way forward – and not only for this conflict. Northern Ireland gives us hope that, despite entrenched opposition and innumerable setbacks, diligent diplomacy and committed leadership can overcome generations of suspicion and hostility.

So, now we join the world in looking to the leaders of Northern Ireland to build upon their efforts by promoting a new spirit of cooperation among all of the parties. As they do, the United States will help. Our Economic Envoy, Declan Kelly, will continue working to help Northern Ireland reap the dividends of peace, including economic growth, international investment, and other new opportunities. In the near future, Declan and I will host First Minister Robinson and Deputy First Minister McGuinness here in Washington to discuss further investment in Northern Ireland and ways to build on this agreement.

I spoke very, very late in the evening in Northern Ireland with both Sean and Micheal and congratulated them, thanked them for their efforts. I spoke early this morning with both Peter and Martin and did the same, and also pledged our continuing support for their efforts.

So today, we salute this achievement. We recognize that a new chapter of partnership among Northern Ireland’s political leadership and people can now begin. And I am confident that the people of Northern Ireland will make the most of this moment. I want to reaffirm the commitment of the United States, and my personal commitment to support them in every way we can as they continue on this very positive path into the future.

I’d be glad to take your questions.

QUESTION: Madam Secretary --

SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes, Lachlan.

QUESTION: -- good morning.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Good morning. (Laughter.) Here comes a microphone.

QUESTION: Just a quick reaction on the charges against the 10 Americans in Haiti. And also if I may add, is the United States studying the idea of withholding recognition of the Iraqi elections in March if the 500 Sunni candidates are excluded? The reason I ask is Vice President Hashimi told a few of us State Department reporters last night that that was the case. He raised it with you and he heard that you’re studying it.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, first, Lachlan, on the 10 American citizens detained and now charged in Haiti, we are providing consular services. We have full access to them. The American ambassador is speaking with his counterparts in the Haitian Government. Obviously, this is a matter for the Haitian judicial system. We’re going to continue to provide support, as we do in every instance like this, to American citizens who have been charged, and hope that this matter can be resolved in an expeditious way. But it is something that a sovereign nation is pursuing, based on the evidence that it presented when the charges were announced.

With respect to Iraq, we were heartened by the decision earlier this week to reverse the deletion of the 500 names from the election lists for the upcoming election. We care very deeply that this election be free and fair and viewed by – legitimate by all of the communities within Iraq and by the neighbors. This is an extraordinary opportunity for Iraqis to consolidate their democracy. We have not made any decision about reacting to events that might occur within the context of the election, but we certainly were heartened by the court decision earlier.

Yes, Bob.

QUESTION: May I follow up, Madam Secretary, on that same matter? You said no decision’s been made about how you would view the outcome of the election, but could I ask you, are you considering the option of saying in advance that you would not accept the outcome, recognize the outcome of the election if these 500 are not --

SECRETARY CLINTON: We are not actively considering any option, Bob. We are very pleased that the decision made by the Iraqis themselves opens the way for these 500 individuals to stand for election. We think that is an appropriate outcome and the Iraqis made it on their own within their own legal process. We do very much encourage all of the parties and leaders of Iraq to ensure that nothing is done which undermines the legitimacy of this election.

We see an enormous amount of political activity, which is all to the good. Iraq is now engaged in politics and people are forming coalitions and seeking votes and reaching beyond their own community to do so. That is exactly what we want to encourage. So obviously, anything that would undermine the potential legitimacy would be of concern to us.

Yes.

QUESTION: Madam Secretary, on Iran, if I might, China’s foreign minister yesterday again said that Beijing thinks it’s too early to be talking about sanctions, that they need more time for diplomatic efforts to resolve the situation. I’m wondering, do you feel that we do need more time on the diplomatic side? And how important is it, do you feel, that the Security Council is unanimous going forward on sanctions? Can we move forward even if China isn’t on board?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, first, let me say that we have pursued diplomatic engagement with the Iranians steadily since President Obama took office. As you know, we have always had a two-track process. We hope that our colleagues and other members of the P-5+1 across the globe recognize that because they’ve been involved in it. They have helped to enable the negotiations to go forward by joining with very strong language about what was expected from Iran.

The fact is we haven’t really seen much in the way of response. Sometimes, we see response from a part of the government that is then retracted from another part of the government. So I think our position is that we have, in good faith, engaged in diplomacy with the Iranians. We’ve always had a two-track process, and we think it is important that we move now toward looking at what pressure, what sanctions can be brought to bear on the Iranians. We’re going to continue to reach out to all of our colleagues in this effort, including, of course, China. And as the process moves forward, we’ll have more to report.

Thank you all. Enjoy the snow. (Laughter.) Take care.

Regarding Northern Ireland

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State

Washington, DC

February 5, 2010

Today, Northern Ireland has taken another important step toward a full and lasting peace. Its political leaders have agreed on a roadmap and a timeline for the devolution of policing and justice powers, and they have taken other productive steps as well. The accord they reached today will help consolidate the hard-won gains of the past decade.

This has not been an easy road. There were plenty of bumps along the way. I have been in regular contact with the parties since my trip to Belfast in October, and I know that at times the path forward was far from clear. So I want to applaud all the parties for ultimately choosing negotiation over confrontation. In finalizing this deal, Peter Robinson and Martin McGuinness and their teams displayed the kind of leadership that the people of Northern Ireland deserve.

I want to recognize the leadership and patient resolve of Prime Minister Brown and Taoiseach Cowen, as well as Northern Ireland Secretary Shaun Woodward and Irish Foreign Minister Micheal Martin. They have stayed resolutely focused on moving this process forward, forging common ground, and reaching an outcome that would keep Northern Ireland on the path of peace and stability.

This is not the end of the journey. So far, the devolution process has enabled Northern Ireland’s leaders to enact a range of needed reforms, from health to housing to environmental safety. Now they have even greater authority, and with that authority comes greater responsibility. They must continue to lead. The people of Northern Ireland are poised to build a thriving society on this stronger foundation—a country where neighbors can live free from fear and all people have the opportunity to fulfill their God-given potential.

This is a dream nurtured for so long in the hearts of people across Northern Ireland. It is also a dream that lives far beyond its borders, in all countries and communities where ethnic and religious conflicts persist. This latest success in Northern Ireland points the way forward—and not only for this one conflict. Northern Ireland gives us hope that, despite entrenched opposition and innumerable setbacks, diligent diplomacy and committed leadership can overcome generations of suspicion and hostility.

Now, we join the world in looking to the leaders of Northern Ireland to build upon their efforts by promoting a new spirit of cooperation among all parties.

As they do, the United States will help. Our Economic Envoy, Declan Kelly, will continue working to help Northern Ireland reap the dividends of peace, including economic growth, international investment, and new opportunities. In the near future, Declan and I will host First Minister Robinson and Deputy First Minister McGuinness here in Washington to discuss further investment in Northern Ireland and ways to build on this agreement.

Today we salute this achievement. We recognize that a new chapter of partnership among Northern Ireland’s political leadership and people must begin. I am confident that people of Northern Ireland will make the most of this moment. And I want to reaffirm the commitment of the United States—and my personal commitment as well—to support Northern Ireland in every way we can.

Remarks With Kazakh State Secretary and Foreign Minister Kanat Saudabayev Before Their Meeting

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State

Treaty Room

Washington, DC

February 4, 2010

SECRETARY CLINTON: I’m very pleased to welcome the foreign minister from Kazakhstan, a country of great strategic importance with whom the United States has developed a closer and closer relationship. Welcome, sir.

FOREIGN MINISTER SAUDABAYEV: Thank you very much.

(Via interpreter) I want to say that today is a special day in our relations. We are beginning our talks right now to discuss the future of our relations and to lay the ground for a meeting between the presidents of the two countries, President Barack Obama and President Nazarbayev, which is supposed to open a new stage in the relations between Kazakhstan and the United States.

And I’d like to say a special thank you to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for her leadership, for her kindness, and for her commitment to strengthening the Kazakhstan-United States relationship. And we look forward to working with you in Kazakhstan.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you, sir. Thank you.

World Cancer Day

Office of the Spokesman

Washington, DC

February 4, 2010

World Cancer Day has been commemorated globally on February 4 since the 2000 World Summit Against Cancer. The United States government supports international efforts to raise cancer awareness and encourages continued endeavors to prevent, treat, and cure cancer. The U.S. also applauds the many governmental and private organizations that work tirelessly to develop and deliver safe and effective cancer diagnostics, therapies and prevention strategies for all patients--especially minorities and medically underserved populations.
The United States is a leader in the global effort to conquer cancer. The U.S. Department of State has several international projects underway that are focused on the prevention of specific cancers, notably breast and other women’s cancers. The National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health leads the domestic U.S. National Cancer Program while the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention coordinates efforts in cancer screening and control, two agencies that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) oversees. Both agencies are actively engaged in a range of cooperative cancer research, training, epidemiological and clinical programs in countries around the world.

Cancer is a leading cause of death around the world. The World Health Organization estimates that 84 million people will die from cancer between 2005 and 2015. Nearly 70 percent of all new cases are expected to occur in low and middle-income countries, where the resources available for prevention, diagnosis and treatment of cancer are often limited or nonexistent.
For more information on cancer programs led by the National Cancer Institute and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, visit their websites at: http://www.cancer.gov/ and http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/

United States Contributes $40 Million to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East

Office of the Spokesman

Washington, DC

February 4, 2010

The United States announced today that it is making an initial contribution of $40 million to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) to support UNRWA’s regular budget and emergency programs in the West Bank and Gaza.

The $40 million contribution will provide critical health, education, and humanitarian services to 4.7 million Palestinian refugees across the region. Of this contribution, $30 million will support UNRWA's core services in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, the West Bank, and Gaza. An additional $10 million will support UNRWA’s emergency appeal for the West Bank and Gaza, including emergency food assistance, and job creation programs.

The United States is UNRWA’s largest bilateral donor. In 2009, the United States provided over $267 million to UNRWA, including $116.2 million to its General Fund, $119.5 million to its West Bank/Gaza emergency programs, $30 million to emergency programs in Lebanon, and $2.2 million to assist other Palestinians in the region.

Introduction of the International Violence Against Women Act

Philip J. Crowley
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Public Affairs

Washington, DC

February 4, 2010

International violence against women is a global problem of enormous proportions. This violence cannot be explained as simply cultural; it is criminal. It is every nation's problem, and it is the cause of widespread destruction and lost potential across the globe. We need a response that is commensurate with the seriousness of the crimes.

We support the goals of the proposed International Violence Against Women Act. Increasing legal and judicial protection and health sector capacity to respond to violence against women are necessary steps needed to address sexual and gender-based violence. Similarly, we must pursue policies that increase women’s economic opportunity, advance educational opportunities, and build public awareness, among both men and women.

Fifteen years ago, the UN Fourth World Conference on Women placed this global challenge before the world. Despite the gains we have made, we have much more to do. If we are to effectively address the growing problem of sexual and gender-based violence, we need a comprehensive plan that involves interagency and multilateral partners and addresses all aspects of violence against women, from prevention to protection and prosecution of these cases.

We look forward to continuing our work with Congress and the international community to chart a new era of international cooperation to address violence against women, to create partnerships among governments, multilateral institutions, the private sector, civil society, and individuals.

Interview With Tavis Smiley on Tavis Smiley Reports

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State

As-Aired Interview Excerpts

Washington, DC

January 27, 2010

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, first, Tavis, you’re right. It is even harder than you thought or I thought. (Laughter.) I mean, I have worked with and traveled with other secretaries of state. But I have never worked harder in my life. It is an all-consuming job, and certainly, given all of the challenges we face, all of the difficult decisions that have to be made, it has been incredibly demanding.

***

SECRETARY CLINTON: It is a game of inches. It’s like a ground game in football where they don’t throw a lot, and if you throw, you’d better be sure the receiver is downfield. (Laughter.) But you just try to make as much forward movement as you possibly can, sometimes against big odds.

***

QUESTION: You see how tough the job is.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Right.

QUESTION: Can you imagine yourself doing all four years and if asked, doing it for another four years?

SECRETARY CLINTON: No.

QUESTION: No to what? All four or all eight?

***

QUESTION: We all know Chelsea is – has announced her engagement.

SECRETARY CLINTON: (Laughter.)

QUESTION: I wonder seriously whether or not, as you think about that big event next year, it is a welcome distraction or does it feel at this point like another pressure point that you’re going to have to focus on next year?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Oh, it’s exciting. I mean, we are so happy about it and I’ve never been an MOTB, the mother of the bride before.

QUESTION: Yeah. (Laughter.)

SECRETARY CLINTON: So I’m going to relish every minute of this preparation.

***

SECRETARY CLINTON: I told President Obama when he was president-elect and asked me if I would take this job that I wanted to stay in the Senate and really was not looking for this job, had not sought this job. But it has been a real honor.

This is an extraordinary opportunity to serve my country, and I feel strongly that when a President asks you to serve, you try to say yes. And certainly, for me, working with President Obama and his national security team has been one of the great privileges of my life.

***

QUESTION: It does raise the obvious question for me, which is how do you accomplish in 18 months what hasn’t been done in eight years?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, there’s unfortunately some pretty easy answers to that. The prior administration took their eye off the ball when it came to Afghanistan. Many of us, starting right after we were successful in routing the Taliban, said, look, you can’t just think it’s over. You got to get in there with enough support to be able to hold this and really stabilize Afghanistan. It never happened. They never provided the resources that were needed. And I think what we have now is a resource-smart strategy.

***

QUESTION: I noticed sitting in the audience almost none of the Republicans showed up, but all the Democrats showed up for that hearing. Some of them pushed you pretty hard. How should the American people read the fact that you’re getting more pushback on this Afghanistan proposal, the President’s proposal?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, Tavis, I’m not surprised for a couple of reasons. I think that many Democrats want to be sure that what the President has proposed with this latest strategy has a high likelihood of success. We’ve been in Afghanistan for eight years. It’s been painful. We’ve lost young men and women. We have seen a lot of sacrifice as well as the money that has been spent. So I think Democrats who care about jobs, care about healthcare, care about a lot of other issues want to just be sure that this is headed in the right direction. And I respect that. These are my former colleagues. I’ve served with them. I think it shows they take their responsibilities seriously that they ask tough questions.

***

QUESTION: This is not a statement about Hillary Clinton’s race politics because this is not your responsibility – let me preface it that way – but I noticed in your press pool a lot of women, which I was happy to see – a significant number of women cover you in the press pool. I, as a visitor on that trip to Brussels, was the only African American in your press pool. And I wondered whether or not you noticed that every day.

I certainly noticed it. The press pool is all white. All the persons serving us on the plane who are active-duty military happen to be black. You have a commander-in-chief who is now black managing and making life-and-death decisions about a military now that’s disproportionately, as you know, black and brown. What does it mean and how should the American people read the news that they get that is not filtered by or reported by, in any significant way, covering the State Department, people of color?

And again, that’s not you. Media outlets make decisions on who covers the State Department. But have you noticed that?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I’ve noticed it, but as you say, the media outlets determine who goes on trips and who covers me. And there’s been a lot of changes in press personnel in the 18 years that I’ve been around Washington, and it is much more diverse than it used to be by a long shot. But I think that it still has some ways to go and there needs to be a continuing effort to make sure it’s as diverse as possible.

***

QUESTION: How do you – and I can’t ask you to speak for the President, but I know you all have talked about this – whether he won or you won, both of you had to know that your Democratic base would not be in the column of support for this particular policy. How do you now, on this side, feel about – I don’t want to use the wrong word here, but alienating, disappointing? You’ve seen the blogs. You know what your base is saying about this decision.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I give President Obama a lot of credit, Tavis, because this was a decision that he knew would be politically unpopular with many people in the Democratic Party, and particularly people who voted for him. He knew that it would be a controversial decision, that it would be a costly one in both lives and treasure. He would not have made the decision he made if he had not become convinced it was in the national security interests of the United States to keep America safe now and in the future.

I really respect the way he struggled with it, he studied it, he analyzed it from every angle. And at the end of the day, he did what he thought was right. And there is a real sense of peace, and I saw it with him. I flew up to West Point with him first on the Marine helicopter, then on Air Force One, so I was in real close quarters with him coming and going. This was a man at peace. He had made his decision. He thought he had done the right thing for his country.

That’s what presidents are supposed to do. And you may agree or disagree with your president, but I don’t think anybody can doubt that President Obama was deliberative, thoughtful, careful, and very responsible in making this decision. And he believes it’s the right decision and I agree with him. It’s not easy, but I don’t know that America has ever had an easy time. Some are just more difficult times than others.

***

SECRETARY CLINTON: We concluded that it would be like comparing apples and oranges. The United States of America was not attacked from Vietnam. We were attacked from Afghanistan. The people fighting in Vietnam were fighting for a limited purpose, namely to control their own territory against first the French and then what they saw as a puppet regime in the south, and then of course, the Americans and others who fought with us.

What we have in Afghanistan and in the border area with Pakistan is the epicenter of global extremism. And it provides inspiration, funding, training, equipping of terrorists. We believe that the people of Afghanistan do not want the Taliban. They want a different future. So we have to provide more space for the Afghans to develop the capacity to protect themselves, and that’s our goal. We’re not interested in occupying Afghanistan. We don’t want to stay there forever. We want to begin bringing our troops and other troops home in 2011 as circumstances permit.

So I was satisfied in my own mind that it was not an apt comparison.

QUESTION: Speaking of comparisons, Madam Secretary, one of the comparisons that many have made, that President Obama and his team, including you, sound a lot like the Bush people who you all criticized when you ran, in this one regard. Bush said with regard to Iraq, “We’re going to surge, things are going to get better, and we’re going to pull out.” We’re still there.

Now with Afghanistan, the Obama Administration says, “We’re going to surge, things are going to get better, we’re going to pull out.” A lot of folk making comparisons that’s saying he sounds – Obama, that is – sounds a whole lot like Bush on Afghanistan now.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I really don’t agree with that critique. Number one, we are getting out of Iraq. We’re drawing down. We will be gone by – I think it’s 2011 – we’re done, we’re out of there, not a soldier left. We did it in a responsible way; we inherited that from the Bush Administration. But it looks like the Iraqis are going to make their own decisions for better or worse, and we’re going to be gone. And we’ll continue to have the kind of diplomatic and economic interests that countries do with one another. So I think that we’re on the right path with Afghanistan.

Look, I regret deeply that this wasn’t done before, but we had to look at the hand we were dealt when the President got into office. And he is an incredibly thoughtful, intelligent man and he said, look, I’ve got to study this; I don’t know where I’m going to come out on it. I’m not coming in with any preconceptions other than I want to do the best job and I can. And I think the country, regardless of where you stand on this decision, should sleep better at night that we have a president who takes that kind of approach to these difficult issues.

QUESTION: Has it been easier selling NATO or more difficult than you thought before you arrived here?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Easier. And I think it’s easier because people have confidence in President Obama and his decision-making process. They like what they heard at West Point. And they want to be part of finishing the fight we started.

***

QUESTION: Your thoughts about the commentary that continues to kick up every now and again about your role versus the role of the special envoys that the White House has appointed? Richard Holbrooke was on the plane with us coming back from Brussels. Whether it’s Richard Holbrooke, whether it’s George Mitchell, your thoughts on how people should view your role, your power, your authority versus that of these special envoys that we have in certain hotspots around the globe?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, it was my idea. So obviously, I think it’s a good idea.

QUESTION: (Laughter.)

SECRETARY CLINTON: I told the President after he convinced me to take this job that we just had so much work to do, we were inheriting a very difficult set of problems, and I would work as hard as I could – which I have – but we needed to beef up our assets. And I have seen special envoys in the past. I believe that they can be very value added, and indeed, I think they have been.

They report to me. They are accountable to me. They represent both the President and me as they travel to these areas of great difficulty. But ultimately, the President and I are responsible, just like everybody else who works in the diplomacy and development world. At the end of the day, it’s President Obama and Secretary Clinton who are responsible.

***

QUESTION: As our chief diplomat, you keep echoing the same thing President Obama has said, which is that whatever happens in July of 2011 will depend on conditions on the ground. You well know there are a lot of Americans who don’t like that phrase, don’t know exactly what that means, think it’s a loophole. Your thoughts?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think it would be very difficult for the President to set a date that was a cliff – okay, we get to this date, we’re out of there. There was a responsible monitoring of the withdrawal in Iraq – we’re going to be gone by a date certain – but we didn’t just set a date and leave. We had a program that we followed working with the Iraqis.

Now, when the American troops leave and the Iraqis are totally on their own, that’s what will happen eventually in Afghanistan. We have 34 provinces in Afghanistan. Some of those are ready for full Afghan control now, some will be ready next year, some will be ready by July 2011, and that’s how we intend to proceed.

QUESTION: I wonder whether or not you think your role as chief diplomat has been helped or hurt by having been First Lady and U.S. Senator?

SECRETARY CLINTON: It’s been helped immeasurably. First of all, because of my eight years as First Lady, there are so many places I’ve already been and so many people whom I know. It’s a great door-opener, it’s a great validator. I’ve gone back and seen people that I’ve literally worked with for nearly 20 years.

And because I ran for and was elected twice to serve in the Senate for New York, I understand the political dimensions of a lot of these difficult diplomatic issues, and I can say to a president or a prime minister, “Look, I understand your problem, but here’s how I hope you can think about it.” I’m not here as a lifelong Foreign Service officer or bureaucrat or academic. I’ve been in politics. I know what it takes to have to convince people to support you. And I have been told time and time again how useful that’s been to a lot of the people I’ve met in many different settings around the world.

QUESTION: You’ve made it clear that you are your own person, but I would assume that having Bill Clinton is an asset.

SECRETARY CLINTON: It sure is an asset – (laughter) – because the people I don’t know he does know, and the places I haven’t been, he’s been. We talk all the time. I ask advice about every issue you can imagine. I have such a great ongoing conversation with Bill that’s lasted for so many years, and I find him a great sounding board for me.

***

QUESTION: When you walked into the holding room before your testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee about the Afghanistan troop request, and Bertie Bowman, who you’ve known for years since you were a U.S. Senator, is in the room. You immediately spotted Bertie, you walked up to him, and asked him how he was holding up because his wife had just passed away. And I thought, here is Hillary Clinton, Secretary Clinton about to get grilled by this Foreign Relations Committee, but she took the time for the little things, which leads to this question: How do you make time for the little important things in life when you are on the run as much as you are?

SECRETARY CLINTON: It’s really an interesting observation, Tavis, because for me, it is those personal relationships, it is reaching out to other people, particularly in times of grief or need, that are really the most important parts of my life. Obviously, appearing before the Senate, doing an interview with you, those are significant. But I have to be honest and say it’s those personal connections that have really made my life what it is today. The friends I’ve made, the people that I’ve known over the years, the laughs and tears that we’ve shared.

Take Bertie Bowman, for example. He was working for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee when my husband was an intern and had a part-time job, when he was in college. So there is just so much of our lives that to me is profoundly important, even though, as you say, there – they may look somewhat little in the great scheme of the big issues we deal with in Washington. But at the end of the day, I think that they’re probably the most important parts of your life.

***

QUESTION: I cannot think of any women in American political history who has been more demonized by the press than Hillary Clinton. Now, whether you like her or loathe Hillary, agree or disagree, the press has had a field day covering you. I was taking note of the fact that even with that, you seem to make yourself accessible to the press. Talk to me about your relationship with the press, because I know it’s changed over the years.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, it has, and I think that the press that covers international events and certainly here at the State Department has been a joy to work with. They are very substantive. They live and breathe the difficult issues that we cope with every single day. And I had a really positive relationship with the press in New York who covered me.

I think that there are still some people living in the past who like to stay with a storyline whether it’s accurate or not. But that’s their decision; I really feel that we’ve got a good working relationship with the press here at the State Department.

QUESTION: Is there a particular storyline on any issue that has continued into your role of Secretary of State, or even started since you’ve been here that particularly rankles you?

SECRETARY CLINTON: No. I really try not to think about it. I learned a long time ago to take press coverage seriously, but not personally. You take it seriously because you may learn something, and maybe those who are critiquing you have something to say that you should hear that you wouldn’t hear elsewhere, but don’t take it personally because you never know kind of what’s going on behind the scenes. And so I just don’t pay a lot of attention to that.

I’m well aware of political campaigns being just extremely hard, and there’s nothing harder than the presidential campaign process in the United States. So I was well aware getting into it that it was going to be just hard-knuckled, difficult. What I was not prepared for was a lot of the criticism that I thought had less to do with me and more to do with attitudes about women. That was surprising to me. I mean, it was 2007 and 2008, but that’s something we still have to work on in this country.

***

QUESTION: You have made it clear – everywhere you go, you continue to raise the issue of women and girls. Pardon the naïveté of the question deliberately, but why women and girls everywhere you go?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, first of all, because I care deeply about the rights and responsibilities and the future prospects for women and girls. I couldn’t feel any other way being both a woman and the mother of one, and --

QUESTION: But there are other women, though, who have been in positions like this and, you know, other major positions who haven’t been so passionate about it.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I have – I’ve been lucky because I have a personal passion, but I also have a well-developed opinion based on evidence that focusing on the well-being of women and girls promotes democracy, promotes stability, creates more opportunity in societies. That’s just an absolute fact. And it is totally uncontroverted now, study after study after study. If you want to see societies emerge from instability and conflict, you have to focus on women and girls. And if you look around the world at areas that are unstable, are unfortunately incubators of terrorism or other forms of violence, you will find women and girls being oppressed, being denied their rights, being marginalized in a way that is dehumanizing.

So it’s both something that I find morally and ethically repugnant when I see the way girls and women are still treated in many parts of the world. It’s also something that I see as Secretary of State that is absolutely integral to our approach to the kind of better and safer world that we’re trying to help create.

QUESTION: Tell me more about that. That is to say, how specifically and uniquely, by focusing on the causes and the concerns of women and girls, that that accrues a benefit to the U.S. long term?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I have done this work now, as you say, for nearly 20 years, about 18 internationally. And what I have seen in conflict situation after conflict situation is that when women and girls finally get involved, when women’s voices are heard, you are on the way, more likely than not, to ending the conflict.

I saw that in my work in Northern Ireland. I saw that in Central America. I have seen that in Liberia, where a woman was elected president based on the extraordinary efforts for peace that market women just stood up and demanded and hounded everybody until there was a peace conference and a resolution. In countries that are trying to develop themselves economically, if they leave out half the population, they will never grow and prosper the way they do. There’s a reason why some countries do well in today’s global economy and others don’t – the quality of governance, the rule of law, whether contracts are respected and the like.

But it is also how many rights they give to their women and whether they educate their girls. And it’s something that I follow very closely because when you go to a country, as I did recently – the Democratic Republic of Congo – and you see the unspeakable violence inflicted on girls and women, you know that that country has a very long path before they can be stabilized. If they can’t protect their own women and girls, how on earth can they govern themselves effectively to produce positive results?

So it’s an area of great concern to me, but I think it also is directly connected to our U.S. national security interests.

***

QUESTION: What is this – I sense this heart connection between you and the continent of Africa. What’s that about?

SECRETARY CLINTON: I am very emotionally moved by Africa, by the people, their resilience, their joy in living, the extraordinary optimism they have under some of the most difficult circumstances. I will never forget driving down the streets in Goma, which is the epicenter of so much of the violence in the Congo, and crowds of men and women and children waving and racing along the car and laughing and holding signs welcoming me. It is a place that is as ancient as any experience we have in our human consciousness.

We are all from Africa. Our DNA goes back to Africa. As we look at Africa today, there are so many lessons to learn and so many pitfalls to avoid. But what I always bring away is just the energy of a place that has so much to contribute and so many opportunities and promise yet to be realized.

***

QUESTION: I was just thinking – maybe I’m wrong about this, but I was thinking about your career and of all the things that you have done, and we all know that well, this is the first time to my mind, at least, that you have managed a major bureaucracy like this. So how has this bureaucracy changed you, and how are you trying to change it?

SECRETARY CLINTON: That’s a really interesting observation. Yes, because, I mean, the State Department worldwide – we have, I guess, about 68,000 employees. It is the first time I’ve been on the top of a giant bureaucracy like the State Department and USAID.

I’ll tell you three things. One, I take my management responsibilities very much to heart. I care deeply about how the workforce is treated, setting high expectations for our Foreign Service and our Civil Service personnel, having a lot of communication with people so that I get feedback; I’m not isolated on the seventh floor of the State Department, which can easily happen. I go down to the cafeteria, I try to walk the halls, I try to bring people in to see me. It’s very important to me to really have a feel for what’s going on.

We’ve made some management decisions that I think have been important in creating a collegial workforce and also a modern 21^st century workforce. We’ve also brought in more of the tools of technology. I have a young crew of sort of technophiles who are out there with 21^st century statecraft.

QUESTION: Who are all – you can’t see them because they’re off camera right now --

SECRETARY CLINTON: (Laughter.)

QUESTION: -- but there are five of them sitting off camera right now all working their Blackberries --

SECRETARY CLINTON: Yeah. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: -- behind your back while you’re saying that, but I digress, for – here.

SECRETARY CLINTON: That’s right. There’s just an enormous amount of energy, and that has been a joy for me. And finally, I feel strongly about recognizing the sacrifices that our civilians make serving overseas.

***

SECRETARY CLINTON: I think we also have to realize that we have 17 posts that people have to go to unaccompanied. That means that they too are gone without their families for at least a year. They’re the obvious ones like Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan. We have a lot of dangerous assignments where our diplomats and our development experts, they don’t wear bulletproof vests and carry a weapon. They’re just out there working with often contentious communities. So I’ve been impressed by the courage of a lot of the people I serve with.

***

QUESTION: There’s already speculation – already speculation about whether or not Secretary Clinton is going to do this for the full term, the full first term, and whether or not she has any interest, if asked, to stay on to do it for eight years. I mean, you’ve see how tough the job is.

SECRETARY CLINTON: No.

QUESTION: I want to end where we began. You see how tough the job is.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Right.

QUESTION: Can you imagine yourself doing all four years, and if asked, doing it for another four years?

SECRETARY CLINTON: No, I really can’t. I mean, it is just --

QUESTION: No to what? All four or eight?

SECRETARY CLINTON: The whole eight. I mean, that would be very challenging. But I don’t want to make any predictions sitting here. I’m honored to serve. I serve at the pleasure of the President. But it’s a 24/7 job and I think at some point, I will be very happy to pass it on to someone else.

QUESTION: But that opens the door for the obvious question: What would Hillary Clinton want to do if she is no longer – when she’s no longer Secretary of State?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Oh, there’s so many things I’m interested in. I mean, really going back to private life and spending time reading and writing and maybe teaching, doing some personal travel, not the kind of travel where you bring along a couple hundred people with you. Just focusing on issues of women, girls, families, the kind of intersection between what’s considered realpolitik and real life politics, which has always fascinated me.

QUESTION: And finally, just for the record, since you have opened this door again here, you have said before – emphatically, in fact – that you are not interested in running again for president of the United States. I’m taking your answer now to mean that that’s still the same?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Absolutely. Not interested.

***

Remarks With Bahraini Foreign Minister Shaikh Khalid bin Ahmed Al Khalifa After Their Meeting

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State

Treaty Room

Washington, DC

February 3, 2010

SECRETARY CLINTON: Good afternoon, everyone. I am delighted once again to meet with the foreign minister of a very valued partner of the United States, Bahrain. Our two nations a enjoy a time-tested relationship based on mutual interest and mutual respect. And our meeting today was another opportunity for us to discuss many of our common concerns.

We are working together as partners to spur economic recovery and create new opportunities for our people. As part of the broader engagement between the United States and countries such as Bahrain and Muslim communities across the world, we have launched efforts to encourage entrepreneurship, innovation, and economic diversification, and Bahrain is a prime example. We often point to this country as a premier banking and investment center, playing a vital role in the region and the world’s economic future.

We greatly appreciate the hospitality that Bahrain shows our Navy and its contributions to regional security and stability. We work closely together on challenges such as piracy and violent extremism that threaten peace-loving people across the world.

On the topic of regional security, let me also note the concerns raised by Iran’s refusal to engage with the international community on its nuclear program, which continues to violate IAEA and Security Council requirements. We have pursued a policy of consultation and engagement. We’ve worked with partners in the Gulf and through the United Nations with other countries to offer Iran a clear choice between isolation and meeting its international obligations. Iran’s response to our efforts has been inadequate and we have begun considering further appropriate measures that might convince Iran to reconsider its nuclear program and engage with the international community.

The United States and Bahrain both seek stability in the Middle East. We share a goal of realizing a two-state solution and promoting comprehensive peace. And we appreciate Bahrain’s interest in fulfilling the promise of the Arab Peace Initiative. That is a tangible demonstration of a commitment to a better future for all of the region's people.

The United States is working with the Israelis, the Palestinians, and our Arab partners to re-launch meaningful negotiations as soon as possible and without preconditions. We believe that through good faith negotiations, the parties can mutually agree on an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps, and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israeli security requirements.

We recognize as well that Jerusalem is a deeply important issue to Israelis and Palestinians, to Jews, Muslims, and Christians everywhere. And we believe it is possible to reach an outcome that both realizes the aspirations of all parties for Jerusalem, and safeguards its status for the future.

So again, on so many issues, only a couple of which I’ve mentioned here, it is such a pleasure meeting with and working with the foreign minister. And our partnership, sir, is a real commitment to the kind of future that we want for our two countries. So thank you again.

FOREIGN MINISTER AL KHALIFA: Thank you. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Good afternoon, everybody. It’s wonderful to be back in Washington, D.C., and to meet once again with my dear friend, the Honorable Secretary of State Ms. Hillary Clinton. This meeting gave us the opportunity to discuss a whole range of issues of mutual interest and concern in a typically warm and friendly American atmosphere.

The Kingdom of Bahrain and the United States of America share a historic, deep-rooted, and multifaceted relationship. We appreciate the pivotal role the United States plays in upholding the security and stability of such a vital region to the whole world. In this context and against this backdrop, we explored ways and means to further enhance our evolving partnership, a partnership that serves our common interest of regional security and stability, and where every step taken, where every step taken to defend the region is a positive, collaborative measure built on a history of joint defense cooperation that spans several decades for the benefit of the region at large.

The Kingdom of Bahrain has always called for a region free of weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East. To that end, we believe that the current situation surrounding the Iranian nuclear file should be resolved in a peaceful manner, in accordance with the Security Council resolutions and in complete adherence to the rules and regulation of the IAEA in a fully transparent manner. Furthermore, we discussed how the Gulf region could benefit from the use of nuclear power for peaceful civilian purposes in a safe, secure, and efficient manner.

We also reaffirmed our commitment to a durable and lasting peace in the Middle East. Bahrain appreciates the leadership of the United States on this issue and its commitment to achieve a peace based on a two-state solution that will bring all countries in the region to a mutually beneficial peace accord. It is imperative that we explore every option there is and not limit ourselves to what we have today, while at the same time working closely with the Palestinian Authority under the leadership of President Mahmoud Abbas to realize a capable and effective Palestinian state.

On Yemen, we discussed our participation in the London conference which was held last week and explored ways to assist Yemen in overcoming the numerous challenges it faces in order to be able to confront the most salient threats of extremism and terrorism.

Finally, Madam Secretary, while I express my sincere appreciation to you personally and to your very able team, I would like to commend your efforts, continued commitment to your allies and partners; your candid thoughts are on so many important matters. I look forward to continuing our constructive cooperation. Thank you very much.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you, sir.

FOREIGN MINISTER AL KHALIFA: Sure.

QUESTION: Secretary Clinton, in your opening statement, you described Iran’s responses to date as inadequate. Looking at what Iranian President Ahmadinejad said yesterday, both about the nuclear file and about the detained Americans in Iran, do you regard his – do you see no reason, not a scintilla of a suggestion, that his comments about a willingness to turn over Iranian low-enriched uranium might actually be genuine? Do you think this is just a ploy, the way Iran has often made conciliatory gestures when it sees sanctions coming down the track?

And on the hikers, can you absolutely rule out any possibility of a trade, swap, exchange – any kind of a quid pro quo under which Iran and the United States would mutually release citizens in their custody?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, as you know, Arshad, the IAEA made a good faith offer regarding the Tehran research reactor. Iran initially accepted the arrangement but has not followed through and, in fact, seemed to move toward rejecting it. The deal is still on the table. If Iran wishes to accept it, we look forward to hearing about it from the IAEA because that’s the appropriate venue for them to file an official response.

With respect to the hikers and other American citizens detained inside Iran, it is hard to know what the Iranian president meant from these press reports of his comments. As we’ve said before, if the Iranian Government has questions about any Iranian citizen in the United States, there are official channels that Iran can utilize in addressing any concerns it might have, namely through the Embassy of Pakistan in Washington.

And as we have said repeatedly, we call on Iran to release all the American citizens that they have currently detained. We believe they are being unjustly detained and they should be released without further delay. We also are very committed to making it clear to the Iranians that they should do so on humanitarian grounds, since the detentions of our citizens is baseless. So there are no negotiations taking place between the United States and Iran. We believe they should unilaterally release our detained citizens.

QUESTION: Do you think it was a ploy to (inaudible)?

SECRETARY CLINTON: I’m not going to characterize it.

MODERATOR: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: Thank you. If I can stay on Iran, Secretary, there have been recent reports in recent days regarding CENTCOM and American military support for your allies in the region, for anti-missile systems specifically. What kind of assurances can you give your allies? And is this also in reaction to the Iranians not yet going for the negotiation option?

And Shaikh Khalid, if I may, also on Iran, what do you hope the next weeks and months will bring? The tensions continue to surmount in the region. How concerned are you about this, and are you looking for assurances from the U.S.?

Thank you.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, as the foreign minister said in his remarks, we have a long history of joint defense cooperation. Bahrain is a very valued ally and partner. That goes back many years. There’s nothing new about that. We will continue to work with Bahrain to ensure that they have the defense capabilities that they need. And we highly appreciate the hosting of the Navy, which, of course, is one symbol of America’s commitment to our allies and friends in the Gulf.

Certainly, we have to be cognizant of the changing atmosphere in the Gulf and the actions that Iran has taken, and its refusal to abide by the obligations of the Security Council and the International Atomic Energy Agency.

So we will work with our allies and our friends, and we will continue to send a strong message to Iran that they have an opportunity to truly act in a way that builds confidence and not raise concerns within the region.

FOREIGN MINISTER AL KHALIFA: Yeah. Regarding whether we need new assurances or – from the United States, the answer is no. We are partners, we are allies for decades, now working together. And the presence of the Fifth Fleet in Bahrain, the cooperation over many matters over the last decades to safeguard the region and to ensure stability and security is a testament to that. So the United States commitments to its allies and partners is evident, it’s clear, and it’s been continuing, built on a very clear history together. So we’re not seeing anything new, nobody’s sabre-rattling here, nobody is being belligerent to anyone in the region. It’s just a purely defensive measure for the benefit of the whole world, for the region being so important to the whole world.

MODERATOR: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: Hi, Madam Secretary.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Hi.

QUESTION: A question: We’ve heard you speak about trafficking today. With that in mind, I’d like to ask you about the 10 Americans in Haiti. With all that we’ve learned about them so far, can you say that what they were up to was anything short of trafficking, attempting to bring these children across a border without paperwork? And what do you think the next steps will be here? Would you like to see them released?

Thank you.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, trafficking of human beings, particularly of children, is a problem across the world. And it’s something that every nation should be addressing. The Haitian nation acted to protect children who were being removed from their country without appropriate documentation. We have worked with the Haitian Government over the last two and a half weeks, three weeks, to help facilitate and transport children who are properly documented as having an adoptive family or guardianship awaiting them.

So we know how to do this in the right way. And it was unfortunate that, whatever the motivation, that this group of Americans took matters into their own hands. As you know, they have been charged with breaking the laws of Haiti. And we are engaged in discussions with the Haitian Government about the appropriate disposition of their cases. They’ve been granted consular access. We are providing them the services that any American citizen who is detained is entitled to, and we will be working through the questions that the Haitian Government has and that – and looking for the best way forward on this.

But I would just end by underscoring that trafficking in human beings is a form of modern slavery, it is an abuse of the human dignity and the autonomy of individuals, and it’s particularly egregious when it takes children and either puts them into bonded trade or sells them for adoption or abuses them in other ways. So we take this very seriously.

MODERATOR: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: Secretary Clinton, on the Palestinian-Israeli issue, there has been talk about a – about proximity talks between the Israelis and Palestinians, and I just wanted to see if you could give us any more details. Are these talks going to take place in the United States? Are they going to on the level of principals or teams? And are they going to start with the assumption that it’s 1967 borders plus land swaps or not, because we haven’t heard you speak about this – the proximity talks. (Inaudible.)

(In Arabic.)

SECRETARY CLINTON: Want to go first?

FOREIGN MINISTER AL KHALIFA: (Off-mike.)

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, as you know, Senator Mitchell has been engaged in intense conversations, both in the region and elsewhere, with European and Arab partners. On the whole question of relaunching negotiations. And I’m not going to preempt any announcement that might come from the parties because when they’re ready to make such a statement, they will. But of course, we believe that the 1967 borders, with swaps, should be the focus of the negotiations over borders. We’ve made clear that we think that all of the main issues have to be on the table and the parties have to work through them and come to resolution. And we would like to see that start soon and move as quickly as possible forward.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

SECRETARY CLINTON: When there’s an announcement, there’ll be an announcement.

FOREIGN MINISTER AL KHALIFA: Should I answer you in English, if I may? Or you want --

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

(Laughter.)

FOREIGN MINISTER AL KHALIFA: Okay. Because --

SECRETARY CLINTON: I only have one language. He has at least two.

FOREIGN MINISTER AL KHALIFA: Sure.

(Laughter.)

FOREIGN MINISTER AL KHALIFA: The question was whether when I mentioned that nobody is being belligerent here from our side and then there is the Iranian reaction, so what do we read into it? Is it a new threat? That’s your question, yeah?

Well, the point is we did not threaten anybody. The measures have been there for decades. I say it again. And it’s being developed, it’s being upgraded, new technology is coming in. So there’s nothing that we are taking the level of the weaponry to that it will threaten somebody in our neighborhood. But we expect Iran not to see it as a measure being taken against it. This is a measure to protect. It’s not a measure to attack. It’s a measure to protect the interests of the whole world. We all know how vital the Gulf region is to the whole world and how vital the waterways out of the Gulf are for everybody. So to just leave it like that, to the elements, is something that we should not expect to do. So it’s something we should do as a diligent move to protect our interest – everybody’s interest.

QUESTION: What about an arms war?

FOREIGN MINISTER AL KHALIFA: What about --

QUESTION: Aren’t you worried about an arms war in the region?

FOREIGN MINISTER AL KHALIFA: Of course, if things are interpreted wrongly, there will be an arms race. But things – we should put things in perspective that this is only a defensive measure and should not call for an arms race in the region.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you all very much.

FOREIGN MINISTER AL KHALIFA: Thank you very much. Thank you.

Taken Question: Consular Access to American Citizens in Pakistan

Office of the Spokesman

Washington, DC

Question Taken at the FEBRUARY 3, 2009 Daily Press Briefing

February 3, 2010

Question: When was the last time the U.S. had consular access to the five American citizens in Pakistan?

Answer: The last time consular officers visited the five U.S. defendants was on January 28, 2010.

Preview to Annual Meeting of the President's Interagency Task Force To Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons

Luis CdeBaca
Director, Office To Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons

Washington, DC

February 3, 2010

MR. TONER: Good afternoon. Today, Secretary Clinton will chair the President’s Interagency Task Force to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons. She’ll be joined by fellow cabinet members as well as other task force representatives. This meeting, which is required under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, is the first under this Administration and will discuss steps taken by our interagency partners in the last year as well as map out coordinated strategies across the Obama Administration to confront modern slavery.

Ambassador-at-Large Luis CdeBaca, the Director of the Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons, is here to provide a preview of that meeting. Ambassador CdeBaca serves as the chair of the Senior Policy Operating Group, which oversees the day-to-day implementation and coordination of the Administration’s interagency trafficking – anti-trafficking policies.

Ambassador.

AMBASSADOR CDEBACA: Thank you. As Mark said, I’m Luis CdeBaca. I’m the Ambassador-at-Large for the Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking. Today, Secretary Clinton will chair the President’s interagency task force. She’ll be joined by other members of the task force, including the Attorney General, the secretaries of Labor, Homeland Security, and Health and Human Services; the USAID Administrator, the Director of National Intelligence, as well as representatives from the White House, Department of Defense, Education, Agriculture, and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

This meeting, which, as Mark said, is mandated under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, is the first held under the Obama Administration. In today’s meeting, we will look forward to a very candid and progressive discussion that highlights the work that each agency is conducting individually as well as collectively to combat modern slavery. In addition, it’s a chance to preview the anti-trafficking efforts in the days, weeks, and months ahead as we work together to make measured progress against every form of exploitation, including forced labor, peonage, and sexual servitude, in response to the President’s declaration of January as Human Trafficking and Slavery Awareness and Prevention Month.

To put this issue into broader context, the crime problem of human trafficking has crosscutting implications across U.S. Government policy lines, and that’s quite evident by the participation of the stakeholders who we will see today. Just one example of how coordination works in the real world and how human trafficking affects American communities: Yesterday afternoon, a jury in Dallas-Fort Worth convicted two defendants of enslaving a woman as their domestic servant in a scheme that lasted almost a decade. To bring these perpetrators to justice and to make sure that their victim was safe and cared for took the efforts of many different agencies working in concert. Just as we worked to rescue one individual Nigerian woman from servitude in Texas, we have to combine our individual mandates and skill sets in a manner that enables a whole-of-government response equal to the scale of this problem. Because to confront modern slavery, we must act in a manner commensurate to the sophistication and tenacity of our adversaries, the traffickers, while honoring the bravery and humanity of the victims.

With that, I will answer any questions you might have.

QUESTION: How pervasive would you say the problem of human trafficking is worldwide?

AMBASSADOR CDEBACA: There are a number of different estimates and it’s a pretty broad estimate, depending on the methodology. The International Labor Organization estimates that there are around 12.3 million persons laboring in bondage around the world. And some of the other estimates from other organizations are higher, up to 27 million. Some of it ends up, again, coming down to methodology. But certainly, 12.3 million is – we think that that’s a pretty accurate number.

QUESTION: And what are the demographics?

AMBASSADOR CDEBACA: According to the ILO, it’s around – and I apologize if I don’t have the exact number. We can get that for you. But according to the ILO, I want to say it’s around 50 to 60 percent female, that by their numbers, it’s somewhere around 9 to 10 million in forced labor situations and 2 to 3 million in sex trafficking situations.

QUESTION: The impression we sometimes get is that this is carried out by organized crime groups. Can you set us straight on who exactly is doing this? Is there an international worldwide network of people? What’s the homegrown part of it?

AMBASSADOR CDEBACA: Exactly. We’ve seen all of these different manifestations, and I think this is one of the challenges of this crime, is that for every case that you have like the one in Dallas yesterday, where a man and a woman acted upon their own to bring a servant from their home country and enslave her in their house, you also have cases such as a case that I prosecuted when I was in the Civil Rights Division, for instance, in Michigan and another one in Illinois, in which you had more traditional Russian organized crime types of figures who were recruiting people in Ukraine, in Lithuania, Latvia, et cetera, bringing them over as something that would be, I guess for lack of a better word, the stereotypical type of case that you describe. And so as a result, you end up having to have a response that finds those individual actors and at the same time is able to go after the cartels.

One of the things that we’ve been very successful in doing in the past year during the Obama Administration is working with the Government of Mexico so that, for the first time now, we have cases that are being investigated and prosecuted both at the beginning of the case in Mexico and in the United States, the first case recently that was brought kind of simultaneously in Atlanta and in the state of Tlaxcala in Mexico. We think that that’s probably the way to go when you’re dealing with these – more of the international crime rings is to do that simultaneously in both countries.

QUESTION: So where are these people taken? I have an image of a map around the world. Where do they come from? Where do they go?

AMBASSADOR CDEBACA: A lot of the cases are actually people who are enslaved in their own country. And it – I don’t think we have good data as to whether that’s the norm or whether transnational movement for the purposes of exploitation is the norm. Certainly, again, the conception that I think a lot of people have on this is that this is a phenomenon of movement and migration which is not required by the United Nations protocol, it’s not required by U.S. law.

Basically, what we see though is trafficking flows – when it is a movement crime, trafficking flows mimicking the broader migration flow. So, for instance, if you look in Western Europe, traditionally a lot of the people who have been held in servitude have been from Eastern Europe, but now they’re starting to see a number of cases involving Chinese children and other Asian folks brought in – again, not always for sex, but sometimes for forced labor, starting to get begging rings with kids from Africa and things like that in a number of European cities. And that really is following the broader migrant flow, so it should be no surprise to people that here in the United States, a lot of our cases involve people from Mexico and Latin America because just, again, the basic percentage of migrants in this country is predominantly Hispanic.

QUESTION: Is this simply taking advantage of people who are in dire economic straits, or do you see an uptick when there is some sort of natural crisis such as an earthquake, a tsunami, something of that sort?

AMBASSADOR CDEBACA: I think that part of what we’ve seen is that the traffickers end up taking advantage of whatever vulnerability is in front of them. So, for instance, there was a case that was prosecuted a couple of years ago in Kansas where the victims were white American citizens but who were made vulnerable to enslavement because of mental illness, schizophrenia, et cetera.

Usually, the vulnerabilities come from race, class, migratory status, unfamiliarity with the language or the culture. And certainly, we see this notion of displacement, whether it’s in conflict areas, the women and children enslaved in the Eastern Congo and in other places in Africa to do what’s called euphemistically artisanal mining, scratching the precious minerals from the earth that can then be used in our cell phones and other things like that, tantalum and cobalt, but also the notion of the predators coming in to – whether it’s refugee camps, whether it’s into other places where we’ve seen that kind of displacement.

And just as we’ve seen the refugee camps in the wake of the Kosovo intervention and in Bosnia and in those areas becoming a place where human traffickers go to try to find their victims, obviously, that’s something that we’re looking at in the last three weeks in the wake of the earthquake in Haiti.

QUESTION: Can you explain --

QUESTION: Can you be more specific about Haiti and whether you – what you’ve seen and whether you’re just worried about it in general or whether you’re actually seeing it, and are there any cases aside from the dozen Americans in the case that’s pending down there?

AMBASSADOR CDEBACA: Well, I won’t address the dozen – the Americans in the case that’s pending. I think that you’ve heard about that from the podium through some other folks. But the – we are hearing anecdotal evidence from certainly, obviously, UNICEF, which is the head of the child cluster there in Haiti, and other NGOs about the notion of recruiters or others in some of these camps. I think that some of that’s been reported.

QUESTION: What was the name of that organization? UNIT?

AMBASSADOR CDEBACA: UNICEF?

QUESTION: Oh, from UNICEF. Okay.

AMBASSADOR CDEBACA: Yeah. But some of the other organizations that are there. We have begun to – we’ve actually got funding out the door already to a group called Heartland Alliance that’s part of the child cluster that’s one of the more experienced U.S. countertrafficking organizations. They work with a lot of the trafficking victims in the Midwest. They’re out of Chicago. But they also do countertrafficking projects for – with grant money from us around the world. And they’re stepping up their activities in Haiti.

One of the things that we’re responding to is not necessarily that there is one particular case that’s triggered this or one particular allegation that’s triggered this, but rather the notion that when you have a refugee situation or you have a natural disaster, et cetera, especially in the 10 years now since the adoption of the United Nations Protocol Against Trafficking in Persons, there’s a recognition that you have to build that into your response, just like you’d build – if you were going to have a major sporting event, you’d have to build in how many ambulances do you need if somebody’s going to have heart attacks, what do you do about terrorism.

I think now we’re starting to see that countertrafficking responses need to be built in from the beginning, and especially in a place like Haiti, where, as our report in 2009 pointed out, there was a large child trafficking problem before the earthquake hit. And so I think that the unique situation that we have with Haiti means that it’s even more pressing on the part of donor communities and governments like the United States, who are working on the ground there.

QUESTION: Do you have any statistics on how many – on the problem in Haiti before the earthquake, numbers? And then also on that whole total of 12.3 million persons, how many of those were children, roughly?

AMBASSADOR CDEBACA: We’ll have to, I think, circle back with you on the ILO study. The ILO study, just so you have it, the name of that was called the Cost of Coercion. And I --

QUESTION: The what?

AMBASSADOR CDEBACA: The Cost of Coercion – in which the ILO not only did a snapshot of the problem in the world but also did some economic modeling in which they’re estimating that it’s about 31 billion profit to the traffickers annually, and about 20 billion opportunity cost losses to the victims on top of that, so it’s about a 50 billion industry worldwide.

As far as Haiti is concerned, last year in the annual Trafficking in Persons Report, Haiti – and again, this is a wide range of estimate – the high-end estimate is 300,000 children who are in the restavek system in Haiti, with an additional potential of 3,000 who may have been taken to the Dominican Republic for use.

And the restavek system, for those of you who are unfamiliar with that, it’s a – basically a system of fostering out children who then are working as child domestic servants, often abused, often exploited. They tend to age out because the Haitian law requires employers to pay domestic workers over the age of 15. And so one of the things that we’re concerned about and that we raised in the report last year was the notion that many of the street children – whether it’s girls in prostitution, whether it’s boys engaged in crime, et cetera – are basically restaveks who were disposed of by the families who had had them before. So that’s that that notion of kind of the child domestic servant, often enslaved, usually given to the person because of promises that the child would be cared for, sent to school, et cetera. So that’s one of the things that we are very concerned about is that as we rebuild, as we start to enter the rebuilding stage, that the child safety response is in place so that we don’t see an even bigger increase in that restavek population.

QUESTION: Last year’s report refers to --

AMBASSADOR CDEBACA: I promised him that I would come to him.

QUESTION: You’ve got a specific question on Haiti?

QUESTION: No, go ahead and, I’ll come back to that.

QUESTION: Those figures are from 2008, though, right?

AMBASSADOR CDEBACA: Yes, and the 2009 numbers actually should be coming in. We’ve – we’re in the middle of our reporting period right now, so we’re looking for our reporting cables. Obviously, we’re going to have to see how much of the data is going to be collectible in Haiti right now, given what’s going on with the government and its ability to give us any kind of data on this.

QUESTION: Just two things. One, you said that you’re hearing anecdotally about the notion of traffickers in Haiti. What do you mean by “about the notion of”? I mean, are you hearing anecdotes that there are actually traffickers or --

AMBASSADOR CDEBACA: For – just one for instance. There’s been reports, that I think have been reported on in the news as well, of men coming into some of the camps, using offers of food or water to get girls to leave with them in trucks. Now, obviously, we don’t have any hard evidence as to what’s happening to those girls once they leave with those men, and so that’s why the term “the notion of” trafficking.

When we look at human trafficking, as far as what the crime phenomenon would be, we’re looking at somebody who’s being held in compelled service. So we can suspect that that may have been the case that they might have been recruiting those girls for prostitution and that, because they’re under age, could be a trafficking situation, but we don’t have the hard information yet as to what’s happening down the road. And I think that’s one of the things that we’re going to be looking to work with the Haitian police as they, again, move out of the immediate disaster response and go back to reconstruction and governance. We’ll be wanting to work with them as far as how do you set up detective squads and child protective folks that can then go and look downstream as far as that’s --

QUESTION: That was exactly my next question, which is: Can you describe for us, other than detective squads, what are the kinds of specific, practical steps that one should set up? The same way that you try to estimate how many ambulances you need for a sporting event, what are the kinds of things you need to put in place in this kind of a – after such a natural disaster or a war or whatever?

AMBASSADOR CDEBACA: Well, before the earthquake, we had about $500,000 worth of programming in Haiti itself, and those were largely about child trafficking. It was a couple of projects that were working with protecting escaped restaveks and seeking reintegration, either back with their families or with families who could foster them, who wouldn’t abuse them, to improve and instill greater public awareness about human trafficking within Haiti.

So it was something that then you’d see legal reforms or bigger resources being put it into it by the government, and also to provide direct services to victims, whether it’s men, women or children, in Haiti.

We also have some projects in the Dominican Republic, who are working with the Haitian community there, some of whom are in exploitative conditions, whether it’s in farming or whether it’s in the sex industry. And so there’s a project that we’re working on with the Solidarity Center, working on how to get information out to those communities.

What we’ve done in the last three weeks is we’ve repositioned a number of those projects. In the Dominican Republic, for instance, we’re working with the Solidarity Center so that we can try to turn that project around a little bit and have it catch, if there are folks that are coming over the border in search of jobs, in search of work, that they know their rights, that they know that they shouldn’t put themselves into a situation where they can be exploited.

So we’re working on the Dominican side with that project, and then we’re also moving money into Haiti as far as trying to build up those child protection brigades, as far as working with the groups such as the Jean Robert Cadet Restavek Foundation and others to try to make sure that we can have some things in place to protect those children.

But I think that what we see as far as the bigger macro issue is that it’s – the response to human trafficking is not the first week or two’s response; that’s the immediate shelter needs, immediate medical needs, et cetera. Then it’s starting to overlay in, do you have protection, do you have police, do you have social workers, et cetera, and that’s where we’re trying to move with this.

QUESTION: And how are the child protection brigades different from police or social workers? I mean, what are they?

AMBASSADSOR CDEBACA: They’re a little more akin to the folks here in the United States who are the child protective services --

QUESTION: Okay.

AMBASSADOR CDEBACA: -- folks, so it’s kind of half police, half social worker in the best of all possible worlds. And that’s what we’re going to be engaging with the Haitian Government on as to what’s their vision that we can come in, supplement that, professionalize it, and make sure that there are enough folks in the child protection brigades to actually go out now that we’ve got so many children who will need to be reunited either with their families or with the orphanages that they were in before, et cetera.

QUESTION: Can you explain exactly what this meeting is today about – this afternoon? I mean, you made reference several times to the fact that it’s mandated. I mean, is there any reason other than the fact that it’s mandated that it’s happening today? Is there anything to announce coming out of it? Is there any new strategy, any new policy that’s going to arise? Or is this just kind of a get-together and look at what we’ve done over the past year?

AMBASSADOR CDEBACA: I think what we’ll see out of this is we’ll see – there’s a little bit of bringing everyone together, which is what Congress set up the task force to do. But I think that one of the things that we’ll see is a commitment from the cabinet to actually go out and then implement what the President called for in his declaration on January 4^th.

QUESTION: Well, wasn’t there already that commitment?

AMBASSADOR CDEBACA: Well, that commitment was there, but as far as the task force officially declaring it moving forward, what comes out of today will actually, I think, give us a roadmap that we can use for the interagency coordination through the President’s Interagency Task Force and the senior policy operating group. And so --

QUESTION: But wasn’t that being done last year as well?

AMBASSADOR CDEBACA: It was being done last year, but --

QUESTION: Okay. So what’s different? I guess I’m just trying to figure out what the point of this meeting is. I mean, it sounds as though it’s just kind of a review and like, yay, let’s everyone get onboard, but not much substance.

AMBASSADOR CDEBACA: Well, I think that what we’re seeing is that the way that Congress set the task force up was that the task force has a coordinating function through the senior policy operating group – and that meets quarterly – that’s where we look at the particular substance, we feed that up to our principals, decisions can be made. Today is the principals meeting, so it’ll be giving us the marching orders for what we do at the more substantive level going throughout the next year.

QUESTION: You asking for more money for Haiti? You said that previously you had about $500,000 a year in projects. And I know you guys have – don’t have yet an exact sum for assistance for Haiti. But do you plan to ask for additional money to combat these kinds of – to combat trafficking in Haiti?

AMBASSADOR CDEBACA: Well, we have 500,000 to begin with. We will reposition about another a million, taking that from other projects, frankly. And so we need to look at how we make sure that those projects, which – the money of which hasn’t gone out the door yet. And those countries don’t necessarily (inaudible) or not, now that we’re looking at the Haitian side.

Obviously, we’re looking at what the long-term funding needs are. We have about $20-, $22 million in grant funds that we administer in the Trafficking office. We work with our partners at USAID and at the International Labor Affairs Bureau over at DOL, and we are shaking the trees right now to figure out what money there is in this year’s budget, as opposed to looking into the next year.

QUESTION: Right.

AMBASSADOR CDEBACA: I know that Deputy Secretary Lew was in talking budget issues with you guys earlier this week. Right now, we’re shaking the 2010 trees to try to figure out what monies we have available right now. And as we do that, obviously, we’ll be looking at the budget needs going forward.

QUESTION: And the additional 1 million that’s been repositioned is all FY2010 money, correct?

AMBASSADOR CDEBACA: I want to say it’s – there might be a little bit of unspent 20 – 2009 money --

QUESTION: Okay.

AMBASSADOR CDEBACA: -- that hasn’t gone out the door yet --

QUESTION: Okay.

AMBASSADOR CDEBACA: -- but it’s not new money --

QUESTION: Right.

AMBASSADOR CDEBACA: -- from a new place yet.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: One more question on funding. The people from – who are going to be working with Haiti or with any country on these projects, are they U.S. Government employees or are they NGOs who have applied for grant money from the federal government? What’s the breakdown on that?

AMBASSADOR CDEBACA: I don’t think we have a particular ratio yet. At this point, the folks that were on the ground were the grantees, and so we’re looking to try to intensify that so that they can get into action immediately.

QUESTION: Okay.

AMBASSADOR CDEBACA: Many of them started working first and then we’ve been trying to overlay it so they can actually start bringing in some experts – not only American experts, but also there are a lot of Haitian experts, people on the ground, who can be brought into this, I think especially as people continue to dig out. And so we want to make sure that the – that our partners on the ground there have the funding, everything from rebuilding and making sure that there’s enough food and water for the kids, to if they need to be hiring more social workers or other things so that they can go ahead and do that.

QUESTION: Just one last question?

AMBASSADOR CDEBACA: One last question.

QUESTION: Okay. Just on statistics here, the number of people who are laboring in bondage, do you have any figures for the United States?

AMBASSADOR CDEBACA: The United States numbers are very imprecise, and I don’t think that we’re in a position where we can really give you a number. There’s been numbers recorded in the past. We’re looking at their methodology on that. I think that the consensus out in the anti-trafficking community is that certainly, we’re talking about tens of thousands. The number of trafficking victims that have been found in the United States don’t come anywhere near that, and that’s one of the things that we’re going to be talking about today with the fellow cabinet members, is how we can ensure that we’re finding and protecting as many of those victims as possible.

I think one of the ways that we do that, frankly, is that we’re now starting to see state laws come on line. And as we get state and local law enforcement – not just federal law enforcement – we’ll hopefully be seeing more rescues.

QUESTION: Thank you.

AMBASSADOR CDEBACA: Thank you.

# # #

Remarks on President Obama's Interagency Task Force to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State

Jefferson Room

Washington, DC

February 3, 2010

SECRETARY CLINTON: Some of you already know Ambassador Luis CdeBaca, who is our Ambassador and in charge of our human trafficking efforts and the office that runs it. Maria Otero is our Under Secretary for Democracy, Global Affairs here in the Department of State, and that’s the place where the Office to Combat Trafficking resides.

This is a yearly meeting that we take turns hosting. It happens to be the State Department’s turn. I don’t know who it goes to next year, but we do it every year for the purpose of taking stock and seeing where we are in our fight against human trafficking, both trafficking for sex trade purposes and trafficking for forced labor.

And this comes out of the original legislation – which is now 10 years old – back in 2000, the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, so we’re celebrating the 10^th anniversary. And it’s been a priority first of the Clinton Administration, then of the Bush Administration, and now of the Obama Administration. So I really appreciate and welcome all of you here for this meeting.

This meeting gives us the opportunity to identify where we are and how we can improve our strategy to hear from different parts of our government about what works and what doesn’t work, how better we can share intelligence and coordinate enforcement and tracking and training of our officials, and to make clear that this is a high priority of this Administration.

Now, I know several of you have some firsthand experience with this modern form of slavery, because that’s really what it is. And as we look at the cases that are handled by the Justice Department or the results of the investigations that HHS or Labor do, we see that very clearly. And certainly, I know that Secretary Solis has seen that firsthand with the kind of sweatshops and other forced labor in California, and others of you around the world may as well. I’ve been involved in this for a long time, going back many years, and I think it’s one of the most important human rights issues that we work on here in our Department and certainly that many of you are deeply involved with.

I think today, what we want to do is hear from everybody so that everyone can have a chance to express where we are in a kind of update. I know how busy everybody is and we’re going to try to keep this to an hour, because that’s what we promised.

Let me turn first to our Under Secretary Maria Otero.

Joint Statement of Commitment to Action by the President's Interagency Task Force to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons Presented to the President and Released by All Agencies, February 3, 2010

Office of the Spokesman

Washington, DC

February 3, 2010

Trafficking in persons violates the most basic of human rights. It degrades our common humanity and is intolerable in any society. Human trafficking is a modern form of slavery. To combat this heinous crime, we recognize and build on the progress of the past ten years since the passage of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act and the Palermo Protocol.

As members of the President’s Interagency Task Force, we commit to a balanced approach in the prevention of human trafficking, the protection of victims and the prosecution of their traffickers.

We pledge to uphold a system that provides for all victims, whether they have lost their freedom through sex trafficking or labor trafficking, and regardless of age, gender or immigration status.

We will continue vigorously to investigate and prosecute traffickers and work toward dismantling the criminal enterprises that perpetuate human trafficking.

We will work tirelessly to overcome the barriers to victim identification and assistance, continuing a victim-centered approach and focusing on vulnerable populations at greatest risk.

We will collaborate with international, federal, state, and local counterparts, the private sector, and nongovernmental organizations and advocates, recognizing that the key to ending this crime is rooted in strong and effective partnerships.

As the President’s Interagency Task Force to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons, we will work with our partners across borders and oceans on behalf of the victims of trafficking to combat this violation of basic human rights.
For the President’s Interagency Task Force to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons:

THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE
THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE
UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Interturbine Aviation Logistics GmbH, Germany Settles Proposed Charges Involving Violations of the Arms Export Control Act and International Traffic in Arms Regulations

Office of the Spokesman

Washington, DC

February 3, 2010

The U.S. Department of State and Interturbine Aviation Logistics Gmbh, Germany and its Texas Branch Office, Interturbine Aviation Logistics GmbH, LLC (Interturbine), have reached an agreement to resolve violations of the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) and International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) committed by Interturbine in August and September of 2004.

Under the Consent Agreement signed this week to settle the case, Interturbine agreed to pay a civil penalty of $1,000,000, of which $900,000 will be suspended. $500,000 will be suspended on the condition that Interturbine has already applied that amount to self-initiated, pre-Consent Agreement remedial compliance measures. $400,000 will be suspended on the condition that Interturbine maintains its self-initiated exclusion from all ITAR regulated activities. If within the two-year term of this Consent Agreement Interturbine decides to become involved in ITAR regulated activities, it will use this $400,000 for additional remedial compliance measures agreed to by the Department. Interturbine will also have an independent audit to ensure that its company-wide automated export control system prevents its involvement in all ITAR regulated activities.

Interturbine has acknowledged the seriousness of its conduct and has cooperated with the Department’s investigation, expressed regret for these activities, and taken steps to improve its compliance programs. Interturbine has also undertaken to make amends by implementing the remedial compliance actions specified in this Consent Agreement. For these reasons, the Department has determined that an administrative debarment of Interturbine is not appropriate at this time.

The Consent Agreement and related documents are available to the public on the website of the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (www.pmddtc.state.gov).

Briefing on Recent Trip to Afghanistan and Pakistan

Richard Holbrooke
Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan 

U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack

Washington, DC

MR. CROWLEY: All right. Now we know who the intrepid journalists are that get up at 9:45 in the morning at an unheard-of hour in your profession, but good morning and welcome to the Department of State.

We had promised last month when Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack visited with you prior to his trip to Afghanistan that we would bring him back to report on what he’s seen and the progress in developing, redeveloping the agricultural sector of Afghanistan as a critical part of the Administration’s strategy and President Karzai’s strategy for the future of that country. So we have him back with us today along with our Special Representative, the intrepid and indomitable Richard Holbrooke, who is going to start and just kind of put the agriculture strategy and the over all strategy in context first.

Richard.

AMBASSADOR HOLBROOKE: Thanks, P.J. Well, this is really the Secretary of Agriculture’s chance, as we promised you, to report on this trip and I just want to give you the overarching view of it. But before I do that, I just want to say a word about the events in Pakistan this morning.

As I’m sure you all know, three Americans were killed, two wounded, not life-threatening. They’ve been evacuated to Islamabad. They were two military and one from the (inaudible) team, so three military. They were on their way to the inauguration of a girls school in the western area of Pakistan – obviously, a great tragedy, and we are deeply regretful of the loss of life and we are in contact with the Embassy. I talked to Ambassador Patterson this morning on it and it was an – it was a mine, an IED that did the – that did it. And I just want to let you know about that. And --

QUESTION: I’m sorry, you said it was two military and one?

AMBASSADOR HOLBROOKE: Three military; I misspoke – three military from two different parts of the military advisory groups that we have in Islamabad. And I don’t even know the exact designations of where they were – thank you – American military personnel in Pakistan who were doing training with the frontier corps. So it’s a very sad event.

QUESTION: Ambassador Holbrooke, is there any indication that they were directly targeted?

AMBASSADOR HOLBROOKE: The ambassador does not think they were directly targeted, but that is my only source of information on that question.

QUESTION: Has there been any claim of responsibility?

AMBASSADOR HOLBROOKE: No.

QUESTION: Pardon me, the Taliban has claimed responsibility for this attack.

AMBASSADOR HOLBROOKE: Have they already claimed it? Well, then you’re ahead of me.

QUESTION: They also suggested that they weren’t U.S. military, but in fact were Blackwater contractors. Does this suggest that perhaps the U.S. needs to do more in terms of making it clear when the military is the – taking the lead on operations and when contractors are in the lead?

AMBASSADOR HOLBROOKE: They’re certain to say that. That’s what they do. They’re adept at propaganda and disinformation. But the facts are the facts and when – and in the appropriate moment, after notification of next of kin and appropriate things, I’m sure their names and their exact rank will be publicly disclosed, as we always do. There’s nothing secret about their presence there.

QUESTION: Just to clarify again, then, three were killed who were members of the military?

AMBASSADOR HOLBROOKE: And two injured.

QUESTION: And – who were members of the military or not?

AMBASSADOR HOLBROOKE: I think the two injured were also military; is that right – yeah.

QUESTION: So five members of the military – three killed, two injured?

AMBASSADOR HOLBROOKE: Yeah.

QUESTION: Okay.

AMBASSADOR HOLBROOKE: Yeah. This was in Lower Dir. And I do think it’s very revealing that they were on their way to the inauguration of a school. That’s what Americans do. It was a girls school. That’s what Americans try to do. And it’s – ever since I joined the Foreign Service, we’ve had people who have given their lives in these – in the cause that we believe in.

And that’s a very good segue into Secretary Vilsack, because one of the most moving moments of his trip, which he will describe with you, was setting up a memorial to a U.S. Department of Agriculture employee who was killed. This trip represents a very big step forward in the furtherance of what is our number-one “non-security” priority in Afghanistan. And when I say “non-security,” I want to put that in quote marks, because of course, agriculture and security are integrally related in a country which is 80 percent agricultural.

Our goal is nothing less than to help Afghanistan restore its agricultural sector to the vibrant export economy that it once had, and which was progressively destroyed starting in 1978. That this wasn’t undertaken earlier remains a mystery to all of us, but we elevated agriculture to the top of our priority list, as you all know, and it’s U.S. support for poppy eradication. The Secretary will speak about the relationship between those two items in a minute.

Secretary Clinton and I are enormously grateful that Secretary Vilsack took the time from a very demanding schedule to make this trip. There will be more efforts. He will outline some of the goals. One of the most important we have for this year is to help the Afghans stand up the agricultural credit bank, an institution which was created in the 1960s and destroyed in the ‘70s, ‘80s, and ‘90s. But I will leave the rest of it to the Secretary and with my appreciation, again, Tom. Thank you for doing this.

SECRETARY VILSACK: You bet. Good morning to everyone. I want to thank the Ambassador for the opportunity to spend a few days in Afghanistan. There is so much written about Afghanistan that is focused on sort of the negative aspects of the challenges in Afghanistan that hopefully, this is a report that reflects on what’s happening in a positive way.

The purpose of the trip was to spend a good deal of time with Minister Rahimi, who is the agricultural minister, in an effort to determine whether or not progress is being made in Afghanistan. As the Ambassador indicated, this is our number-one priority from a non-security standpoint. And it is very clear that agriculture is critical to the future success of Afghanistan. Eighty percent of Afghans either make their living or their livelihoods from agriculture or something connected to agriculture. So it is important and relevant for this country to spend time and resources to try to help the Afghan agricultural opportunity.

I want to say that we see this in the context of an Afghan-led effort. It is important and necessary for us to know precisely what the Afghans expect and want, and for us to parallel our efforts and to cooperate with them. So we were very pleased with Minister Rahimi after he was confirmed as an initial member of President Karzai’s cabinet, that he laid forward a framework for progress in Afghan agriculture. And it is an important framework.

Most importantly of all of the four, in my view, is the need to increase productivity among the Afghans. I think he recognizes and appreciates that there is tremendous opportunity, but it is necessary for the Afghan agriculture to take a step forward in terms of productivity. And we saw examples of U.S. assistance in that regard. I met with U.S. ag representatives who were working with grape farmers, for example, in Afghanistan, who are working on trestling – very rudimentary steps that are significantly increasing the size of the grapes and the quantity and quality of grapes. This is important because, at one point in time, Afghan grapes were really sought after in the Asian market. And this represents a tremendous export opportunity and potential.

The second aspect, once productivity is increased, is the need to reinvigorate the Afghan agribusiness, the ability to get the supply chain in place to allow the domestic market needs to be met and at the same time to create export opportunities. Probably the most significant step that has been taken recently is the establishment of a juice factory in Kabul. This juice factory essentially takes apples and pomegranates on contracts with farmers. Over 50,000 farmers contract with this particular juice factory. They take the fruit and they basically create juice concentrate, which is then exported all over the world. It employs 300 people for nine months, and they have a vision of expanding this facility, with the assistance of USAID and USDA, to a place where individual juice cartons can be developed for the Afghan market itself, which could be a hundred million dollar market.

This was a very interesting opportunity for me to also meet with the Afghan farmers who are currently contracting with this juice factory. They like the idea that they’ve got forward contracting opportunities. They like the idea that they have already essentially pre-sold their crop for the next several years.

It was an interesting opportunity for me to talk to Afghan farmers and to realize that farmers in Afghanistan aren’t a whole lot different than farmers in America. When we had the opportunity to visit with these folks, one of the Afghan farmers said, “You’re not doing enough. You’re not doing enough. You never help us.” And I turned around and I said, “This factory right here, right behind, me,” I said, “We just helped build that, and that factory is buying your fruit.” And he goes, “Oh. Oh. Yeah, I guess that is help.” (Laughter.)You know, things – some things aren’t different. You have to sometimes point things out to folks.

But there was, I think, a recognition and understanding that the government was attempting to create opportunities for these Afghan farmers. And reinvigorating their agribusiness is an important component of the strategy.

The third strategy has to do with a commitment to renew their natural resources. For far too long, they have been in a deforestation mode. Millions of trees have been cut down in Afghanistan. That impacts not just the Afghan landscape but it also impacts the capacity to preserve and conserve water, which is an extraordinarily important component to agriculture, obviously.

I met with USDA and representatives there who were working with Afghan youth to plant thousands and thousands, tens of thousands, of trees in the northern part of the country, recognizing the importance of restoring those natural resources.

And finally, the last piece of their framework is a reflection of the need to bolster the ministry itself. Minister Rahimi understands and appreciates that there are some serious challenges within the structure of his ministry, and so he has embarked on a change management effort, which we are facilitating. During the course of my visit, we made an announcement of an additional $20 million of assistance and help as part of that change management effort. We are also detailing specific experts in specific areas of this framework to work with the minister in the capital, in the ministry, so that he is more free, or freer, to travel around the country to talk to his farmers. We saw in Helmand province a tremendous example of the importance of his getting out and visiting with Afghan farmers. This was a very significant visit, a visit to a part of the country that a year ago may not have been possible.

But we spoke with Afghan farmers who are now planting wheat instead of poppy, and the reason they’re doing that is because, with the assistance of the United States Government, the Afghan Government is providing incentives for wheat production. And I think it’s important to recognize that when Afghan farmers make the decision to produce poppy, they do so because there are certain incentives built into that crop. The incentives involve providing input costs in advance and delivery of the crop at the farm gate. And so the challenge for the Afghan and for us is to figure out strategies and structures that will replace those incentives for legitimate crops. And so when we provided wheat seed and fertilizer at substantially reduced cost, Afghan farmers responded and poppy production in that province was reduced by a third in a single year. Now, we want to work with those same farmers to diversify their crop, to focus not just on staple crops but also cash crops, which will create export opportunities.

There are several challenges that will need to be addressed. The Ambassador focused on one of them, which is very significant: the need to establish a formalized credit process. That will take, obviously, time, but it is clear that they need some kind of credit bank, long-term financing and structure that will guarantee Afghan farmers the capacity and the resources to put the crop in the ground. In the meantime, we’ll continue to work with vouchers and other smaller techniques to encourage crop production. We’ll need to continue to work in a very formalized way to help them with irrigation issues. Their irrigation systems were destroyed during the conflicts – the previous conflicts. And we’re in the process of focusing on farm and regional water issues and irrigation issues. We’ll continue to work hard to create an extension presence.

I think one of the challenges that we identified and that Minister Rahimi identified was the fact that there needs to be people on the ground, Afghans on the ground providing technical assistance and help. And I think that was underscored in our visit to Nawa, where folks basically said we need more people on the ground here helping us make decisions. They’re very favorably inclined towards our extension model that we have in the United States and which we often take for granted, the capacity to get technical assistance to the farmer on the farm. And I think there are also challenges with reference to trade, the need for a continued promotion of trade opportunities in all parts of Central Asia.

I will tell you that I was impressed with the commitment of the people from the USDA. The Ambassador mentioned the memorial service we had for Tom Stefani. Tom was a forester who was killed in Afghanistan as a result of an explosive device. His only goal there was to try to make a difference. His only goal was to try to help people understand the importance of trees and forestry. He was beloved by the people who were there. We had a substantial outpouring of support for the award that we have established in his name to reflect that it – that there are many different uniforms that are being worn in Afghanistan.

And all the people who serve us in uniform, regardless of whether it’s the forest service uniform or the USDA uniform or a military uniform, put themselves on the line to make a difference. And they understand and appreciate the importance not just to the people of Afghanistan but also the people of the United States to this effort. And we are extraordinarily proud of our USDA presence there, which will grow over the course of time. We anticipate by the end of this month to have as many as 64 USDA workers there. And as the process ramps us, we would expect and hope that we would be able to contribute more. It is important for us to parallel our increase commitment with an Afghan – an increased Afghan commitment.

I would also say, and the last thing I’ll say, is that I’ve been very impressed with Minister Rahimi and his commitment. When he was addressing the parliament just before his confirmation, he said two things which I think are really important. One is that he said he would always tell the truth even if it was a hard truth. I saw examples of that where he acknowledged publicly the weaknesses and challenges of his ministry. That’s not often – you don’t often see that. He also said he would root out corruption, and I believe that he is true to that as well. He understands that there is a limited period of time in which this has to work, and he is committed to making it happen.

So with that, I’d be glad to try to respond to questions. Yes.

QUESTION: I’m Sue Pleming from Reuters. How big a role is agriculture going to play in the reintegration plan and what – seeing as agriculture is the key, sort of industry, for most Afghans? And what sort of money are you setting aside from that? And just if I might ask, is there any movement on the trade transit agreement with Pakistan, because that’s key in terms of opening up markets with India?

SECRETARY VILSACK: I’ll let the Ambassador respond to the trade issue because he’s probably got more up-to-date information on that than I do.

I think it’s fair to say, when 80 percent of the Afghan livelihood and income is connected in some form to agriculture, that the key strategy to getting stability within the economy is a strong and strengthened agriculture. That involves farmers being encouraged to produce the right kind of crops and a diversification of those crops, not just focusing on staple crops but also cash crops.

And we showed a chart which was I think very instructive. As you know, the value of some of those additional cash crops can be substantially higher than poppy and opium production. And so that’s the first step.

The second step – and in doing that, you have to recognize the challenges that these farmers face, whether it’s irrigation or storage facilities and things of that nature, which is why we have people on the ground trying to respond to those individual challenges.

It’s also important to set up the supply chain, which is why reinvigorating agribusiness becomes so important. There has to be a market. And that market has to be facilitated, whether it’s domestic or foreign. And I think it’s important and necessary for Minister Rahimi in particular to focus on those two issues and then be able to go out into the countryside and show examples of where this has worked. This is a big country, pockets of farmers in a variety of different locations. It’s not necessarily true that they understand or appreciate that the juice factory’s been set up and that there are markets for thousands of farmers. They may not know about the progress that’s been made in Helmand province in terms of cash and staple crops. And so it’s important for us to get people in the ministry that will free up the ministry to be able to go out talk about progress and --

QUESTION: But how many agriculture jobs do you think you might be able to create to help with the reintegration?

SECRETARY VILSACK: Well, it’s – if you look at the juice factory that’s an example. You’ve got 300 jobs now and they’re just getting started. If they can tap that hundred million dollar market of individual juice containers for Afghans, I mean, the sky’s the limit. I mean, when you talk about storage facilities, processing facilities, warehousing facilities, the sky’s the limit. And then when you open up trade opportunities, then there is the whole series of transportation jobs, marketing jobs, regulatory structures. I mean, it’s virtually unlimited, which is why it’s important.

AMBASSADOR HOLBROOKE: We have – your question’s very important. The reintegration program is separate.

QUESTION: Mm-hmm.

AMBASSADOR HOLBROOKE: But in my view, this program is a reintegration program, but we’re not going to call it that. This is a rebuilding agriculture program. But if it works, we will help the Afghans create a very large number of jobs.

We had a rough estimate last year that there was a potential to create a million jobs, but it’s so rough that it would be misleading to turn that into a hard headline. But if the agricultural export markets open up, if it creates all the secondary jobs on markets and road building and so on, as the Secretary said, the sky seems to be the limit. Of all the programs the United States is supporting in Afghanistan in the year since this Administration took over, this has been the most popular, and it has the highest and quickest impact. And it is also the one most enthusiastically supported by General McChrystal and his people who are spending an enormous amount of additional money through CERP to support agriculture.

In fact, there was even a creative tension here about whether you want the CERP money to immediately give out seed or whether you want to distribute seed through the existing system. It’s been – Joe Klein wrote a cover story for Time magazine which discussed that issue and – back about 10 months ago, and the issue he identified is there. So – plus the Indians have a large agricultural program, the Japanese are upgrading, the EU is upgrading. This is a big push. And I’m very glad you asked the question because people rarely make the connection, but of course there’s a connection. It is classic counterinsurgency. It’s a good in its own right. It’s going to help deny the Taliban a pool of alienated, unemployed youths who go out and get paid to shoot. If there’s a family plot, family pressures will be that they work on the farms, at least during the appropriate seasons. So it’s enormously important.

On trade transit, the negotiations are continuing. There was another round recently. Secretary Clinton and I talked about this last night. It’s – we’re down to just one or two issues, but they’re very complicated. And they involve the equities and politics of both Afghanistan and Pakistan. And I’m not up to speed on the exact standing today, so I’d rather not get into the details. But we are continuing to work on this very actively, and it was a subject of discussion in London also.

QUESTION: Okay. Can I pick up on --

QUESTION: Is there another round planned, though? The last round you’re referring to was in Dubai, I think. Is this another round planned after that?

AMBASSADOR HOLBROOKE: Yes, but I don’t have the date yet.

QUESTION: Can I pick up on what Sue’s first --

QUESTION: As a follow-up to – as a follow-up to the previous answer, is there any pushback yet from the Taliban on these programs that you’re doing? Have you seen that yet, or how much do you expect to --

AMBASSADOR HOLBROOKE: They are preemptively attacking the reintegration program. They started before London. I think they’re clearly rattled by it. It poses a direct threat to them and they know it, and that, I think, you can see if you read the reports. On agriculture, I don’t think they’ve attacked agriculture directly because that would be – that would not be a very popular move, but I may be wrong on that.

SECRETARY VILSACK: Well, I was just going to add that there was an interesting conversation we had with some of the local officials in Nawa. The difference in – between Marine presence and Taliban presence in that area – the local leaders suggested that when the Taliban had control, there was forced labor. They would extract youngsters and make them work. When the Marines came in, the Marines were not interested in forcing anything. They were interested in assisting and helping. And in fact, that’s precisely what they’re doing.

In addition to the USDA presence in agriculture, we also have these enormously important and popular agriculture development teams within our National Guard units that are working extremely hard to provide assistance and help. So I think we’re putting a different face on this. And I think with the response to the challenges and the incentives that are inherent in the poppy production, I think the Afghans are finally seeing that there is a strategy that gets them to producing legitimate crops and crops that can actually be far more profitable for Afghans than poppy production. So I think this is going to be a very – a successful first step.

QUESTION: On the link between – that Sue mentioned or – and that Ambassador Holbrooke did as well – between the reintegration program and the importance of agriculture there, I mean, where do you expect most of the success to come from? Do you expect it to be drying up of this pool that you mentioned, or is it – are you hoping that hard-core Taliban now will, you know, be beating their IEDs and AKs into plowshares? Where does it come from?

SECRETARY VILSACK: Well –

QUESTION: Is it the disaffected youth who are just – who are not going to join in the first place because they’re going to – they might have a job? Or is it the existing bad guys who are (inaudible)?

SECRETARY VILSACK: Well, our effort is trying to speak to the people in the middle of all of this, whose only thought is, “How do I take care of my family? How do I take care of myself?” And the Taliban, as long as there is opium production, have a hook on those folks. They have the ability to control their livelihood. Given a choice, they don’t want that choice. They would prefer another alternative. They would prefer to be able to produce wheat or pomegranates or apples or almonds or whatever. We have to give them that choice and we have to give it to them in a way that makes economic sense.

This is an economic issue. These people are making a very rational decision. And when we come with a credit system, when we come with a supply chain and reinvigorated agribusiness, and we come with incentives to encourage them to plant different crops and we provide assistance to make those crops more productive, all of a sudden, they see the potential to make far more money. And they’re more inclined to make that choice and reject the Taliban, so the Taliban have no place to go.

QUESTION: So you’re not hoping, then, that this going to convert hard-core fighters? It’s more the --

AMBASSADOR HOLBROOKE: The goal is not to convert hard-core leadership, but it --

QUESTION: Can you go up to the podium?

AMBASSADOR HOLBROOKE: I’m sorry. The – this is such an important issue and I’m really glad you raised it. Helping in agriculture is a good in itself, but it’s also a core part of a coherent counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan. And I’m sorry Stan McChrystal isn’t here to join us at the podium, but I can assure you that if he were in this country, he would want to be here, because he believes this as deeply as anyone, and I know you talked to the ISAF command about this.

This – if this program succeeds – and it is right now our most successful civilian program already, and it just started – this is going to really hurt the Taliban, no question about it. But unlike, say, reintegration, which they can attack, it’s harder to attack this one because the country is an agricultural country. And how do you attack programs which give people seed and fertilizer and market access?

And so this is why we are back at the podium for the second time in a month and why I hope Secretary Vilsack will be able to continue bringing public attention to this. And this is why we’re trying to stand up the ag credit bank, which the Secretary can explain better than I is indispensible. Is this going to take the leaders of the supreme shura and bring them around? Of course not. It’s going to isolate them more. It will – in the classic parlance, it will dry up the swamp.

SECRETARY VILSACK: To put a phrase on it, from my discussions with regular Afghans, I think they would much rather be farmers than fighters.

MR. CROWLEY: We have time for just about one more. The Secretary’s got to go to the White House.

QUESTION: Okay. Do you have full confidence in national government to deliver the key help and resources and everything that you give them to give the Afghan farmers? Or you rather just deal with the farmers through the councils directly with them? Because this is a huge issue for the farmers themselves.

SECRETARY VILSACK: I don’t think it’s an either/or. I think you have to have both. I think you have to have a functioning ministry and a national government that’s committed to this, and I got the sense that from my discussions with President Karzai, Minister Rahimi, and other ministers that there is indeed a recognition of the importance of the framework, a commitment to the framework, and a willingness to work within the framework.

I think Minister Rahimi would – if he were here, would also recognize that it won’t work unless you’ve got folks on the ground working with the Afghan farmers on a daily basis, providing the technical assistance and help that they need to become more productive, to establish storage facilities, to deal with irrigation challenges, and to understand these new credit opportunities that we’re going to try to create. So it’s not an either/or situation. You have to have both, which I think the framework that the ministers put forward recognizes that. It is very comprehensive and it’s very well thought out.

Now what he needs is the capacity in the ministry that will allow him to go outside, visit with Afghan farmers on the ground, and basically say this is what we’re doing for you, this is where it’s been successful, this is what it could do for you if you have not yet implemented this, this is what we’re working on.

The politics of agriculture, I think, are extremely important here. And he just hasn’t, flat out, had the time to commit to the politics of it. And our hope is that by the support and assistance that we’re providing, that he will feel more comfortable to do that.

MR. CROWLEY: Courtney. Last one, very quick.

QUESTION: For Secretary Vilsack, do you have a monetary value of how much the U.S. is putting into these incentives for Afghan farmers?

And then if I could just ask Ambassador Holbrooke also to just give a little bit more clarity on your comments about the Taliban preemptively attacking reintegration. Can you give us some specific examples of those attacks you’re referring to?

SECRETARY VILSACK: Yeah. I’d love to be able to give you specific dollar-and-cents amounts, but there are various pockets of money and it’s pretty hard to sort of – I know that our piece of it is a relatively small piece in terms of the hundreds of millions of dollars that are dedicated to this. But I would say it’s clearly hundreds of millions of dollars, not necessarily in incentives, but in the entire effort to sort of parallel the Afghan framework, whether it’s providing technical assistance, whether it’s providing resources, whether it’s supplies – things of that nature.

AMBASSADOR HOLBROOKE: In the interest of time, let me just – we’ll give you some of the things they’ve been saying publicly later, okay?

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR. CROWLEY: Thank you very much.

Deputy Secretary Steinberg's Travel to the Caucasus and Munich

Office of the Spokesman

Washington, DC

February 2, 2010

Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg will travel to the Caucasus on February 4^th and 5^th. He will meet in Yerevan, Armenia with President Serzh Sargsian and Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian to discuss bilateral and regional issues. He will proceed to Tbilisi, Georgia where he will meet with President Mikheil Saakashvili and representatives of Georgia’s opposition.

Deputy Secretary Steinberg will travel to Munich, Germany on February 5^th to attend the Munich Security Conference. In Munich, he will meet with Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev and Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu as well as other leaders attending the conference.

Election of Dr. Bingu Wa Mutharika, President of Malawi, as Chairperson of the AU

Philip J. Crowley
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Public Affairs

Washington, DC

February 2, 2010

The United States congratulates Dr. Bingu Wa Mutharika, President of Malawi, on his election by the African Union General Assembly to serve as Chairperson of the African Union (AU) and looks forward to continuing our partnership with the AU to promote peace, prosperity, and security for all Africans. We share Chairperson Mutharika’s goals of ending child hunger and malnutrition and welcome his interest in promoting the critical goal of agricultural development and food security on the continent. The U.S. stands ready to partner with the AU on promoting democracy and good governance and to ensure free, fair, and transparent elections on the continent in the coming year. We also welcome Chairperson Mutharika’s pledge to isolate those in Africa who seek power through unconstitutional means.

The United States will continue to work with the African Union to confront ongoing stability challenges in Guinea, Niger, and Madagascar and to further peace and reconciliation in Somalia, Darfur, Zimbabwe and the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo. We also hope to work closely with our African partners to confront the scourge of sexual and gender-based violence on the continent and ensure the full participation of Africa’s women in its socio-economic development.

We commend the AU for its efforts to work on these issues and pledge our continued assistance on these and other matters.

Victoria Nuland Named Special Envoy for Conventional Armed Forces in Europe

Gordon Duguid
Acting Deputy Department Spokesman

Washington, DC

February 2, 2010

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is pleased to announce the appointment of Ambassador Victoria Nuland as Special Envoy for Conventional Armed Forces in Europe.

Ambassador Nuland and her staff will work under the daily direction of Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Ellen Tauscher to develop ideas to modernize our current conventional arms control structures in Europe. She also will consult closely with our NATO Allies and our European partners in conventional arms control, including Russia.

Ambassador Nuland is a 26-year veteran of the Foreign Service with past postings as U.S. Ambassador to NATO and at the U.S. Embassy in Moscow.

Taken Question: Consular Access to American Citizens in Pakistan

Office of the Spokesman

Washington, DC

Question Taken at the February 2, 2009 Daily Press Briefing

February 2, 2010

Question: When was the last time the U.S. had consular access to the five American citizens in Pakistan? Did they complain of poor treatment/torture?

Answer: Consular officials visit the five detained U.S. citizens regularly and will continue to visit the defendants as appropriate. We cannot comment further because of privacy considerations.

We take seriously all reports of abuse and torture and raise such allegations with the Government of Pakistan.

USAID Administrator Raj Shah and State Department Counselor Cheryl Mills On the Way Forward in Haiti

Cheryl Mills
Counselor

Washington, DC

February 2, 2010

MR. CROWLEY: Good afternoon and welcome to the Department of State. It’s been a couple of weeks since two of our most senior officials working on Haiti policy have visited with you, so we thought we’d start up with kind of a Haiti update briefing with our chief of staff, Counselor Cheryl Mills, and the Administrator of USAID Raj Shah. And then we’ll pick up on other subjects after that.

Cheryl.

MS. MILLS: Thank you so much. Oh look, the waters are even labeled by our agencies. That’s nice.

Good afternoon. I just wanted to start off by – first, by reiterating what I know many of you all know and have been doing a great job of actually bringing to the fore, and that is the United States commitment to the work that’s being done in Haiti not only to the Haitian people and the work that the Haitian Government is doing, but also to the international community and the type of coordination that has been necessary for the large-scale effort that is ongoing in Haiti right now.

I think each day we are seeing improvements not only in the coordination but in the ability for the delivery of the different services and resources that are necessary given the magnitude of this particular tragedy. And so we are hopeful that we continue to see the progress that we’ve been seeing in that regard.

We’ve been working very closely with the Haitian Government. We have continued daily meetings not only with the prime minister but also meetings that have been happening with President Preval to sort through their priorities, listen to them as they are thinking through their forward planning as they look ahead to the next steps. We spent time at a conference in Montreal, actually, last week, where Prime Minister Bellerive spoke a lot about the vision for Haiti and in particular about the need to do decentralization in Haiti and to see Haiti grow outward from Port-au-Prince as opposed to remaining concentrated there, and what that might mean in terms of their thinking for how they see the recovery and building of Haiti in the future.

At that conference there were many countries from around the world, all of whom were pledging to be committed to Haiti, not just today but tomorrow and the next day and the days ahead. Many of them have been long-term partners of Haiti on the ground, and so it was nice to be in a place where so many people who had a great familiarity of not only the Haitian country and culture and government, but also what have been the challenges and the opportunities that are in Haiti. And that’s what I think everybody is anticipating focusing on as we look ahead down the road.

We are anticipating that conference, which will be a donors conference to pledge what resources each country would be willing to put forward to support the building of Haiti, to occur in March. And we are also anticipating that at that time there will have been an assessment that’s been done by the UN that will allow us to make the kinds of judgments and the kinds of commitments that will build a better Haiti, or, as the Haitians have said and Prime Minister Bellerive, a new Haiti for the government and the citizens of that country.

We are very cognizant of the fact that Haiti alone, and certainly not the – with the United States or anyone else alone can actually accomplish the breadth and scope of the task that’s necessary for what needs to be done in Haiti. And so we are really looking forward to critical partnerships around the globe in support of the Government of Haiti and the people of Haiti as they go about defining what their future should look like.

So that’s just a little bit of a broad overview, but happy to answer questions and I’m going to turn it to my colleague who is going to speak in specifics about some of the things ongoing now. Raj.

ADMINISTRATOR SHAH: Thank you. So I’ll just share a few broad thoughts and then provide a sector-by-sector update on where we are with the current unified relief effort.

First, as Cheryl points out, rebuilding Haiti, first and foremost, is a partnership with the Haitian Government and we are fortunate to be working with the Haitian Government across the range of sectors that I’ll describe. In most cases, it is the Government of Haiti, through coordinating systems on the ground, that is providing the specific strategic leadership about what gets done in what neighborhoods and at what pace. And that has been very important to guide the efforts of our collective response efforts but also efforts of other donors and other partners.

Second, the recovery effort – this is now shifting as we’re ramping up the relief effort and we’re trying, in a very focused way, to do things that are sustainable, that are appropriate, and that can contribute to a strong Haitian recovery in terms of the economic recovery and in terms of the recovery of the capacity of public services to sustain services provided to the Haitian population. So when we were talking earlier, our priority and our focus was around saving lives through search-and-rescue, and it has obviously evolved.

Third, every day we are very focused on doing better than we did the day before. And that continual metric we track in quantitative terms, sector by sector.

And finally, I’ll just remind folks – and I enjoy sharing this because it’s an important point – that it is the resilience of the Haitian people that is the primary vehicle through which most relief is provided, and I was reminded of that when I visited and walked through a settlement near the presidential palace. And you walk through that environment, and we would – we pulled up a blanket and saw a 12-volt battery connected to an inverter connected to a power strip charging probably 20 mobile phones. And people are, in fact, using those types of systems to stay connected to get information and to make effective decisions about where to go for food and supplies and for shelter and other forms of support.

In the food sector, we’ve now provided food and two-week rations to more than 800,000 Haitians. The rate of daily service has more than tripled from an initial rate of around 45,000 served a day to now more than 120,000 today. The reason for that significant improvement has been putting in place a fixed distribution system at 16 sites throughout Port-au-Prince. And the U.S. military, together with the World Food Program, the Government of Haiti, and a number of NGO partners, has come together to make that system an effective one.

Our reports from distributions that are done by providing coupons to women who then can come and receive rice, and soon will be able to receive other commodities and even non-food items through the system, has been distributions have been orderly, distributions have been calm, that there has been a sense of hopefulness around them, and that in addition to those fixed-point distributions, we’re all – we’ve also served more than 250,000 people outside of Port-au-Prince in neighboring cities. So that’s an important step forward for the overall relief effort. And we will continue to work towards the target of reaching 2 million people served.

In shelter, our target remains between 240- and 300,000 households and providing them with services and the capacity to provide shelter for themselves, and shelter that would be protective in an event of rains. We believe, through the combined efforts of a number of NGO partners, UN partners, and the Government of Haiti, that we’ve reached approximately 70,000 of those households, especially with plastic sheeting and shelter kits and some training to help support their efforts to build and to maintain a shelter for themselves.

The rate in terms of the rate of the number of the people we’re reaching in that sector has increased significantly in the last 10 days, and we continue to track that, and believe we now have enough materials, plastic sheeting, shelter kits, and NGO capacity to serve up to 260,000 households. So we believe that system is on track.

There are challenges that, of course, remain. Sanitation is one of them, and exploring how we support efforts to remove rubble in a way that allows for effective placement of these shelters and of families is another challenge that we’re working through under the leadership of the Government of Haiti.

In health, we’ve had similar progress. We have worked with the Pan American Health Organization, CDC, and the Government of Haiti through its 43 hospitals to help put in place a disease surveillance system that has now 51 surveillance sites. We will soon be starting vaccination campaigns for DPT, for measles, mumps and rubella, and tetanus toxoid. They’ll be targeted, of course, to different subgroups of the population.

In addition to that, we continue with the trauma service and medical service that’s been provided by the Disaster Medical Assistance Teams and by the USNS Comfort that has been in the theater. We estimate U.S. medical professionals have now seen more – or nearly 25,000 patients; that’s a tremendous achievement. Of course, the needs with such a tragic situation are far in excess of that, but it is an important point. And we are now working collectively with our NGO partners and, in particular, partners of our PEPFAR program and with the CDC to really help transition some of these medical assets that were brought down by the Disaster Medical Teams to NGO partners who can help sustain their ability to serve Haitians, and also make sure those assets get integrated into a sustained and more effective healthcare system for Haiti.

The other focus in the health sector for us will continue to be on post-trauma and post-operative care. And we’re increasing capacity in Haiti primarily by identifying and expanding the capacities at 31 sites that we believe have the capacity to provide post-operative and orthopedic services.

In water, water has remained, I think, a success story; that we have had approximately 2 million liters delivered daily to nearly 160 sites. That has continued to increase steadily week by week, and we have not seen shortages of water in pockets or with settlements.

I mentioned previously sanitation is more of a challenge, and so we’re making that an increasing priority, and also expanding distribution of chlorine tablets at water distribution sites to prevent disease spread.

Other parts of the relief effort include a jobs program. We now are providing, through the Government of Haiti and in partnership with the Government of Haiti, nearly 5,600 daily jobs. Many of these jobs are around clearing rubble, and clearing rubble in strategic areas per a plan developed through the Government of Haiti. That will be very important, of course, for both creating space to build latrines and also creating sites where people can settle in a more effective and sustainable way, and that’s an important part of our solution. And over time, more of these jobs will also migrate to those areas where people who have left Port-au-Prince and gone to secondary cities will be, so that there are expanded employment opportunities, and over a longer term, of course, transitioning that to private sector employment opportunities will be an increasingly important priority.

So as you can see, sector by sector, we’re trying to make sure we just continue to solve problems and do better every day, do that in partnership with the Government of Haiti, and do that in a way that helps create the basis for sustained and sustainable activity so that the Haitian people have access to services that they need at this – in what continues to be, of course, a tragic emergency response situation.

So, thank you. I’m happy to take questions along with Cheryl.

QUESTION: Can you give us an update, if there is one, on these 10 Americans who are being held or arrested?

MS. MILLS: I don’t think we have any further update. They are obviously continuing to be held and we do know that the court or the judge today is supposed to be looking at their case and making some assessments. We don’t know if that’ll actually be done today or in the next day or two.

QUESTION: Do you know, has there been any contact between the government – between the two governments on this case?

MS. MILLS: I’m not aware of any, but I am certainly aware of the fact that we have reached out to make sure that we had consular affairs services and access to the individuals, so I don’t know if that constitutes that kind of contact.

QUESTION: No, no, no. I mean between the Haitian Government – between the Haitian Government and – not between the detainees, the --

MS. MILLS: Sure, but we also reach out to the government to be able to have access to the detainees, so just to be --

QUESTION: Right, but I --

MS. MILLS: Sorry, lawyer.

QUESTION: Not in terms of --

MS. MILLS: Always worried about the right – saying the right thing there for you.

QUESTION: I’m talking about in terms of their --

MS. MILLS: But we haven’t had any broader conversations about their prosecution or their case or something like that.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: But in a more general way, Ms. Mills, what does it say to you about the American response and how people are reacting here that this group of Americans did feel compelled to do what apparently they did do?

MS. MILLS: Well, two things. I can’t speak to, obviously, these individuals’ motivations. I can speak to the fact that I think – look, one of the most human instincts out there is to make sure that in any particular instance, we are being thoughtful for how we treat young people and children.

I think that’s one of the reasons why this Department took such a firm stance that we were only going to be paroling in individuals who already were in process for an adoption, and making sure that they already had been adjudicated to be orphans, because in any other instance, you truly don’t know whether or not you were separating a family or not. And I think one of the things that is uniquely important in these kinds of situations, given the vulnerability of children, is that we actually are all, as an international community, focused on that particular goal.

I appreciate that obviously, in this instance, individuals were making their own assessments about how they best could participate in that, but I think the real bottom line has to always be that we are ultimately seeking to maintain families, and children with their families when there are families who are present, and separating them does not ultimately serve the larger objectives that we have, which is ensuring that in the end, orphans who are genuinely orphaned, that are in a process and have been adjudicated to be, end up with families who are seeking them.

QUESTION: Can you spell out just for the record what the process typically is for someone who wanted to adopt a child from Haiti?

MS. MILLS: Sure.

QUESTION: Especially because it’s my understanding that this particular church group wasn’t listed as an official adoption agency with the State Department. What should people be doing?

MS. MILLS: Two things. One, just if you want the actual specific step by step, we’ve put that on our website, www.state.gov, so that you can also have that for your own reference. But as a general matter, the process actually begins with two separate sides, right, the – someone in the United States gets reviewed and determined to be actually eligible to adopt a child, and there’s typically a background process that one goes through. And to the extent there’s an international adoption, there’s a process that you also go through associated with the State Department and others.

Similarly, on the other side, what is happening is countries usually are making a determination that a child is indeed eligible to be adopted. In the particular instance of the protocols that we and Prime Minister Bellerive, on behalf of Haiti, agreed to – we actually agreed to make sure that given that there were children who had actually been adjudicated by a court in Haiti to be orphans, or had already been identified in the process as having been orphans, or children who properly should be united with their American families – anyone who didn’t meet that strict requirement, given the circumstances of the situation in Haiti today, probably were not children who should be removed at this time, but instead, best efforts should be made to unite them with their families.

Obviously, as this process goes on, there will be no doubt children who are legitimate orphans. The Government of Haiti will make that adjudication and assessment of them, and that is the time at which children would become available for adoption and then the normal processes that we have on this side would work.

QUESTION: Dr. Shah, you mentioned, if I got this correctly, with shelter that 70,000 of the households have been reached with plastic sheeting and so on. And you said we now have enough materials and NGO capacity in the country to serve 260,000; is that right? So what’s sort of the gap there between the 70,000 and the 260?

ADMINISTRATOR SHAH: Well, it’s just how many we reach a day. So every day, we’re reaching more and more households. I think 10 days ago, the total reached was under 10,000, and so you had a very quick ramp-up in the last 10 days. And that’s – we track the total number served and the rate at which we’re serving. So that’s basically it.

The other parts of that that make this challenging, of course, are finding sites that are appropriate for families to build these shelters. And often, that comes down to rubble, and rubble being removed. This is still – especially a lot of the homes that collapsed are in very dense, urban neighborhoods and there’s a lot of rubble, a lot of structures that need to be removed in order to create space. The jobs program is helping to do that, and the Government of Haiti is directing that effort around prioritizing where and how that rubble is removed. And people are even exploring, together with the Army Corps of Engineers, alternative uses for that rubble. Can it be recycled and reused in different contexts? It probably can. So those things are underway, but they do create a bottleneck on – the rate at which we can scale up shelter.

QUESTION: And I mean, there was – initially had been a request by the Government of Haiti for 200,000 tents. So this is not actually tents, right? It’s sort of --

ADMINISTRATOR SHAH: Some of these have been tents. The Government of Haiti has actually asked for both tents and plastic sheeting in its shelter strategy. They are deeply involved. My understanding is the senior government representatives are in the shelter cluster, which is the group of NGOs and UN partners and us and the government that meet every morning to identify priorities. And so this is being done at that direction.

For a variety of reasons, plastic sheeting can sometimes be more durable and more effective in terms of protecting families against rain. They can be easier to clean, which is very important from an infectious disease prevention perspective. And they can provide more room and more flexibility for families as they put these together. So there are a variety of reasons why different strategies are different – are appropriate in different contexts.

QUESTION: Do you have a better handle on the demographics of this disaster? We get various numbers going around, but do we know it’s going to be two million people needing full food aid for a year? Do you have a better handle on that now?

ADMINISTRATOR SHAH: Well, the original estimates, you recall, were as high as four million. We were doing a lot of planning around four million. I think that number has probably come down to around two million, which continues to be the planning metric that we use in defining, for instance, how much food assistance we should be providing, how we’re working with the World Food Program to size the response over the course of the next year.

That said, that’s a very rough and inaccurate overall estimate. And the reality is on the ground every morning, these teams are getting together and saying, “How many people did we reach yesterday? How can we do that better? What are the areas of need?” And through NGO networks and through the Government of Haiti, we’re able to reach more and more people in different parts of the country, and even in parts outside of Port-au-Prince. So people have been migrating outside of Port-au-Prince to secondary cities. They’re receiving a greater degree of support as well. So it’s probably less accurate to say there’s one fixed number that works for – across every sector.

QUESTION: I have a question about the whole decentralization issue. And I understand there’s a bit of a difference of opinion on the ground in Haiti about the wisdom of moving people out of the city into tent – sort of tent cities, as it were, or letting them build their tents and their temporary accommodation right where they are. Where does the U.S. stand on this? And what – if we are assisting in moves to establish temporary tent cities, what’s to prevent those from becoming permanent and sort of township-style developments outside of town?

ADMINISTRATOR SHAH: First, let me clarify the point. I think there’s a distinction between decentralization, which has been a concept that the president and the prime minister and other senior leaders in Haiti have promoted publicly and privately in a variety of different contexts, including supporting transport for more than 200,000 people from Port-au-Prince to other cities throughout the country. That’s a very different construct and a concept than the question of how you deal with settlements in and around Port-au-Prince.

So we’re following the Government of Haiti’s lead on the decentralization point.

On settlements in and around Port-au-Prince, we’re also following the government’s lead, which has been to support – there are somewhere between 600 and 700 identified settlements. Some are larger, some are smaller. And in all cases the priority is what’s the best shelter strategy in that environment, how do you address sanitation, water, and food distribution needs in that environment, and how do you protect against potential public health risks? And those are all things we’re working on with the Government of Haiti on a case-by-case basis as they go through that. There’s a shelter cluster that addresses these things and actually has just grown to include 20 experts from around the world that have gone down to help the Government of Haiti make – implement the strategic decisions that they are laying out. I don’t know if, Cheryl, you want to add to that.

MS. MILLS: No, I agree, the clarification that Administrator Shah just laid out is an important one. There were discussions around decentralization at the conference in Montreal, but with respect to thinking about how, in the future, their urban areas are growing or not growing and where they are going in terms of their long-term planning, not with respect to the tent issue.

QUESTION: Okay. But just for my information, would those – these tent cities that are being established or may be established outside of town, are those going – are they temporary? Is the idea that the people who are there would eventually migrate back to their old neighborhoods? Or what’s the sort of medium-term thinking?

ADMINISTRATOR SHAH: Well, they’re working through that. I wouldn’t use the term “tent cities” as a long-term part of the strategy that – as we’ve sort of heard it from the Government of Haiti. It’s been much more around dealing with temporary shelter needs for a population that’s displaced, making sure they’re protected against health, have access to water and food. And then the Government of Haiti is thinking through and leading the process of identifying where and how would you build back communities and housing that meets certain code for anti-seismic construction. There are a whole range of things they are then thinking about that are on a slightly longer-term horizon. So I wouldn’t use the phrase “long-term tent cities.” I don’t think that’s part of the strategic concept.

MS. MILLS: Yes.

QUESTION: I had a couple questions. The first one would be about the capacity of the Haitian Government right now. Understandably, in the days after the quake, they were scattered and they weren’t able to stand up for themselves. Is there an assessment on the U.S. Government’s part of the percentage of the government that’s able to function now? Are there certain sectors of the government that are able to function? Is, for example, customs not functioning? Can you give us a kind of a sense of that?

MS. MILLS: See, we don’t have a formal assessment, if you will, but I think we are increasingly seeing more and more of the government functioning. In the beginning, obviously, we were functioning primarily with the president and the prime minister. Increasingly, their ministers are now actually taking leadership responsibilities. And Administrator Shah can speak to that in terms of the planning efforts that are underway in the various clusters and sectors. So they are, every day, having more and more of their ministers assuming more and more responsibilities associated with not only the relief but also anticipating the recovery. I don’t know if you want to --

ADMINISTRATOR SHAH: Yeah. I would just add, we’ve all seen the photographs of ministries that were destroyed in the earthquake and the capacity that was lost. I mean, people lost family members, and the tragedy they’ve been through is tremendous. So the fact that civil servants and political leadership, ministers, the president and prime minister are so actively involved now in guiding strategic decisions sector by sector is a pretty strong testament to their commitment and their leadership. And I think whether it’s identifying the rubble removal priorities, directing the jobs programs implementation, or any number of other things, we are doing this in active and direct response to guidance from planners and ministers in the Government of Haiti now.

QUESTION: And can I have – my second question, real quick, was just looking forward. When it comes to the local economy and rebuilding that, I was curious if there is a plan or an idea about providing loans for local businesses, loan guarantees for banks to get that rolling again and boost employment – local employment there.

MS. MILLS: I mean, I think all of those, obviously, are going to be things that are going to be examined very closely because you ultimately want to build an economy that can actually be sustainable, and we want to create the best opportunity to do that in an effective fashion. That is certainly something that had already been anticipated prior to the earthquake, and there had been a number of investors who had traveled down to a large-scale conference and thinking about how they could invest and how the local businesses actually could be a larger part of the investment to kind of spur economic growth. That has to clearly be a central element of the planning that gets done over the long haul. It’s something certainly President Preval has been very focused on. And I anticipate as they come forward with what their plan for long-term development is, that that will be a central part of it.

QUESTION: Can I ask about the – more about the jobs program? Dr. Shah, you mentioned that 5,600 through U.S. participation were working right now. You didn’t mention a goal. Is that something that’s going to grow a lot more? I know a lot of UNDP is involved, other private organizations, but I’m wondering about the U.S. program working with the government. And also if there’s some plan or hope that this – expanding these programs kind of gets the private sector going instead of food aid, but getting people cash so they can go to the private markets that are up and running.

ADMINISTRATOR SHAH: Well, you’re absolutely right, and let me start with the private markets piece because I would just reiterate that in every sector, the single most important relief strategy has been the private market. Food markets have been operating throughout, are now very robust. We’re seeing people buying a range of food items and cooking and charcoal is moving in markets. So that’s just in food that – it’s absolutely true in water. And water, we supported – we now have a convoy of 200 trucks that go back and forth between Santo Domingo and Port-au-Prince. But a lot of what they bring is then distributed through private markets and through NGOs. But private markets have been a huge part of the successful effort to get water to where water is needed, because there have been local water companies that do that and had the capacity to do that very quickly after the disaster.

In that same vein, in every area that we work in, we are, together with the government, planning what is the right strategy to make sure that we’re providing food to those populations in need, but doing that in a way that is cognizant of the government’s own aspirations to have a strong and vibrant agriculture sector. And there’s been an active discussion about that and people are tracking market prices to understand the impacts of the relief effort on private markets. So I think that’s a very important point. I’m glad you raised it.

On the jobs program, that is, again, directed by the government and in concert with UNDP, which is also – and I think you made reference to – also launching various programs. The way these programs work, of course, at the government’s direction is they – it’s local mayors or local political leaders identify priorities in their areas. They work through their own mechanisms or with partner NGOs to identify what needs to get done, and on a day-to-day basis they go out and hire people, pay a minimum wage, and then provide that employment opportunity and also get important public works done. I think as that – that is also a part of a transition strategy, of course, to a private sector based employment strategy, but I think that will take some time.

QUESTION: So just the 5,600, is there some goal for –

ADMINISTRATOR SHAH: Well, we’re trying – our goal is more every day under the direction and capacity of the government. That’s true across every sector. And so just a few days ago, that number was 2,800 and it’s now 5,600. We anticipate it will grow significantly through February.

QUESTION: Can you update us on how many Haitian orphans are still waiting to come back to the U.S., how many are in the pipeline? And then can you address these 10 Americans or missionaries, whatever they were – is there any concern that this has put a long-term damper on the relationship between the U.S. and Haiti with adoptions? Will this have a long-term effect?

MS. MILLS: So there’s about 575 children who have already been processed through. I don’t have a good number, but I can actually have P.J. get back to you with what at least we would anticipate. I would imagine that there’s still at least another hundred children that would actually be – assuming that they get their paperwork in order – would be in the pipeline. But there might be more than that, and we certainly can get back to you on that.

In terms of concern, actually, no, and I’ll tell you why. We’ve had very good relations with the leadership of the Haitian Government and, in particular, had sat down and talked through the careful parameters we were placing on those children that we would allow to have humanitarian parole into the United States. And I think that gave them a lot of confidence that we were taking very seriously the need to ensure that only children who were already in process were actually going to be paroled out of the country and that we were not seeking to have any other children paroled out of the country at this time, that this is really the time for UNICEF and a lot of the other NGOs who are working on the ground there to actually ensure that they were placing children with families or identifying families that might be more extended families in the instance where children had been separated from more immediate families. And so that process has continued apace and I actually feel very good about the careful parameters that we’ve placed on the orphans that we would parole in.

QUESTION: And based on what you know now – it’s been several days since these Americans were detained – is there any better sense of whether there was malice in their actions?

MS. MILLS: I don’t have any information with respect to malice in their actions. I mean, I’m reading the same reports about why they say they did things that you are.

Yes.

QUESTION: Do you all have a date for the March conference?

MS. MILLS: We do not. I anticipate that we likely will have a date by the end of this week, though. We are having a series of conference calls with the other partners in the actual conference and so we should have a date.

QUESTION: And the venue is the UN?

MS. MILLS: The venue will be the UN, yes.

QUESTION: A question, please, to you both. It was a United Nations comment today about how the situation in Haiti was potentially a volatile security situation, particularly in the aftermath of an attack or attempt to take control of a food convoy. You spoke of how orderly things were. What’s the contrast here and how do you resolve that?

ADMINISTRATOR SHAH: Well, I think you have to recognize there are three or four different distribution systems for food. One is we consign food and commodities to NGOs that go out across the country and many have longstanding relationships and histories serving different parts of the population. The other is this fixed point distribution system that has been stood up over the last few days and has really significantly increased the capacity to meet population needs with two-week rations. And then there are a variety of other systems through other partners and through the private sector.

We are getting reports every day across all 16 fixed point distribution sites and across the full range of partners that we work with around safety and security, and we have not seen a consistent trend or disorder – there have been isolated incidents where order has been challenged in one form or another, but across the board, especially at these 16 sites where it’s women that are getting ration coupons and coming in and picking up food and then leaving, it’s been remarkably effective and it has been orderly.

We obviously continue to work on this and think about it. The Haitian National Police, MINUSTAH, and our Department of Defense are all working as a team to provide security to food convoys and at these sites, and that’s obviously very helpful.

But it’s been orderly. We had people that were just out at 12 of them today, and they were calling in and telling me about it, and it sounds like a big step forward. And I think it’s just a point to note about the Haitian population and their commitment and resolve and resilience in this.

QUESTION: Do you – we’ve seen some of the – say, the medical workers who were early to arrive. You know, a number of them are now leaving. Is there any concern that now that sort of the very initial phase is sort of ending, that folks are leaving before – while there’s still all this tremendous need on the ground?

ADMINISTRATOR SHAH: Well, I would say and I would encourage as a message that we are in an emergency relief situation and we will continue to be in an emergency relief situation for many weeks to come. I think the people who recognize this more than anybody are the people who’ve gone to Haiti and are doing this work. And when I was just there recently and had the chance to visit with – whether they were a Spanish medical team or medical teams from the U.S., I think they appreciate that.

That said, many of these teams go in and have a two-week window for their own sustainability and then cycle out and others come in and replace them. There’s also, every day that goes by, more Haitian capacity, medical providers that can step in and provide services in the hospitals they used to work at, et cetera. And so this is a normal transition, but we wouldn’t expect nor would it be appropriate for there to be a large-scale exit of, say, medical or health volunteers.

In fact, kind of the opposite is happening. We’re doing, I think, a better job of saying, okay, we need Creole-speaking nurses in these parts of the country for these functions, we need to target our assistance to prosthetics and post-operative care and post-trauma care, because the needs will evolve and change a little bit. And we need the system to evolve and change to meet those needs.

MR. CROWLEY: Thank you.

MS. MILLS: Thank you.

# # #

Special Press Briefing: U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack and Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard C. Holbrooke to Speak About Their Recent Trips to Afghanistan

Washington, DC

February 2, 2010

Special Press Briefing: U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack and Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard C. Holbrooke to Speak About Their Recent Trips to Afghanistan

Secretary Vilsack and Ambassador Holbrooke will brief the press on American efforts to support the agriculture sector in Afghanistan and on their respective trips to the country on Wednesday, February 3, 2010 at 9:45 a.m. in the Carl T. Rowan Press Briefing Room (Room 2209) of the Department of State.

President Obama has identified restoring Afghanistan’s once vibrant agriculture sector as the U.S. Government’s top non-security priority in the country. Agriculture is the main source of income and livelihood for a majority of the population, especially in rural areas. Eighty percent of Afghans are involved in farming, herding or both, and a strengthened agricultural sector can be an engine for economic growth and improved stability.

The State Department, the Department of Agriculture, and several other agencies are working in close coordination under the U.S. Government Agriculture Assistance Strategy for Afghanistan – the framework for advancing this effort.

This event is open to the press.

Press should use the 23rd Street entrance to the State Department and must be processed through security by 9:30 a.m.

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

PRESS CONTACTS:
Office of Press Relations
U.S. Department of State
(202) 647-2492

Observance of National Freedom Day

Washington, DC

February 1, 2010

This day marks the 145^th anniversary of President Lincoln’s sending to the States for ratification the 13^th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which promised freedom from slavery and involuntary servitude. In commemorating this day, it is a privilege to honor the sacrifices of those who lived and died in chattel slavery, those who fought to end it, and those who have worked in the decades since for a country free from involuntary servitude.

The United States recommits itself today to pursue a world without modern slavery by utilizing every means necessary to shine a brighter light on this heinous crime, thereby ensuring the protection of victims, the prevention of future occurrences, and the prosecution of traffickers.

With the culmination of National Slavery and Human Trafficking Prevention Month, the United States commits to building on global partnerships and to working across borders and barriers to realize the progress and potential of a slave-free world. The United States will work to ensure that every man, woman, and child, with no preference to national origin or standing in society, may pursue the greatest human right of all: freedom.

Russia: Detentions of Protesters in Russia

Gordon Duguid
Acting Deputy Department Spokesman

Washington, DC

February 1, 2010

The United States is concerned by reports that authorities in Moscow on January 31 once again broke up a peaceful demonstration by Russian citizens. The detention of at least 100 protestors, including prominent human rights defenders and opposition political leaders, together with reports of mistreatment against some of the demonstrators, constitutes another blow against freedom of speech and assembly, which are universal and fundamental rights that deserve to be protected and promoted.

###

President's Proposal for the FY 2011 State Department Budget

Jacob J. Lew
Deputy Secretary for Management and Resources 

Washington, DC

FY2011 Executive Budget Summary Slide (PDF)

February 1, 2010

MR. CROWLEY: Good afternoon and welcome to the Department of State. This morning, the President has sent the 2011 budget to the Hill, which provides significant funding for a balanced national security strategy and provides resources so that together the Department of State, the Department of Defense, Department Homeland Security, USAID, and other agencies can serve and protect the national interests of the United States around the world.

To start off, we’ll have Deputy Secretary of State Jack Lew go through the high points of the budget and answer any questions you might have, and then we’ll be available afterwards to answer any additional questions you’ve got.

DEPUTY SECRETARY LEW: Thank you, P.J. Let me get myself organized here. Good afternoon and I’m pleased to be here with you today to present the budgets of the Department of State and USAID. The Department of State and USAID budgets are critical to securing U.S. national security interests around the world. As the President’s budget describes, they’re part of our national security budget along with the Departments of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security.

We appreciate the confidence and support that the President has shown in his budget and what this budget represents. The Obama Administration is committed to advancing our national interest using all of the tools of the American power – civilian as well as military. Our diplomatic and development tools enhance American leadership. They strengthen our alliances, and build new partnerships to confront pressing global challenges.

We’re projecting leadership through our diplomatic presence and our personnel as we engage with our allies, emerging powers, and crisis in conflict areas and with multilateral organizations. Development assistance, as Secretary Clinton recently pointed out, is a strategic, economic and moral imperative, as central to advancing American interests and solving global problems as diplomacy and defense. This assistance helps take insurgents off the battlefield in Afghanistan, helps confront the conditions that give rise to violent extremism, and helps build more stable and prosperous partners to advance our common security and economic interests.

The FY 2011 State and USAID budget totals $52.8 billion. This is a $4.9 billion increase above 2010 levels. Of the $4.9 billion increase, $3.6 billion is for programs in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq. War-related spending represents a 7.5 percent increase in overall spending, and funding that is not war-related grows by $1.3 billion, which is 2.7 percent above 2010 total spending.

We’re also submitting a FY 2010 supplemental request that includes $4.5 billion to support civilian efforts in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq. And the balance of the supplemental request will support U.S. military forces.

I’d like to spend a few minutes walking through the major elements of our budget submission, and after would be happy to respond to any questions that you have. Over my shoulder, you see some graphics which I think you have in front of you as well. And I’ll follow the structure of that graphic in walking through the highlights of the State and USAID budgets.

Securing frontline states, which – let me make sure I get the color right – is blue on the chart that’s behind me. This represents 20 percent of the State and USAID budget and it supports civilian contributions to the U.S. efforts in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq. The 2011 budget includes $10.7 billion to support the regional stabilization strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan and it also supports a civilian effort as we shift from military to civilian programs in Iraq. And as I mentioned, the supplemental for $4.5 billion for 2010 is also included. That, in particular, covers Afghanistan and Pakistan costs, but the transition costs that I’ve mentioned, which are very much timely expenditures.

Our Afghanistan strategy, as you know, is a fully coordinated civilian-military plan. Civilians are working side by side with the military in each of the districts that are targeted for action. Our goal is to build the capacity of Afghan institutions to diminish the threat posed by extremists, to draw insurgents off the battlefield, and provide meaningful alternatives. The combination of supplemental and FY 2011 funding would permit the program to be built up and maintained over the next 18 months. For Fiscal 2011, funding for Afghanistan is $5 billion.

Pakistan is another key country in the war against extremism. Our budget focuses on improving basic infrastructure which will enable civilian government to provide better services to the people of Pakistan. This is key to improving stability and will also provide the military the tools needed to wage an effective counterterrorist campaign. For Fiscal 2011, funding for Pakistan is $3.2 billion.

With a scheduled drawdown of U.S. military forces in Iraq, funding in our budget will ensure a smooth transition to civilian leadership of police training and the operational support for our civilian presence. As DOD begins to draw down, there will be savings in the Defense budget of roughly $15 billion. While the State expenditures are ramping up, we’re seeking an increase of $2 billion. This trend will be even more dramatic as the military drawdown continues and military spending continues to decline in Iraq.

For a successful transition, investments in civilian capacity must be in place prior to the military withdrawal. In the FY 2010 supplemental, funding for Iraq is necessary to assure that these time-sensitive investments proceed on schedule. The 2011 funding for Iraq is $2.5 billion. The programs in Iraq will include police training, rule-of-law programs, and a transition from the current military footprint to a more normal diplomatic and development presence.

There are presently 22 Provincial Reconstruction Teams that are housed on military bases. That will be reduced to 16 by August 2010 and down to five by October 2011. And at that point, the enduring diplomatic posts will not be connected to military bases. They’ll be freestanding diplomatic posts.

Overall, the State Department budget funds over two-thirds of the 3,000 civilian personnel in these three frontline states. These critical civilian deployments are essential to the success of our strategies and to the reduction of U.S. troop levels.

The second category is meeting global challenges. It’s the red part of the pie chart behind me. This is 28 percent of our budget and it supports our efforts to meet urgent global challenges such as natural and manmade disasters, poverty, disease, malnutrition, and threats of further instability from climate change and rapid population growth. In many cases, these efforts involve several agencies in a coordinated whole-of-government effort. These investments improve people’s lives and makes them less vulnerable to the ravages of poverty and the threat of instability that extreme poverty breeds. Improving the most basic human conditions not only reflects our values; it enhances our security. Left unmet, these conditions lead too often to conflict, instability, and failed states.

The Global Health Initiative builds on the great progress we have made treating HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis. We will invest $63 billion over six years to help partner countries achieve significant improvements in health outcomes, coordinating our disease treatment programs to help build stronger and more sustainable health systems, with a particular focus on improving the health of women, newborn, and children. The GHI request for 2011 is $8.5 billion, which includes funding for PEPFAR, the malaria program, tuberculosis, and other disease-specific programs.

The President’s commitment of at least $3.5 billion over three years to establish the Global Hunger and Food Security Initiative, which we’re calling Feeding the Future, attacks the root causes of hunger – poverty, malnutrition – by raising agricultural productivity and rural incomes and by improving household nutrition. Total funding of $1.8 billion includes $1.2 billion for State and USAID and an additional $400 million which is in the Treasury Department to support multilateral programs.

Within our Global Health Initiative, there’s also an additional $200 million which supports the nutrition programs that are an essential part of our Food Security Initiative, so we view these programs as being very much interconnected.

FY11 funding to address global climate change supports our Copenhagen commitment to provide $1 billion between 2010 and 2012 for forest-related climate programs and to advance a global effort to take meaningful action to fight climate change. Within the State and USAID budgets, we are requesting $646 million for adaptation, clean energy, and sustainable landscapes. For example, we will expand renewable energy programs in the Philippines, improve electric distribution systems in South Africa – Southern Africa, and support high-level bilateral climate change partnerships with major economies like China, India, and Indonesia.

Counting all U.S. Government agencies, total funding for climate change is $1.4 billion. We’re requesting $4.2 billion for humanitarian assistance programs. As we have seen so dramatically in the past three weeks, it is crucial that State and USAID maintain their leadership in this area. These programs provide assistance to internally displaced persons, refugees, and victims of armed conflict in natural disasters such as the devastation in Haiti.

The budget also includes $100 million of new funding for global engagement programs coming out of the President’s speech in Cairo last spring. These funds will help create economic opportunities with the Muslim world, foster partnerships in science and technology, and address challenges facing women and youth. This is on top of over $700 million we have invested in these areas as part of our regular programming.

Third area, strengthening security partnerships, which is the green section of the chart behind me, this is 28 percent of the budget and it includes funds to strengthen our security partnerships and meet critical challenges, which, in turn, help secure our own interests. These funds provide security assistance to our friends and allies in the Middle East, including Israel, Egypt, and Jordan, and supports security assistance and security sector programs in other parts of the world. Because we’ve broken out Afghanistan and Pakistan, the number I’m going to give you won’t tie to a number that is in your charts, but in addition to Afghanistan and Pakistan and Iraq, it’s $6.6 billion.

We maintain our commitment to pay UN peacekeeping mission assessments in full and on time, mitigating potential demands on U.S. forces to end conflicts, restore peace, and strengthen regional stability. This is $2.2 billion.

We continue to support the Government of Colombia in its battle against drug trafficking, violence, and instability which has a direct impact on regional stability and our own security. That’s $465 million.

We fund the critical Merida Initiative in Mexico to help the government there in its fight against drug cartels, which has a direct impact on the United States. The budget also includes funds to help our friends in Central America and the Caribbean fight drug trafficking and transnational crime. The funding for the Merida Initiative of Mexico is $410 million.

Finally, these funds provide economic and development assistance to help our partners around the world spur economic growth and provide basic services to their people and support civil society and other groups who deserve the opportunity to participate in the political process. This is a large category. It’s the section that most of you see as development and economic assistance, and it’s $5 billion, which includes $1.3 billion for economic and development assistance in the Near East, such as support for Yemen, support for the Palestinian Authority; $1.2 billion for assistance in Africa, such as in the Sudan, where funds support the implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement; $736 million for the Western Hemisphere, where U.S. assistance supports the Government of Colombia in strengthening the rule of law.

This budget also begins to rebalance civilian and military roles. As Secretary of Defense Gates has said, “One of the most important lessons from our experience in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, has been the decisive role reconstruction, development, and governance play in any meaningful long-term success.”

This budget rebuilds civilian capacity to fulfill these critical missions. For example, the budget includes $100 million for a complex crises fund that will enable the Secretary of State to meet key emergent crises and foster stability in countries that are coming out of crisis. This represents a decision to transition funding for this purpose from the Department of Defense’s 1207 program and to place the authority directly within State and USAID.

Similarly, our budget includes civilian funding for the Pakistan Counter Insurgency Capability Fund and for police training in Iraq, both programs which were previously funded in the Department of Defense.

The final category – investing in personnel and infrastructure – is the purple section of the chart behind me. This is 24 percent of the budget and it supports and rebuilds State and USAID personnel and infrastructure, which is critical to meeting our national security objectives through development and diplomacy.

The Department of State and USAID experts are the backbone of our overseas civilian capacity. We have a talented, well-trained, committed core of staff who are critical to engaging with our partners around the world to tackle diplomatic challenges and development challenges, often at significant personal sacrifice and risk. Our civilians help bring stability to volatile regions, reverse the spread of violent extremism, stabilize global economies, decrease extreme poverty, diminish transnational criminal networks, work towards President Obama’s long-term vision of a world without nuclear weapons, stop health pandemics, and address the threat of climate change.

These are serious challenges and our preventative efforts cost a fraction of what it costs to fund active military engagement if conditions deteriorate to the point that military action is needed.

Military missions are inherently temporary while State and USAID civilians engage with a lasting presence. We see this clearly in Iraq and Haiti, where military operations will end but the work of the State Department and USAID will continue on a long-term basis. The goal in Afghanistan is to manage a similar transition as security conditions permit, starting in July 2011.

At present, the lack of adequate State and USAID civilian capacity limits our options in responding to significant global challenges. The proposed budget will enhance the strategic choices available to address future challenges. For the Department of State, the increase of 410 Foreign Service personnel will help meet these needs, and if sustained at this rate will result in a 25 percent increase by 2014. For USAID, the increase of 200 Foreign Service officers will keep the agency on a path towards doubling the Foreign Service by 2012. While fiscal constraints require that these targets be extended, we remain on track to rebuild these core capabilities.

Just as a large portion of the DOD budget funds technology, healthcare, housing, and other support for the all-volunteer force, the State Department and USAID operations budget is necessary to lay a strong foundation to implement effective programs and conduct diplomacy with both national leaders and the public.

The State Department and USAID advance America’s interests and values around the world every day. As the Secretary has said, a robust, continuous global presence, especially in key countries, allows the United States to provide critical leadership, to strengthen our partnerships and forge new ones, and to advance stability, prosperity, and opportunity for more of the world’s people, and in doing so, to protect our own security, promote our interests, and lay the foundation for a more peaceful and prosperous future.

And with that, I’m happy to take your questions.

QUESTION: Can you explain – the figures put out by the White House this morning have a total budget authority of – for 2011 for State of 63.8 billion, which a 2.3 percent decrease from 2010. And your figure here is 52.8. What’s – what else is included in what the White House –

DEPUTY SECRETARY LEW: Well, without looking at the piece of paper that’s in front of you, it probably includes other agencies that are in Function 150, and it may have some adjustments from year-to-year funding because of the way supplemental funds are being accounted for. The numbers that I gave you are all the funds being requested for Fiscal 2011 in the State Department and USAID budgets.

QUESTION: Right. But this total – I mean, the total budget request for the whole Administration is $3.7 billion, correct? And that – I mean, for everything. And so I’m just trying to figure out, because if you use the numbers that you have here, it doesn’t add up – the entire – the whole Administration’s budget doesn’t add up correctly if you use –

DEPUTY SECRETARY LEW: Well, the numbers I’ve given you are the numbers that are in the Administration budget for State and USAID. So why don’t I – I mean, I’m happy to look at that afterwards. But it’s hard to react to a chart that I haven’t --

QUESTION: This is the same thing – this is the budget book has 56 point – it has 56.770 at the bottom line number. Is that because of the supplementals? Does this include supplementals –

DEPUTY SECRETARY LEW: I suspect that it –

QUESTION: -- and yours doesn’t?

DEPUTY SECRETARY LEW: I suspect that it’s because of one of two or maybe both things. One, is other foreign policy funding in other agencies, and secondly --

QUESTION: No, this is just State.

DEPUTY SECRETARY LEW: Just State. And --

QUESTION: This is just State and –

DEPUTY SECRETARY LEW: -- and secondly, the way it accounts for advance funding from prior years. I’m describing the new funding request in 2011.

QUESTION: Okay.

DEPUTY SECRETARY LEW: And I’m happy afterwards to go down and crosswalk numbers. I’m quite confident the numbers will tie. They’re just presented in a slightly different way.

QUESTION: Sticking with the request for FY2011– that is to say the numbers you’ve got on the chart – can you give us the comparisons for FY2010, ideally including your proposed supplemental request, so that we can see how much funding for Afghanistan is going up, how much funding for Pakistan is going up, how much funding for Iraq is going up or down?

DEPUTY SECRETARY LEW: Sure.

QUESTION: And other than those three, which you’ve broken out, two other countries I’d be particularly interested in the same comparators would be Yemen and Haiti.

DEPUTY SECRETARY LEW: Okay. I can either walk through those numbers now or get them back to your afterwards. I think rather than just read off the numbers to you, it might be easier – unless --

QUESTION: Can we get them?

QUESTION: Yeah.

DEPUTY SECRETARY LEW: So for Afghanistan, the – for Afghanistan the total funding in 2010 enacted was $2.6 billion, our supplemental request is $1.787 -- $1.8 billion. It’s a total of 4.4. And in the 2011 request, it’s 3.9. So what you can see is that with the buildup of our efforts in Afghanistan, we’re ramping up the civilian effort, we’re getting to a fully funded program level. You can see this in our buildup of civilians. You can see it in our buildup of programming. And it’s really an 18-month period that matches the President’s new strategy.

QUESTION: I’m sorry. I didn’t follow that because you said it was – it’s 5.0 for FY2011. You said 2010 enacted was 2.6 billion. And then you said the supplemental request will be 1.8.

STAFF: Right. The numbers that the Deputy Secretary just mentioned, the assistance –

DEPUTY SECRETARY LEW: The assistance, right, right.

STAFF: If you add in the operation’s piece, which is all the staffing and the other parts of the (inaudible) runs, the Afghan numbers are $3.3 billion in the regular appropriation, (inaudible) in the supplemental, and a $4.9 billion request in 2011 (inaudible), so that’s combined the assistance and the (inaudible) State operation.

QUESTION: So it would be – just so I’m clear, so enacted 2010 was 3.3?

STAFF: The assistance (inaudible) operation.

QUESTION: Got it. And then the 2.0 is the supplemental –

STAFF: For both, assistance and operations.

QUESTION: Got it. And so the increase – I mean, if one were going to do this, you would basically say that the increase of – that basically what you’re proposing is an increase from 3.3 to 5.0, plus there will be a 2.0 that you’re requesting in supplemental assistance for the remainder of FY2010, correct?

STAFF: Right.

QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.

DEPUTY SECRETARY LEW: And --

QUESTION: So (inaudible) on top of 4.9, right? Didn’t you just say 4.9 before, not 5.0 for 2011?

DEPUTY SECRETARY LEW: It rounds (inaudible).

QUESTION: So we should be saying that it’s 7 in total?

DEPUTY SECRETARY LEW: No. 4.9 or 5.0 is 2011 request.

QUESTION: Right.

DEPUTY SECRETARY LEW: The supplemental for Afghanistan is 2 --

QUESTION: Right.

DEPUTY SECRETARY LEW: -- and it sits on top of ’10 estimate of 3.3.

QUESTION: So in fact, it’s actually a reduction.

DEPUTY SECRETARY LEW: Well, yeah. I mean, I think that on both the program and the operations side, what we’re doing is we’re building up to the full program level. So I think that if you look at it as an 18-month period, it’s not going to be totally smooth. There are certain things that you --

QUESTION: Right. But it looks to be that in fiscal – in FY10, you’re going to have $5.3 billion and in FY11, you’re asking for 4.9, which is, in fact, a reduction?

QUESTION: Right.

DEPUTY SECRETARY LEW: Yeah. I mean, I’d be reluctant to look at the changes in these numbers and call them dramatic shifts, because we’re talking about a program where the timing of the expenditures from month to month doesn’t match the fiscal year perfectly. I mean, it – there’s surges that come at some – in the middle of the year. And we’re looking on the programmatic side – leave aside the operations for the moment. We’re looking at a programmatic side of building up to an assistance program that’s roughly $400 million a month. So it won’t be $400 million every month. There’ll be sometimes when transfers happen one month, but not the next month because of the way programs are funded. So I think one can get a little bit locked in looking at the month-to-month, or even the 12-month to 12-month, because the timing of the supps coming in the middle of the year has caused the program to really have an 18-month character.

QUESTION: Can you give us the same sets of numbers for Pakistan and Iraq, please?

DEPUTY SECRETARY LEW: Sure. On Pakistan, I’m going to give you, again, the program level, and I’m going to ask Rob and Barbara to fill in the ops level. On the program level, the ’10 funding was 1.457; the supp request was 344; so the total for ’10 is 1.8. And the request for ’11 is 3.0. That represents full funding of the Kerry-Lugar program, the commitment to civilian assistance for Pakistan. And it also reflects funding for the Pakistan Counter Insurgency Capability Fund, and our FMF relationship with Pakistan.

STAFF: On the operations side, it’s $84 million in 2010. Twenty-six of the supplemental requests and a 171 is the 2011 request.

DEPUTY SECRETARY LEW: And the similar numbers in Iraq --

QUESTION: Wait a second. So that means the 2011 – the total for operations and assistance is 3.171?

STAFF: 3.158. It should be 3.171 (inaudible).

QUESTION: Could you perhaps give the combined figures?

DEPUTY SECRETARY LEW: Yeah. I think what we’ll do is we’ll put a table together that combines the foreign assistance and the operations numbers for an easy comparison rather than trying to do this verbally. There are two different tables and we should have anticipated that you would have wanted the numbers all in. It’s not a hard thing for us to turn around. So we’ll get --

QUESTION: And if you could do the same for AID?

DEPUTY SECRETARY LEW: Yeah, yeah, we’ll get it for Afghanistan, Pakistan. Let me take a minute on Iraq because I think it’s important that – to go through the policy behind the Iraq numbers, particularly on the supp. The funding for civilian programs in Iraq that was appropriated in 2010 was $466 million.

The supp request is for 517, which is a big increase. And the reason for the supp request in 2010 is that in order for us to be able to have the transition of police training to – from the military to the civilian side, we have to acquire the equipment which includes aircraft, because it requires helicopters. It means recruiting and training and preparing the staff. It means having facilities for them to work in. Because the timing is very key to the military withdrawal happening on time, we’ve asked for the supplemental to make sure that we can get all the groundwork laid well in advance.

The other thing that we need to do is to prepare for the ultimate military withdrawal when civilian facilities will be standing – freestanding. We are going to need to construct civilian facilities that are not part of U.S. military bases. And that requires, again, advance work. The costs for these programs is high because the security requirements are quite high, both in terms of the physical structures and in terms of the transportation and security requirements. And the supplemental gets us the resources, particularly for the police training program, to get off the ground quickly. And the request in the program area of $730 million in 2011 carries that forward. Our overall funding level for Iraq is higher for that. I’ve just given you the programmatic detail.

QUESTION: Can I ask you one more?

DEPUTY SECRETARY LEW: Yeah.

QUESTION: Something that I hope will not require such extensive explanations, but the Complex Crises Fund at $100 million, is that essentially a straight transfer of funds that previously fell under what you had described as the Pentagon’s 1207 budget? Or does it reflect any increase in funds available for those kinds of activities?

DEPUTY SECRETARY LEW: I think that it wouldn’t technically be correct to call it a transfer because where it’s being requested in the State Department budget, it’s not being requested in the DOD budget. But I think you could think of it in those terms and you’d pretty much have it right. The boundaries of the program will be very similar in terms of the Secretary of State having discretion to intervene in these complex crisis situations using State Department funding to support State and USAID programming.

I think that just as there was a great deal of consultation and collaboration before, there will be a great deal of consultation and collaboration going forward. We still view our efforts in these areas as whole-of-government effort, but properly led by the civilian leadership, which is, I think, an important change.

QUESTION: And does that fall under Ambassador Herbst’s purview, or is it – indeed, the hundred million gets decided by the Secretary?

DEPUTY SECRETARY LEW: It’s going to sit with the Secretary and we will have to make the decision where to allocate it.

QUESTION: Okay.

DEPUTY SECRETARY LEW: Yeah.

QUESTION: I just want to ask you about – another one about Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq, how these budget increases will translate into personnel changes at the embassies. Plussing those up, what numbers could we look for in the coming year?

DEPUTY SECRETARY LEW: I mean, as you know, we’re – we’ve got approximately 900 civilians in the Embassy and in the – throughout the country in Afghanistan. More and more of the people being deployed are being deployed outside of Kabul. As we look ahead towards 2011, we are looking at an increase, both throughout 2010 and into 2011. When I briefed on this previously, I described it on the order of about a couple – 2- to 300 more people. I think that it may be a little bit larger than that. We’ve got room in this budget for more – a little bit more than that.

What’s important is rather than pick an arbitrary number, is that the civilian resources have to be defined by the mission. So as the district plans the military rollout, as they need civilians to go in side by side with the military, we’re getting those requirements six months in advance and we’re filling those requirements. I suspect that the numbers will be several hundred more in 2010 and then again, they’ll increase in 2011.

QUESTION: And in Pakistan and in Baghdad as well – sorry, in Baghdad and in Islamabad as well?

DEPUTY SECRETARY LEW: Well, in Baghdad, there will be an increase in civilians. There is a very large civilian presence in Baghdad already. So, some of it is redeployment of civilians. But there will be an increase. The – we have, as I said, 22 Provincial Reconstruction Teams. As we move from 22 to five, people will be moved around and positions will be moved around. So I don’t have a net number of how many additional positions, but it will remain a very significant post. I think for Iraq, rather than think about the increase, while the military is decreasing, civilian presence is unlikely to drop sharply because we have additional new responsibilities.

The place where you’ll see the biggest increase right away in the civilian side is in police training, and that will – the deployment of people will be at the – towards the end of 2011, so it’s still a ways off.

QUESTION: And then Islamabad, is it – can we expect an increase there as well with the increase in --

DEPUTY SECRETARY LEW: In Islamabad, there are additional civilians that have been slated. It’s not on the same order as the increase in Afghanistan. And the civilian increase is partially to implement the civilian programs, but we also have significant requirements for the military assistance in terms of having the people to do the proper oversight in country.

QUESTION: Yeah. Just about 10 days ago, the Afghanistan and Pakistan Regional Stabilization Strategy was unveiled. So this obviously supports that, so does it mean that there are funds there for reintegrating militants into Afghan society, and also these programs to counter the extremist voices that was mentioned in that plan?

DEPUTY SECRETARY LEW: As Secretary Clinton said in London last week, the U.S. supports the reintegration program. The principal funding for reintegration will be through a substantial commitment of Defense Department resources that will be used in – as the campaign moves forward. We don’t have any plans to have additional, separate civilian funding right now for reintegration, but we do have country-wide programs in the area of agriculture, alternate livelihoods. And when people are reintegrated, they’ll be eligible to participate in programs. But specifically, reintegration funds that we foresee right now are being programmed in the Defense Department.

QUESTION: And then what about the media, you know, getting the U.S. voice heard rather than the extremist?

DEPUTY SECRETARY LEW: Well, we have a substantial program in communications that was built up in the 2010 budget and will be carried forward in 2011. So there’s some one-time costs – things like putting up cell towers and broadcast towers. So the number won’t be at quite the same level that it was in 2010, but there is a very significant program – there’s a strategy for helping Afghans develop their own media, not just to have U.S. communications. And that program is funded in the 2011 budget. I believe it’s $150 million.

QUESTION: Okay.

DEPUTY SECRETARY LEW: Yeah.

QUESTION: Hi. I’m wondering if you – I know you’re going to put out more figures later, but --

DEPUTY SECRETARY LEW: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- if you could talk about the Haiti --

DEPUTY SECRETARY LEW: Sure.

QUESTION: -- request in the supplemental and in the budget, which I imagine is a little more straightforward because it’s not so much operational; it’s most – presumably assistance, right?

DEPUTY SECRETARY LEW: Well, the immediate expenditures in Haiti obviously were not budgeted in a formal sense because that’s an emergency; we’re drawing down emergency funds. And to the extent that there were resources set aside for Haiti that are – can be used for this purpose, we’re using them right away. We’ve been, for the last three weeks, in a disaster response mode where the question has been what needs to be done and how can we pay for it.

As we move forward and get to the end of the relief and into the recovery period, we clearly will have additional funding requirements. Our budget documents indicate that, though we couldn’t put a number to paper before these documents were prepared. We’re working through those issues now. We’re working with the Office of Management and Budget. And I think we’ll have more to say about that shortly. But it’s certainly our expectation that there will be additional requirements both to refill some of the funds that have been drawn down, to pay for the immediate emergency response, and to carry forward the recovery and early reconstruction process.

The assessment of damage hasn’t even been completed yet, so we’re at a point in time now where we’re just about to make that transition from immediate relief to the longer term.

QUESTION: And just one other thing: Will we be getting the supplemental figures, the separate breakdown?

DEPUTY SECRETARY LEW: You should have the supplemental figures in the documents that were released right before this briefing.

QUESTION: Okay.

DEPUTY SECRETARY LEW: But the supplements is for Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq. It does not include Haiti. We don’t have a supplemental yet for Haiti.

QUESTION: There is a number in the budget appendix document which says funds appropriated by this act under titles 3 and 4, not less than 295 million shall be made available for assistance to Haiti.

DEPUTY SECRETARY LEW: Right. That was the regular assistance program --

QUESTION: Got it, that’s what I’m --

DEPUTY SECRETARY LEW: -- for Haiti. We had – actually, it was a little more than that that’s budgeted in. It’s more like $375 or $379 million that was provided for Haiti.

One of the things that we’re doing right now is we’re using funds that were previously appropriated to Haiti to meet immediate urgent needs where we have the flexibility to do so. It’s in the nature of disaster response that you quickly draw down your emergency response funds and the challenge is to figure out what other funding sources are available.

I think we have a lot to be proud of in terms of the quality and speed of the U.S. Government response, but it has cost quite a lot of money and it has required us to draw down funds that had been intended for other purposes. One of the things we need to look ahead to as we get later in the year is making sure we have emergency funds so that if there’s other natural disasters later in the year we have the capacity to respond still, say, in hurricane season.

So we’re putting together our analysis of this. It was not the first order analysis. The first order analysis was what’s required to respond in 72 hours when you can save lives? What can you do to get search-and-rescue teams in? Immediately after the search-and-rescue process, how do you make sure the food and the water and medical care is provided? We’re just now coming to the point where one could take a step back and take the longer view, and that’s what we’re doing.

QUESTION: Can you address the issue of – I’m sure it’s not in this, but can you address the controversy over who’s paying for what in the military flights to Florida of Haitians, hospitals wanting to know who’s going to pay for things, states wanting to know who’s going to pay for this?

DEPUTY SECRETARY LEW: Well, those are not principally issues that we have direct responsibility for. My understanding is that those issues have been worked through and that there is a plan for dealing with that. I would just point out that there’s kind of separate issues regarding Haitian Americans who are U.S. citizens and Haitians who are not U.S. citizens, and we have been expediting the return of Haitian Americans who choose to come back to the United States whether they’re injured or not. I think the real issue arises with Haitians who are not American citizens who want to come to the United States for treatment. But again, those are not principally areas of our responsibility.

QUESTION: What is the address to find out what’s the (inaudible)?

DEPUTY SECRETARY LEW: I think –

MR. CROWLEY: White House and (inaudible).

DEPUTY SECRETARY LEW: White House, yes.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Please. On multilateral development banks, in the budget book that was released this morning, it’s showing from 2010 to 2011 an increase from 2.044 to 2.957, which it looks like the biggest single increase, almost $900 million, to multilateral development banks. But then in the White House fact sheet that was put out, it’s saying 1.9 billion to multilateral development banks. Can you clarify, is it 1.9 or 2.9?

DEPUTY SECRETARY LEW: Well, again, I would be happy afterwards to cross-walk documents. But rather than try to cross-walk the documents, let me explain what I understand is going on in the international financial institution funding.

There’s really three things going on. There is additional funding for the food security initiative for a multilateral component of it. There’s funding for climate change. If you look at our climate change proposal, it is really a joint bilateral/multilateral effort. And there’s also some funding that deals with the need to re-capitalize some of the regional banks. As you know, those are Department of Treasury programs. We pay a great deal of attention to them because we coordinate our programming together and, obviously, it all comes under the Function 150 account. But that’s why there’s an increase.

As to cross-walking the documents, I might have to – I’d have to look at the way the document was prepared.

QUESTION: But is this – because it’s still a big increase, does that have to do with some sort of multilateral agreements that came out of, I don’t know, G-20 or some other conference where the agreement was made we’re all going to, as a group, increase funding for, like you said, food security and global warming?

DEPUTY SECRETARY LEW: I think that what’s driving those numbers is our commitments to the initiatives that I described. In the case of our food security initiative, we view the commitment as a whole. And when I went through the numbers, I used the $400 million number that was the multilateral piece as part of our overall commitment. We’ve actually envisioned a program where we will provide on a bilateral basis one set of services while the multilateral programs will provide a different set of services. Roughly speaking, the multilateral programs will be building infrastructure and the bilateral program will be going in and doing country partnerships of programmatic support.

If we didn’t have that cooperation between the bilateral and the multilateral programs, we couldn't have the initiative that we’re describing. So it’s very important and it also creates leverage for the U.S. contribution. So we think we have the right balance between bilateral and multilateral. One of the challenges in an area like food security is coming into countries with a coordinated approach so that we don’t have five different ideas about what we’re trying to do.

I think the budget reflects that commitment to a whole-of-government effort. It reflects the commitment to coordinating across multilateral and bilateral institutions and, most importantly, working with host countries because it’s their program; they have to have ownership of it. That’s how you end up with sustainability and stability.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Could you talk about – you mentioned 410 Foreign Service officer positions and 200 USAID. I thought the President’s plans early on were to increase the number of Foreign Service officers by 1,600 over two years.

DEPUTY SECRETARY LEW: It was never over two years.

QUESTION: Is that –

DEPUTY SECRETARY LEW: No, I mean, we’ve stretched it out a little bit, but it was never over two years.

QUESTION: Well, my point is, have the cuts that he’s trying to make affected the positions that are going to be added?

DEPUTY SECRETARY LEW: I think that as I indicated in my opening statement, we have had to extend the period, but we haven’t changed the goal. And I think it’s really a remarkable statement of how important this rebuilding of the core capacity of the State Department and USAID is in a very difficult budget year when there are very difficult tradeoffs in domestic programs.

We’re maintaining the commitment to building up our capacity to have properly trained civilians available for these critical assignments. You look around the world and the fact that there are 3,000 civilians in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq makes the case as clearly as anything that I could argue as to why we need more people. Without growing, it just means pulling civilians out of other posts. So we need to grow and I think the budget gives us the ability to continue to grow. And the pace of hiring will only slow down slightly. It will not be a dramatic change.

QUESTION: Could you also tell us, what’s the figure for public diplomacy for 2011 and how will that compare to 2010?

STAFF: I can get that.

DEPUTY SECRETARY LEW: Okay, we’ll look that up and --

QUESTION: What is the new timeline on the facility --

QUESTION: I’m sorry, I think that your colleague was going to look it up now, because I mean, if – there is a big number for public diplomacy, right, which I know is important to the Administration?

DEPUTY SECRETARY LEW: Yes, it’s very important.

QUESTION: If I can get that, that will be great. Thanks.

QUESTION: Then in the meantime, what was the timeline? You said the timeline was elongated on the – on the staffing increase.

DEPUTY SECRETARY LEW: It’s 2014; is that correct?

STAFF: Yes, 2014.

DEPUTY SECRETARY LEW: 2014.

QUESTION: Can you give us figures on Yemen?

DEPUTY SECRETARY LEW: Why don’t I go around a little bit?

QUESTION: Oh, sorry.

DEPUTY SECRETARY LEW: Sorry. Yeah.

QUESTION: Could you tell us – are there areas – just a kind of a big question. Are there areas where you are losing funding, where less money is going?

DEPUTY SECRTARY LEW: As you go through, there are certainly areas where there are reductions. I think it – we have held the line in a lot of areas. We’ve targeted the increases, and there have been some areas of reduction. The reality is that international spending has been underfunded for so long that holding the line is, in and of itself, a difficult thing to do in a lot of these accounts. So I could – we could produce a list, but I think the real story is that, from our perspective, we’ve targeted the investment, the increases, in very strategic areas. We’ve targeted the increases, obviously, towards the conflict states. We’ve targeted towards the initiatives which we think are key to getting – to restoring the United States’ role in the world so that we can play the kind of constructive leadership role that the President has articulated, and to rebuilding our core capacities.

We’ve tried to look at countries where there’s been progress and you could start to tamp down some of the numbers, and to do it in a constructive way, not – it’s not always a positive signal to take a number down, but it’s actually a positive thing when the reason the number is coming down is that things are better. And there are some examples of that. There are examples of programs like in – with Merida and Plan Colombia, where you graduate from the first stage of a program to the second stage of a program, where the heavy equipment purchases are behind you and you’re programming in a different way. So there are quite a number of areas where the numbers go down. I actually – I don’t have a list of cuts in front of me to read off that.

QUESTION: Well, narcotics and law enforcement is actually one that has really significant decreases. Is that because of Merida and Plan Colombia?

DEPUTY SECRTARY LEW: Probably. Probably. I’d have to go back and break it out. And the fact that we’ve just completed the purchase of helicopters in Mexico, all the helicopters have been paid for, they’re being delivered, we’re now moving to a different stage of the program. Merida II is a program that’s designed to get at the – at what people do as opposed to what they use to do the job. And we’re at a similar point in Plan Colombia. I think those are positive reasons to see the numbers go down, but we have been careful in this budget not just to hold numbers level for symbolic reasons but to use as carefully as we can the scarce resources for diplomacy and development.

QUESTION: Can you talk about the PEPFAR numbers, which have gone down in a number of Sub-Saharan African countries, I believe?

DEPUTY SECRTARY LEW: Well, overall, the PEPFAR numbers have gone up. Overall, we’ve increased what was the highest level of funding for PEPFAR ever, and we’ve also increased funding to the global fund. What we’ve done is we’ve taken the increase in health dollars and we’ve used part of the increase to fund what we’re calling the Global Health Initiative, which is really designed to connect all of our different health programs. What we’ve done historically over the last number of years, very successfully, is we’ve pursued disease treatment programs with HIV/AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis. And what hasn’t happened is the kind of self-conscious building of a sustainable healthcare infrastructure, so what we’re doing is we’re focusing on connecting the programs so if a woman comes into a country, clinic, that is there because of PEPFAR funding, we can also provide maternal care and care to a newborn child.

We’re projecting that with this additional focus on systems investment and particularly the health care for women and children, that we’ll be able to prevent three million pregnancy-related deaths and 300 – pardon me, 300,000 pregnancy-related deaths and three million newborn and early childhood deaths. So there’s an awful lot of benefit to be gained by taking the kind of coordinated approach. And we see it as being important in countries that we have a very significant investment in.

We also see it as important in countries that we have a smaller investment in, where we don’t see the Global Health Initiative as being limited to the 10 or 20 top PEPFAR and malaria funded countries. We see it as a whole different way of doing business, where part of our job is to coordinate what we do, work with the host government so that they are focusing their efforts on training community health workers, having the facilities that can be used for multiple purposes. And we see it as a way to both extend the lifesaving and disease reduction capacity of our federal assistance but also to leave behind a much more stable system.

QUESTION: So the idea of bringing it back to the numbers is to change your focus and integrate it into local structures, and that would, overall, not require a larger number? Is that the reason why some of those numbers are going down? In specific countries that, I mean – South Africa goes down, a few others.

DEPUTY SECRTARY LEW: Overall, the PEPFAR number goes up, so I’d have to look at the country-by-country funding levels. But overall, the PEPFAR number goes up.

QUESTION: I have a very quick question regarding Merida. It’s 410 million only for Mexico or also Central America?

DEPUTY SECRTARY LEW: Both.

QUESTION: You have the divide between Central America and Mexico?

DEPUTY SECRTARY LEW: Did you hear that? It’s 310 Mexico –

STAFF: (Inaudible) and 100 for Central America.

QUESTION: Thank you very much.

QUESTION: Can you say that one more time? I’m sorry.

DEPUTY SECRTARY LEW: 310 for Mexico and 100 for Central America.

QUESTION: And the total for Plan Colombia?

STAFF: Is 465.

QUESTION: Did you say 465?

STAFF: 465 million.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: For what?

QUESTION: And do you have --

DEPUTY SECRETARY LEW: For Plan – for Colombia.

QUESTION: And then you have a separate for the other Andean drug initiatives?

STAFF: Not in front of me, but that would be – those would be in addition to Colombia.

QUESTION: Okay.

STAFF: And to get back to the other gentleman on public diplomacy, the 2010 number was 520. The increase is 48, 4-8, 2011, for (inaudible) level of (inaudible).

QUESTION: Does the budget call for any additional funds or reflect any greater focus on visa approvals in light of the uproar after the Christmas Day bombing attempt and some suggestion that visas should be once and for all taken away from the State Department (inaudible)?

DEPUTY SECRETARY LEW: Well, we have – we do have funding for our Consular Affairs programs --

QUESTION: Up or down?

DEPUTY SECRETARY LEW: -- that are up, I believe. I’m looking at --

STAFF: Right, and more than that, what we’ll also be seeking is the ability to retain more of the fees within the Department of State that had previously been going to the Treasury.

QUESTION: So that was just a one-year exception or forever?

STAFF: We’ll be seeking that forever.

DEPUTY SECRETARY LEW: Yeah, it’s permanent. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: That’s a long time.

DEPUTY SECRETARY LEW: Well, it --

QUESTION: And how much money is that?

STAFF: That would add an additional $728 million.

DEPUTY SECRETARY LEW: And provide stable funding for these programs. The 2011 budget includes funds also to support improvements to the system’s expanded biometric capabilities in both visa and passport documents. Those were actually included before December 24^th, but they obviously also addressed the concerns raised on December 24^th. We’re planning to improve facial recognition technology as well as piloting new biometric collection techniques. And we’re funding – increasing funding by more than $50 million in 2011 to enhance the systems that we have to collect and share data.

QUESTION: All right. And how much money for the biometrics?

DEPUTY SECRETARY LEW: I actually don’t have a number for the biometrics. I think I’ll have to – we’d have to get that for you.

QUESTION: And --

QUESTION: Does that include – sorry – include sharing data with the airlines as well as your fellow agencies? I’m just curious.

STAFF: Primarily it’s DHS.

DEPUTY SECRETARY LEW: Yeah. I mean, what we share with DHS we would share with DHS. What we share with airlines, we would share with airlines. It’s not meant to change the regime of what we share, just the capacity and the ease with which our systems can share data.

QUESTION: Did you say that was $50 million for --

DEPUTY SECRETARY LEW: Five-zero for enhancing systems, for data collection and sharing.

QUESTION: And so that’s 700 --

QUESTION: How much was that in the last budget? What’s the increase in that?

DEPUTY SECRETARY LEW: That’s the increase. I don’t have the base in front of me. We could pull that out.

QUESTION: Oh, so it’s 50 million additional (inaudible)?

DEPUTY SECRETARY LEW: Correct, correct.

MR. CROWLEY: Arshad, you were asking about Yemen?

QUESTION: Yes.

MR. CROWLEY: (Inaudible) 106 million in the budget, which is up from 67 (inaudible).

QUESTION: Sorry, it was 67?

QUESTION: In FY10?

MR. CROWLEY: In FY10 and then 106 was the request in FY11.

QUESTION: And what’s the – do you know what most of the increase is?

DEPUTY SECRETARY LEW: That does not include the State operations. That’s just our program.

QUESTION: Got it. And do you know what most of the increase is?

MR. CROWLEY: ESF, I think.

DEPUTY SECRETARY LEW: It’s the --

MR. CROWLEY: Yemen?

QUESTION: Yemen.

MR. CROWLEY: ESF is --

DEPUTY SECRETARY LEW: ESF is 29 million of the increase and --

MR. CROWLEY: FMF --

DEPUTY SECRETARY LEW: -- FMF is 23 of the increase.

QUESTION: And last question on FMF: Do you know what that would fund in terms of, you know, hardware?

DEPUTY SECRETARY LEW: It would enhance Yemen’s air force intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capability, and increase the counterterrorism training for the security forces, and some funding for the Yemen coast guard and border guards and special ops forces.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: So that’s $23 million to increase this Air Force (inaudible), whatnot?

DEPUTY SECRETARY LEW: Correct.

MR. CROWLEY: We have our experts (inaudible).

DEPUTY SECRETARY LEW: Yeah. We can go through the line item detail with you if you’d like after the briefing in more detail.

QUESTION: On the Merida Initiative, how are you going to plan to – how are you planning to spend the money on – what are the goals? What are the conditions for the Mexican Government to receive these funds?

DEPUTY SECRETARY LEW: Well, the – we’ve been working with the Government of Mexico very closely on developing a follow-on plan. I was actually just down meeting with the Merida cabinet in November. And the idea is to work on the programs that will improve the rule of law institutions, that will improve the law enforcement activities, that will enhance human rights. And I think that there’s a great deal of focus on kind of taking the capabilities that have been built up, in part with our assistance in Merida one, and carrying it forward with an effective program to deal with the – both the threat of the kind of narcotics trade and the violence that comes from that, and also the need to shore up some of the institutional capacities in the Government of Mexico.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR. CROWLEY: Do you want to take a break in case anyone wants to go through specific numbers and we’ll (inaudible)?

QUESTION: Yes.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR. CROWLEY: Thank you.

DEPUTY SECRETARY LEW: Thank you.

# # #

Safety Information for American Students Traveling Abroad

Washington, DC

February 1, 2010

As spring and summer breaks approach, many students are getting ready for a trip abroad. The majority of students traveling abroad will have safe and enjoyable adventures. However, even with the best-planned trips, things can go wrong.

Each year, more than 2,500 American citizens are arrested abroad – about half on narcotics charges, including possession of very small amounts of illegal substances.

Being arrested is not the only thing that can go wrong on a foreign vacation. U.S. citizens have been badly injured or have been killed in automobile accidents, falls, and other mishaps. Many of these incidents are related to alcohol and/or drug use. Other have been sexually assaulted or robbed because they found themselves in unfamiliar locales, were incapable of protecting themselves because of drug or alcohol use, or were the victims of a “date rape” drug.

The most common cause of death of U.S. citizens overseas, other than natural causes, is by motor vehicle accidents. Students traveling abroad should be aware that standards of safety overseas might be different from those in the United States, or non-existent.

The Bureau of Consular Affairs website for American students traveling overseas, studentsabroad.state.gov, provides useful safety and travel information for students prior to their travel. Students are strongly urged to review the information on the site and sign up online at https://travelregistration.state.gov to receive the latest travel information from the Department of State. Signing up makes it possible for the State Department to contact the student traveler, if necessary, in case of a family emergency in the United States or because of a crisis in the foreign country.

Please see the Department of Homeland Security’s web site www.getyouhome.gov for more information on the requirements for a passport, passport card, or other approved document to reenter the United States after travel abroad.

For further information contact:
Bureau of Consular Affairs
Office of Policy Coordination and Public Affairs
Press inquiries: (202) 647-1488
Public inquiries: toll-free (888) 407-4747

Internet address: travel.state.gov; studentsabroad.state.gov

Follow us on Twitter (twitter.com/TravelGov)

Become a fan of Bureau of Consular Affairs on Facebook (www.facebook.com/pages/Bureau-of-Consular-Affairs/9229303148)

Check out our YouTube playlist: (http://www.youtube.com/user/statevideo#p/c/46BAEAFF21D8B01C/3/m61j0vGbQNQ)

U.S. Department of State Honors Faisal Hassan of Malaysia as State Alumni Member of the Month for February 2010

Washington, DC

February 1, 2010

The U.S. Department of State has named Faisal Hassan, a Malaysian alumnus of the Youth Exchange and Study (YES) Program, as State Alumni Member of the Month. Hassan was selected in recognition of his work as president of YES Alumni Malaysia, an association promoting youth empowerment through leadership and volunteerism. In the past year, with support from the U.S. Embassy in Kuala Lumpur, he has been involved in leadership training, teaching English to disadvantaged youth, and raising public awareness to promote international peace.

During his semester at a high school in Seattle, Washington, Hassan had his first taste of American-style teamwork by taking part in club activities and watching Seattle Mariners baseball. Hassan cites family, friendship, and an open mind as the three elements that made his U.S. exchange experience memorable.

Returning to Malaysia from his 2007 YES program, Hassan brought home lessons learned about teamwork, friendship, and leadership. As a strong proponent of new media tools, he makes full use of Facebook, his association’s blog, and the State Alumni website to showcase YES Alumni Malaysia’s many achievements.

In November 2009, Hassan and YES Alumni Malaysia hosted a Global YES Alumni Conference welcoming more than 50 YES alumni worldwide to a global version of the train-the-trainers leadership skills development program.

Hassan’s contributions as a YES alumnus and leader have positioned him to share his American exchange experience both locally and internationally. He currently works with YES alumni in Ghana and India to assist them in starting their own alumni associations. He also studies mass communications in a university program, and hopes to pursue a career in Malaysian politics.

Throughout February, Hassan’s leadership and promotion of community service will be recognized on the State Alumni website, https://alumni.state.gov, the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs’ official website for the more than one million alumni who have participated in a Department-sponsored exchange program. Each month, the Bureau’s Office of Alumni Affairs, which supports alumni as they build on their exchange experiences, confers the award on an outstanding alumnus or alumna. For more information, visit http://exchanges.state.gov/alumni/alumnus.html.

Media Contact: Catherine Stearns, StearnsCL@state.gov or phone (202) 632-6437

Interview With Indira Lakshmanan of Bloomberg Radio

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State

Paris, France

January 29, 2010

QUESTION: Secretary Clinton, thank you so much for taking the time to speak with us. Last week, you gave a major speech on internet freedom and security and you called on American technology companies to take a stand by refusing to participate in the censorship of cyberspace. Given that China, which is the world’s biggest internet market by users, imposes censorship by law, are you suggesting that companies like Microsoft and Yahoo! should just pull out of that market?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, what I said in the speech is that I thought it should be carefully evaluated with respect to the businesses that operate in any setting where either censorship or interference with their businesses occur. Obviously, these are decisions that individual businesses have to make for themselves.

But it is important to point out that we cannot afford in today’s interconnected world to have too many instances where businesses are constrained, where information is not flowing freely, where companies’ accounts can be hacked into. So this may be just the beginning of what will be a vigorous discussion globally about how to deal with these challenges.

QUESTION: All right. Now, the other day, Microsoft chairman Bill Gates seemed to almost contradict your message from your speech. I was wondering if he had heard your speech, because he said that China’s internet censorship was actually very limited. And you and the U.S. Government have repeatedly expressed concerns about China’s monitoring of human rights activists and even the apparent theft of their personal information allegedly in the Google case. Is Gates somehow missing the bigger picture here beyond profits?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I don’t want to second-guess or in any way assess from a distance what Bill Gates meant. But I do think it’s important to recognize that my speech and Google’s complaints were not restricted to what we think of as censorship – in other words, information not being available through the internet or not being transmitted by the internet.

It was, as you say, a broader concern about the actual interference that was alleged against users of email, and that raised a second set of serious questions. So I think, as I said, we want to get everybody’s opinion on this. We want to begin to discuss it. That was one of the reasons for my speech, because I think we’re entering into a time period where what happens in cyber space is going to be increasingly important to not only national security, but commercial interests, personal privacy. And I don’t think we yet know how to handle this.

QUESTION: Now, would export controls play any role in this? Is the U.S. Government thinking about export controls on internet technology or programs that help hackers inadvertently?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, this is an area that we are looking at very closely because there are some quite legitimate questions about our export control regime. It goes from the absolutely ridiculous of preventing the export of bolts and nuts and screws for certain military equipment that have no military purpose in and of themselves to questions that are legitimate about encryption technology.

So you may know that the Administration has launched a review of export control laws and regulations. The State Department, Defense Department, Commerce Department are leading this effort. So we’re going to be exploring how do we streamline and improve our export control authorities and eliminate restrictions on items that are not militarily or otherwise harmful, but not cast such a wide net as we do today.

QUESTION: All right. One last question on this: The Chinese Government has insisted that it has nothing to do with the hacking. Has Google shared any evidence with the U.S. authorities that proves China was involved in hacking either its accounts or that of more than 20 other U.S. companies? And if so, what can the U.S. Government do if China simply refuses to investigate?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, Indira, I think this is one of those unexplored areas that we wouldn’t have even been talking about five or 10 years ago. We called for a transparent examination of what did happen. The response back is that there wasn’t any official action. I can’t sit here today and judge that. I think there’s some uncertainty about who did what. But my larger point is that it’s in everyone’s interests to begin to try to hammer out some rules of the road.

As I said at the speech earlier this afternoon at L’Ecole Militaire, we today have a company that’s a U.S. company making these claims about what happened to them. In five or 10 years, it could be a Chinese company or a Russian company or an Indian company. So just because we’re concerned, understandably so, that it was an American company doesn’t mean that others shouldn’t be concerned about what might come down the road affecting their own company.

So it’s like when air travel started so many decades ago. Finally, people got around to having international rules so that you wouldn’t have airplanes running into each other in the sky. There’s just a growing awareness that the control and the regulation of cyber space so that we keep the internet as free and open as possible is really in everybody’s interest.

QUESTION: There have been widespread reports that in cases involving Russia where there was hacking, that some of the hacking actually involved mafia elements who might have been doing it in collusion with the government. So that’s one of the theories that’s being explored in the China case. I don’t know if that’s something that law enforcement has discussed with the State Department, the notion of Chinese mafia involvement and the sort of, you know, unseen hand of the Chinese Government in that case.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we are, as you probably know, taking cyber security very seriously. The President has appointed a cyber security director. We are reorganizing within the State Department to be on top of this issue and begin thinking through all the different legal and regulatory, diplomatic, and commercial implications.

So I don’t want to characterize any past incident because as of this time, we have a number of suspicions or anecdotes or concerns, but at the end of the day, what I’m really interested in is making sure that we try to have some international agreement on how we will protect information flow and how we will join together to punish wrongdoers. I mean, it could be a government today, an al-Qaida tomorrow, and – or another terrorist group that is local to a certain country. So everybody needs to start taking this seriously. That’s my overriding message.

QUESTION: All right. You’ve just come from a conference on Afghanistan at which Afghan President Hamid Karzai spoke about convening a loya jirga and inviting insurgents. What is the U.S. position on this? Because U.S. officials have told us that there is a distinction between reintegration and reconciliation, and that the U.S. isn’t about to make peace with Taliban leadership. So tell me how you see President Karzai’s plan.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, there is a distinction between reintegration and reconciliation. Reintegration refers to, just for the basis of this conversation, the foot soldiers, the folks on the battlefield who want to get off of it, who want to return to their village and resume a normal life. That literally is happening all the time.

The problem has been there’s not been an organized effort to provide protection and income substitution for the fighter who surrendered to a NATO ISAF commander and who then nobody knew what to do with. And in fact, over the last several years, Taliban have tried to come off the battlefield, they’ve been – they’ve surrendered, they’ve been accepted, they’ve been sent home, they’ve been – had promises made to them which haven’t necessarily always been fulfilled. And I think there’s a strong conviction on the part of our military commanders that there’s a real opportunity to accelerate the movement of Taliban soldiers away from the Taliban.

Reconciliation talks more about the political process where leaders would make peace. We see – you don’t make peace with your friends when you have a conflict. Leadership has to decide to resolve it. We see that all over the world. And so President Karzai is putting together some standards and descriptions of what that will mean, and we’re obviously very interested about how that comes out and have made clear that we want to protect the interests of the ordinary person. We want to honor the memory of not only our American soldiers, but the soldiers from every country, the soldiers of Afghanistan, others who have made a sacrifice. And I particularly am concerned about not doing anything that turns the clock back on Afghan girls and women.

So there are many aspects to this, but there always are. I mean, trying to resolve conflict is difficult, it requires a lot of patience, but the international community, including the United States, supports the objectives, but obviously, the details matter.

QUESTION: Now, one of those details is that the outgoing UN envoy in Afghanistan, Kai Eide, recently met with the Taliban leadership in, you know, a meeting that was kept quiet at the time. Is that something that you would consider a U.S. official participating in, something similar to that, to feel out what the Taliban leadership is thinking?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Indira, I don’t think it’s useful to speculate about what might or might not be done because so much of it depends upon assessments that can’t really be made from afar. Our military commanders are very committed to this process, growing out of their own experience in Iraq. They believe that the work they did in Iraq, which was both American military and civilian leadership led, helps to ensure the success of the surge. And it was kept quiet, it was done very thoughtfully, so I think it’s probably wiser not to be speculating about what we will or won’t do.

Obviously, our goal is to stabilize Afghanistan, transition security to the Afghan forces, and bring our troops home while we maintain an ongoing civilian diplomatic relationship with Afghanistan into the future.

QUESTION: Last question on Iran. All week, you’ve been pushing with partners and allies on a new sanctions possibility. I want to know – you made a very strong statement today about China needing to think about its long-term interests beyond the fact that Iran is the third biggest supplier of China’s crude oil. So tell me, what assurances have you gotten that now when France takes the leadership of the Security Council that you are going to go forward with sanctions? And related to that, what are your thoughts on the Senate having passed this new sanctions bill in Congress?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, first, it’s not a surprise to anyone that we’ve been working to gain support for pressure and sanctions along with other partners for a while now. Once it became clear that Iran was not going to be responding satisfactorily to our general offer of engagement or our specific offer regarding the Tehran research reactor, work began to try to shape the sanctions, design them so that they could be effective, talk about enforcement, and listen to the concerns of other nations.

That process is going on. There will be a concerted effort. Again, I’m not going to preview when, what, or how because I think that’s not productive. But it’s been reported widely that China has questions. They themselves have said that on various occasions. But up until now, they have been totally united with the P-5+1. And the arguments we have put forth to them are very clear that we think this is in the interest of international peace and stability to prevent Iran from moving forward with a nuclear weapons program, and that it’s in the interest of the nations discussing it, including China.

QUESTION: And on the Senate passing that bill through Congress, that second part?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, that’s not a surprise. I mean, the Senate is very concerned about Iranian behavior, and with good reason. It’s not only the nuclear program, as distressing as that is, but these recent activities where they basically are executing demonstrators and claiming that anybody who protests against the Iranian Government is in a war against God are extremely troubling. So the Congress – I’ve served in Congress, I know – wants to express strongly its disapproval of Iranian behavior, its support for human rights, and its belief that putting pressure on Iran can help change the regime and actually put international pressure to support the dissidents.

QUESTION: Madam Secretary, thank you so much for speaking with Bloomberg Radio today.

SECRETARY CLINTON: It’s a pleasure talking with you. Thank you.

Interview With Renee Montagne of NPR

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State

*As Aired*

London, United Kingdom

January 28, 2010

SECRETARY CLINTON: Military action is not enough alone. It has to be mixed with political and development work. And I think everyone has realized, as we did in Iraq, that you have to begin to go right at the insurgents and peel those off who are willing to renounce violence, renounce al-Qaida, agree to live by the laws and constitution of Afghanistan and re-enter society.

QUESTION: Although -- obviously, Afghanistan is not Iraq. And I think there might be those who are hearing this this week, Americans, knowing that American fighting forces are in Afghanistan putting up and just beginning a surge for a big fight with the Taliban. And it would be a surprise and maybe even disturbing to hear that there's now talk of talking to the Taliban.

SECRETARY CLINTON: You can't have one without the other. Only a surge of military forces alone without any effort on the political side is not likely to succeed. Only an effort to try to make peace with your enemies without the strength to back it up is not going to succeed.So, in fact, this is a combined strategy that makes a great deal of sense.

Now, I think underlying your question is the concern of people who say well, wait a minute, those are the bad guys. Why are we talking to them? We're not going to talk to the really bad guys because the really bad guys are not ever going to renounce al-Qaida, renounce violence, and agree to re-enter society. That is not going to happen to Mullah Omar and the like. But there are so many fighters in the Taliban who are there because, frankly, it's a way of making a living in a very poor country where the Taliban pay them a lot more than they can make as a farmer or in some other line of work out in the countryside. So we're already seeing people coming off the battlefield.

There was a big story in one of the papers today about the military working with a whole tribe in effect to give them an alternative to either being on the sidelines or siding with the Taliban.

QUESTION: It's interesting you mention the article that's in The New York Times. The tribe is the largest Pashtun tribe in Afghanistan, something like 400,000 members. And basically, what they said was we are going -- the tribe has pledged, all its leaders have pledged, to fight the Taliban, for as big as it is, quite a first.

The money that came from the American commanders went directly to the tribe, bypassed the government. How do you work out in a sense the tension between going directly to the people who are trying to do something, the tribal groups such as they are in Afghanistan, and also trying to support a government? In this case, the tribal group said they didn't trust the government to help them.

SECRETARY CLINTON : Well, there are two interconnected approaches. The story you're describing was a story of our American military making this decision similarly to what they had done in Iraq where individuals were given incentives to leave the battlefield -- tribal elders, villages.

The second aspect of this is what's called the reintegration fund that will be set up and funded by international donors. A number of countries have made some significant contribution commitments.. And I think that's smart because this has to be agile and flexible and fluid depending upon the circumstances.

QUESTION: Secretary Clinton, you were the first Secretary of State, and I think I'm right on this, who has put a big focus on women's rights. When you look ahead to integrating the Taliban, even those who have renounced violence, which of course they would have to do for that to happen, back into society and into some sort of political empowerment, are you worried about the effect that this might have -- the negative effect this might have on Afghan women?

SECRETARY CLINTON: I am concerned, and I've spoken about it with a number of Afghan women and advocates for Afghan women. If the --

QUESTION: And are they worried about it?

SECRETARY CLINTON: They are. They're worried because they don't know quite what it means and I think that's fair. I don't think there is cause for alarm that the current government or any foreseeable government will turn the clock back like that so long as there is enough power in the state and through the new Afghan security forces to make sure that there is never a resurgence of the Taliban that could come close to taking over large parts of the country. That's what we're preventing.

I don't want us to be so diverted into our military and security efforts or the political peace efforts that we forget this country still needs a lot of development, and the only way, in my opinion, that Afghanistan has a chance to develop is if women are given the opportunity to participate fully.

QUESTION: President Karzai said this week that he expects Western troops to be in Afghanistan for at least another decade. Is that a timeline that makes sense to you?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I don't believe that most Western troops will be in a combat role, but there are in many countries Western troops who do training of national armies or police. There are Western troops that provide intelligence, logistics, et cetera. But it won't be as it is today where we are putting in thousands more troops -- 30,000 from our own country, 9,000 from other countries. That's not going to be there for 10 years. But I would imagine there will be continuing military assistance and liaison, which is common around the world.

QUESTION: Could you give me -- what would be an example of talking to let's say a mid level Taliban? I mean, will American officials sit down with Taliban? Would they work through -- what is the practicalities of that?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, Renee, I don't know that I can answer that because I think that this is a very new effort. It's a case-by-case effort. There already have been Taliban who have left and I think it is, for me, just the beginning. And how it goes will be a little bit like jazz. I mean, we're not sure; we can't lay it out completely. But there are a lot of so-called members of the Taliban who want out.

QUESTION: And of course, Western troops in a way want to get out of Afghanistan. Is this an exit strategy?

SECRETARY CLINTON: It's not an exit strategy; it is part of our comprehensive strategy. You have to have a very tough-minded attitude about this. This is not sweetness and light. You're dealing with a very difficult, complex phenomenon. A lot of things are moving in the right direction.

But most wars, most conflicts these days, don't end with a victory on the battlefield. So you've got to go at it in different ways. We found how to do it in Iraq. We've got some of the same people that worked on this in Iraq working with General McChrystal in Afghanistan, and I think we're headed in the right direction.

QUESTION: Secretary Clinton, thank you very much.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you. Good to talk to you.

Background Briefing on Asian Security

Senior Department Official
Senior Official

Via Teleconference

Washington, DC

January 29, 2010

OPERATOR: Good afternoon, and thank you for standing by. At this time, all participants are in a “listen-only” mode. After the presentation, we will conduct a question and answer session. To ask a question at that time, please press *1 and record your first and last name. Today’s conference is being recorded. If you have any objections, you may disconnect at this time.

I would now like to turn the call over to your host, Mr. P.J. Crowley, Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs. Sir, you may begin.

MR. CROWLEY: Thank you very much. And good afternoon and thank you for joining us. I’d like to give you some background information on the announcement today regarding the sale of arms to Taiwan.

We have two Senior Administration Officials here that can help you go through any particulars that you have on the items themselves, the rationale for it, the history of our arms sales to Taiwan. We believe very strongly that this is consistent with our “one-China” policy, in line with the Taiwan Relations Act, and contributes to stability in the region.

At this point, I’ll turn it over to Senior Administration Official Number One, who can make some very brief opening comments.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Good morning, everybody. The Administration today notified Congress of the sale of defensive articles and services to Taiwan under the Foreign Military Sales program. For more than 30 years, through both Democratic and Republican administrations, the United States has provided Taiwan with arms it needs to defend itself. And by doing so, we’re helping to ensure stability in the Taiwan Strait and throughout the region.

This is an approximately $6.4 billion package. It includes UH-60 Black Hawk utility helicopters, Patriot Advance Capability-3 firing units, a training unit and missiles, technical support for Taiwan’s command control communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance systems – that’s C4ISR – two Osprey-Class mine-hunting ships, and Harpoon telemetry missiles.

And we’ll take your questions.

MR. CROWLEY: I’ll tell you what, does Senior Administration Official Number Two wish to make any opening comments; otherwise, we’ll go to your questions?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: Well, just to say that today was a formal notification to Congress of this. There are 30 days – there’s a process of 30 days where it is in Congress’s lap to raise questions or concerns. But after the 30 days without any comment, it automatically enters into force. So today is the notification. It’s on the website of the Defense – the DSCA, which is a DOD component. That was done about maybe an hour ago, and that is now for public consumption.

So that’s all, I think.

MR. CROWLEY: Okay. Operator, we’ll open it up for questions at this point.

OPERATOR: Thank you. The first question comes from Jim Wolf. Your line is open.

QUESTION: Thank you. Can you hear me?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: We can.

QUESTION: Okay, good. The – I want to ask about F-16s. Taiwan officials have said repeatedly that they would like to obtain 66 F-16C/Ds. The U.S.-Taiwan Business Council says that administrations – U.S. administrations have three times refused to let Taiwan submit a letter of request, a formal step in the arms for sale – FMS process. What is the Obama Administration’s policy on responding to Taiwan’s expressed desire to buy the F-16s?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: We’re aware of – well aware of Taiwan’s interest in acquiring F-16 aircraft, and we have discussed that with them on a variety of occasions. And we’re in the process of assessing Taiwan’s needs and requirements for that capability.

QUESTION: Do you have any sense of how long that will take? It’s been years that the administrations have said similar things.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: I’m not in a position to give you a sense of how long that’s going to take right now.

QUESTION: Thank you.

OPERATOR: The next question comes from Shaun Tandon. Your line is open.

QUESTION: Yeah, thank you. I wanted to see what consultations, if any, took place with Beijing ahead of time. I know that the Administration has been quite keen to preserve relations. Have there been any consultations that have gone on ahead of time, ahead of this decision? And is there confidence that relations could stay stable with Beijing despite this?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: We don’t consult with Beijing in the sense of asking their permission or anything like that. We notified them of our decision this morning.

QUESTION: Sure. And in terms of the –

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: In other words, we informed them in advance of formal notification this morning.

QUESTION: Sure. And in terms of the reaction that you can gauge – I mean, do you think that there could be a reaction that would be beyond pro forma, something that would set back relations? Or do you have any – are you confident about how things will take place?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Well, as Secretary Clinton has said in the past, we have a very mature relationship. We think we can get through issues like this. We have a lot of other issues with China and other common interests that will continue – we expect we’ll continue to explore with them.

QUESTION: Thanks.

OPERATOR: The next question comes from Foster Klug. Your line is open.

QUESTION: Hello, thanks for doing this. I had a question about Congress. How long do they have to comment or weigh in on this?

And then if I could try to follow up on Shaun’s question a bit, China cut off military-to-military ties after the 2008 announcement. Do you see that as inevitable, specifically that retaliation, this time? And do you plan to continue talks with China about this in an attempt to either cut that off or to try to manage their reaction? Thanks.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Well, as I said, the Congress has 30 days to comment on this. We don’t expect there to be necessarily any reaction, but they have 30 days to raise concerns or comments. So it’s a 30-day process at the end of which, if there are no comments, it automatically takes effect.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: With regard to what the Chinese may do, they certainly have expressed their concern about this sale. They have not shared with us explicitly what they intend to do in response. Of course, they temporarily cut off military-to-military exchanges in response to the October 2008 notification. It may be that they’ll cut off military-to-military exchanges. We think there are lots of good reasons why they shouldn’t, and we’ve been telling them that.

QUESTION: Hello, can you hear me?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: Yes.

QUESTION: Can I follow up just real quick? Is it fair to look at this as sort of a gauge of whether the Obama Administration’s approach to China is working? That, if the relationship is as mature as officials say it is, that that wouldn’t be something that they’ll do, that they’ll handle this differently this time?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: Well, I’m not going to – I can’t predict what the Chinese may or may not do. But President Obama and President Hu agreed in London last year that we’d pursue a positive, cooperative, and comprehensive relationship. I think the Chinese take that very seriously and are aware of our commitment to that, and that we’ll carry on after this.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: And if – I should add in London, they specifically said that there would be a commitment to military-to-military relations. And since then, there’s been a meeting of a – the vice chairman of the central military commission Xu Caihou to the United States to see Secretary Gates. There have been a number of meetings to look at rules of the road in common sea and air space around the South China Seas, China Sea, so we can make sure that we de-conflict as we operate more and more in common areas. So a rather robust, a rather useful development in mil-to-mil relations that we have developed. And I will leave it at that.

OPERATOR: The next question comes from Paul Eckert. Your line is open.

QUESTION: Thank you. Can you maybe discuss some of the security considerations, in other words, Taiwan’s security needs that led to this decision at this point? And in particular, although Beijing and Taiwan are now talking under the current Ma government in Taipei, China hasn’t really stopped its missile buildup across the Taiwan Strait directed at Taiwan. Is that a factor in your discussions with China over this – over these Taiwan weapons sales?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: Well, obviously, all these – I mean, the Department of Defense follows very closely the threat environment and military modernization on the mainland. And as stated in the Taiwan Relations Act, this is the basis upon which we decide what to sell to Taiwan for their legitimate self-defense needs, for sufficient self-defense. So of course, there is a connection between what Beijing does in its modernization and the threat they pose to the island, and the types of sales that we authorize that we today notified. You’ll see on there, for instance, C4ISR capabilities and lift capabilities offshore, helicopters and such, and mine sweepers. So it does directly address many of the things that we see as making Taiwan more vulnerable and what they need for their own self-defense, absolutely.

And we do bring up the question of their missile development as part of that overall threat to the island. It’s only one component, but the missiles certainly are of concern.

QUESTION: Thank you.

OPERATOR: Once again, if you would like to ask a question, please press *1. The next question comes from Viola Gienger.

QUESTION: Hi. This is Viola Gienger from Bloomberg News. Can you tell me a little bit more about how exactly you notified China this morning, and in what sort of way, what sort of forum? And how – did this come up at all in David Shear’s meeting with the DCM, the Chinese Embassy, a couple of weeks ago? Was there any sort of – just a little heads-up to them to let them know? Was there any informal heads-up to China to let them know about this in – prior to the formal notification this morning?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: We called in an official from the Chinese Embassy to inform him of our decision this morning. And there were no previous heads-ups to the Chinese on this.

QUESTION: Okay. And can I just follow up a little bit regarding the military-to-military relations with China? Has the issue of Taiwan come up in any of those discussions, and in what way?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Taiwan is always in the discussions in some form. I mean, they consider this – quote – “their core interest.” And it’s been – we sort of get used to the fact that Taiwan is a component of the way they think about their interests and their relationship with the United States. So yes, of course, it does come up.

But again, we have some very serious issues, as with the entire relationship, that we need to be working with them on for peace and stability in the region and for just overall development of our common interests. So we would hope that we can agree to disagree on this question, but continue with an outline of exchanges, of contacts, of initiatives on the mil-to-mil front over the next year to that end.

QUESTION: Thank you.

OPERATOR: The next question comes from Warren Strobel. Your line is open.

QUESTION: Thank you. Two sort of interrelated questions. You said there was no sort of heads-up of any kind to the Chinese, but Secretary Clinton met with Foreign Minister Yang in London, I believe it was yesterday, and I’m just wondering if this came up, even in passing. And secondly, one of her priorities and President Obama’s priorities is sanctions on Iran, to which China is very skeptical right now. And I’m wondering how much concern there is that this action by the United States Government might cause China to be even more skeptical.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: (Inaudible) we discuss Taiwan in general terms with the Chinese frequently. The Chinese raise it with us frequently. I actually don’t know if it was discussed in the meeting with Foreign Minister Yang yesterday. We’ll have to get back to you on that.

With regard to Iran, we think China has a strong interest in an Iran that adheres to its obligations under the Nonproliferation Treaty. And they have said so, and we work closely with the Chinese in the context of the P-5+1 on this and we’re working with them right now to try and move things forward on Iran. So we’re going to have a tough negotiation and working with China is going to be part of that.

QUESTION: Thanks.

OPERATOR: The next question comes from Daniel Dombey. Your line is open.

QUESTION: Thank you very much, indeed. Gentlemen, just two questions if I may. First of all, to what extent does this come at a particularly sensitive time, given the recent dispute about Google, the imminent meeting between the President and the Dalai Lama, and so on? To what extent does it come at a particularly intense time about – for U.S.-Chinese relations?

And secondly, if you could, I’d just like you to underline the importance of and the utility of those military-to-military relations and contacts, and why the Administration has placed such a premium on resuming them.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: Well, again, as Secretary Clinton has said, we have a very mature relationship with the Chinese. Issues like this come up from time to time, and on the basis of our understandings with the Chinese about good bilateral relations, we try to address those issues as they come up. So I don’t think this will have a fundamental effect on the bilateral relationship as a whole.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: And on the question of mil-to-mil and the benefits of it, there’s a lot of understanding that we need between the two sides. I mean, we – the PLA is a rather insular organization. And I think it’s worthwhile having exchanges, piercing some of the misconceptions and building ties in that way. I think there’s a great deal of usefulness in those initiatives. And on the practical side, I mean, there are things this year like military medical, military engineering exchanges, mid-level cadet exchanges, and again, as I mentioned, that military maritime stuff where we are talking very seriously about making sure that we have the right signaling on the high seas and in the air so that we don’t have a misunderstanding leading to conflict.

So at all levels, I think mil-to-mil is an essential component of the overall relationship. To not have one would certainly be not helpful, would send a wrong signal to the region, to Asia. They want to see it occur. And we’re committed to continuing it and sustaining it.

QUESTION: And just to follow up, you talked about piercing misconceptions. How would you describe those misconceptions? What kind of misconceptions are you talking about there?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Well, we don’t – I don’t think there’s anything specific about it. I mean, there are still concerns they have about is the United States containing China, what is the United States doing in terms of its basing in the region, why is it doing it – fundamental strategic aspects of what each side is doing. We have a lot of questions about China – why is it modernizing its military, why is it developing certain capabilities that we find to be challenging.

And so, I mean, both sides, given our size and our presence in Asia, need to have a consistent dialogue on this so that people at all levels are reassured that China’s rise is indeed peaceful and that our intentions are indeed not contrary to China’s. And I think the only way to do that is face-to-face dialogue and constant contact and building of relationships.

QUESTION: Thank you.

OPERATOR: Our next question comes from Peter Spiegel. Your line is open.

QUESTION: Yes, thank you, and I apologize. I got on the call a little bit late. Could I just ask you to – if there was a total dollar value put on the package that is being announced to Congress today, if you could address that real quickly?

More substantively, folks in the analyst community have been surprised – at least they said they’re surprised – about the vehemence to which the Chinese – the mainland Chinese have been arguing against this ahead of the announcement. I think in their words, they were a bit surprised, particularly given the – some of the outreach between the KMT and Beijing, that they had been so vehement in their objections. And there’s some speculation that the Chinese, seeing themselves as sort of economic rising and military rising, feel they could use their new power to affect your decision making on this front.

I guess that question is twofold, then. One, Is that your interpretation of the reaction ahead of this from Beijing, that it is more vehement than perhaps you suspected? And B, to what extent did that affect your decision-making process as you looked at this package?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: The package is $6.4 billion. With regard to the Chinese reaction, the Chinese, of course, are concerned about it. They’ve expressed those concerns to us, both in general terms before we made the decision and since we notified them as well. I don’t think their reaction goes beyond what we expected. And again, we have lots of – a broad range of interests and common interests with the Chinese and we expect to continue pursuing those interests as we move forward.

QUESTION: Could I just ask a follow-up? Again, I caught the call late. I realize this is a background briefing. Were the two briefers identified even for background purposes at the start of the call?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: No.

QUESTION: Is that possible to get that?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: No. (Laughter.) Yes, we’ll get it to you.

QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.

OPERATOR: The next question comes from Viola Gienger. Your line is open.

QUESTION: Yes, I’d like to second Peter’s request for the IDs and --

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: We’ll do it at the end.

QUESTION: -- Official One versus Official Two.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Sure.

QUESTION: That would be great. And also, what concrete progress do you feel you’ve made in mil-to-mil talks since they started back in July?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: Well, we were just starting up again. I can’t say there was a huge move forward, and we’re not looking for great breakthroughs. What we’re looking for is a constant process, a consistent process, a sustained process. We did have, as I say, a senior visitor from the Central Military Commission come, and I thought it was a very productive visit and established the groundwork for a potential return visit at some time in the future from the United States.

So there was a degree of momentum that we had established after a very slow start after the last arms sales round. So we made decent progress, but this kind of thing is a long-term initiative.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL THREE: I would also add that in addition to the high-level visits, one can’t underestimate the role of some of the working groups that take place to discuss things associated with naval issues, maritime issues. And those meetings have taken place periodically and they give us an opportunity to explain our role, our views on maritime security. And they’ve been – they’ve served as also both a pressure valve and also an opportunity to explain each of our positions.

MR. CROWLEY: I should say at this point we’ve been joined by Senior Administration Official Number Three, who was just speaking. We’ll identify all of them at the end.

OPERATOR: The next question comes from David Sanger. Your line is open.

QUESTION: Thanks. You were asked earlier about the possible effect on the Chinese in their response on Iran, and made the argument, as we’ve often heard, that it’s in China’s interest to keep Iran within the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and abiding by all of its provisions. But just a few hours ago, Secretary Clinton gave a fairly bald warning to the Chinese about both the economic insecurity and the diplomatic isolation they would face if they did not agree to the new sanctions.

And I’m just wondering the degree to which you timed this announcement. I mean, obviously you knew where she was going to be and what she would be involved in this week as she’s been making Iran the sub-theme of the European trip that’s largely been on Afghanistan.

MR. CROWLEY: David, P.J. here. I would not read anything into the timing of this announcement. There’s a longstanding, ongoing process regarding these kinds of initiatives regarding arms sales, but this is not tied to where Secretary Clinton was going to be this week or her meeting with Foreign Minister Yang. Each of these is on a separate track.

I think Secretary Clinton – in terms of her point about economics, there’s a perception that perhaps in some of its dealings with Iran, China may think that it does not – it will not be affected if Iran ultimately introduces a nuclear weapon into the Middle East, and we would disagree with that. Obviously, in the aftermath of a nuclear Iran, you’ll have significant decisions that other countries in the region would have to make. And that is going to have an impact on oil markets, and those oil markets are among – China depends on those oil markets just like anybody – any other major economy does.

So at the end of this calculation, as we go through the P-5+1 process, China will have to fully appreciate the implications of the path that Iran is on. And that’s why, as the Secretary also said during her trip, there is an openness that she feels within the Chinese leadership. While they have their traditional view on sanctions, that they – we will continue this conversation.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: Can I add one other thing, David, just to that?

QUESTION: I’m sorry. Who’s this?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: Another Senior Administration --

QUESTION: Oh. Okay.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: -- Official. And an expert fisherman.

QUESTION: Oh. Got it. Okay, now I’ve got the voice. (Laughter.)

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: So the other thing that’s important to underscore is that this has more to do with Iran than it does with China. But the diplomacy surrounding the overall strategy with Iran extends beyond the P-5+1. So, for instance, in recent high-level meetings with other key Asian countries, the Secretary and others have underscored – for instance, Japan and others – that the next step will involve a more comprehensive set of stakes, taking affirmative actions, and that we are looking to support from key states like Japan in this process.

QUESTION: Thanks.

OPERATOR: The next question comes from Jim Wolf. Your line is open.

QUESTION: Yeah. On the arms sale, I wonder what you can say about the status of President George W. Bush’s offer to supply help for obtaining diesel electric submarines. That’s not part of the package again, and there had been talk of breaking it into two parts with the design phase. Whatever happened to that?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Well, nothing has been ruled in or ruled out. We continue to evaluate Taiwan’s defense needs, including the maritime front. And I just say that’s a component, but we continue to evaluate Taiwan’s defense needs in that regard.

QUESTION: Is there any truth to the readout, for instance from Rupert Hammond-Chambers of the U.S.-Taiwan Business Council, that a decision was made to skip it now because of a lack of consensus among Taiwan leaders about whether to go ahead with the submarines?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: I don’t think we can comment on that at this juncture.

MR. CROWLEY: We probably have time for one or two more questions.

OPERATOR: The next question comes from Stephen Kauffman. Your line is open.

QUESTION: Thank you. I was just wondering if one of you all could articulate maybe just the broader policy rationale that you’re working with the arms sales. Is this more about the – our relationship with Taiwan, or are we really trying to maintain more of a strategic equilibrium of sorts in trying to maybe deter China from armed action? Thank you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Thank you. That’s a critical and important question. I would say, first and foremost, at the strategic level, national law and the strategic interests of the United States require us to provide the defensive capabilities and also the wherewithal in the United States to deal with any challenges to the peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait. And we take that responsibility very seriously, as underscored by the decision to move ahead with this package today.

We have also tried to underscore in this briefing that it is in the U.S. interests to have a strong, productive, positive relationship with China. And in addition, we support the dialogue that has taken place in recent years across the Taiwan Strait. And our general argument would be that the provision of necessary defense items to Taiwan not only meets an urgent requirement in terms of dealing with the military challenges across the Taiwan Strait, but also provides the Taiwan leadership with the confidence and the understanding that the United States provides a critical support to Taiwan, and that gives them greater confidence and ability to interact across the Straits in peaceful dialogue with their PRC counterparts.

And lastly, I think the arms sales makes clear, not just in this context but in Asia as a whole, that the United States stands by its commitments and that others that depend on the United States for the maintenance of peace and stability can be reassured that our support is unwavering.

QUESTION: Thank you.

OPERATOR: The next question comes from Carl Sears. Your line is open.

QUESTION: You were just referring to the confidence-building aspect of this arms sale. But in terms of a strategic objective, how do we calibrate that? Is this – is our intent to provide Taiwan the ability to deter, repel, and survive a Chinese attack? I mean, can you speak to that baseline, that benchmark?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Look, I think our fundamental goal through everything we do – diplomatically, strategically with our forward deployments, with our mil-to-mil engagement with China, with our partners in the region, our unofficial relationship with Taiwan – our primary goal is the maintenance of peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait. And we believe that all of our efforts in this respect must underscore that central objective.

There are other operational matters associated with if that condition no longer pertains. But our fundamental effort in all that we do is to ensure that peace and stability that has, in many respects, been the basis of China’s enormous progress, Taiwan’s effective growth and democratization, and generally a peaceful situation in Northeast Asia for decades.

MR. CROWLEY: We’ll take one more.

OPERATOR: The next question comes from Daniel Dombey. Your line is open.

QUESTION: Thank you. Just one more. I just wanted to see, just to put it into a broader context, to what extent are your concerns about where these kind of sales can lead in terms of relations between Washington and Beijing assuaged or diminished by the fact that we no longer have a government that is holding referendums on maybe joining the UN or whatever, and that relations have obviously warmed up a little bit between Beijing and Taipei. How does that factor into your calculations of the fallout, if not the decision itself?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Well, look, let me just say just two things. First, we do not take a position on the democratic process or outcomes of our friends or partners. So we would have nothing to say, generally, about that in Taiwan or elsewhere.

However, it is also the case that we see the dialogue that has evolved in recent years between China and Taiwan as essentially a promising one. We support it. And it is also the case that even in the context of these announced arms sales, the U.S. Government at the highest levels has made very clear that we desire a strong and durable relationship with Beijing, and that we believe that following through on our responsibilities and commitments sends the appropriate message to all concerned.

MR. CROWLEY: Thank you very much. We – this – we have to complete the call at this point, and we thank you for participating.

Advancing the Rights of Women and Girls: Keys to a Better Future for Afghanistan

Office of the Spokesman

Washington, DC

January 29, 2010

Women’s empowerment is inextricably linked to security, economic opportunity, effective governance, and social development. It is up to the Afghan Government and people to work toward a vision we all share: of a country where citizens are free from violence and coercion; where girls can go to school; where parents can find jobs and quality health care is more easily accessible. These will be the greatest barometers of Afghanistan’s progress. Secretary Clinton unveiled the U.S. plan to support women’s initiatives, outlined in the Women’s Action Plan for Afghanistan, at the London Conference on Afghanistan on January 28.

The Plan includes initiatives focused on women’s security; women’s leadership in the public and private sectors; women’s access to judicial institutions, education, and health services; and women’s ability to take advantage of economic opportunities, especially in the agricultural sector. This is a comprehensive, forward-looking agenda that stands in stark contrast to the oppression and marginalization women face from Afghan insurgents.

Women are key to every element of this agenda – from strengthening the economic sector, to promoting good governance, to energizing civil society, to sustaining peace and security. Progress is not possible if half a country’s population is left behind. Afghan women must not be viewed simply as victims who need to be sheltered. They must be respected and valued as leaders -- a reserve of talent that Afghan society needs to draw upon in order to prosper and succeed.

The Afghan government is taking important steps. It has committed to enacting legislation to eradicate violence against women and has recognized the importance of women in both the Afghan National Development Strategy and the National Action Plan for the Women of Afghanistan. Much more remains to be done. The U.S. looks forward to supporting these and other initiatives that will help build the capacity of Afghan women to participate fully in Afghan society and shape their country’s future.

For the complete Women’s Action Plan for Afghanistan, please see the following link: http://www.state.gov/s/special_rep_afghanistan_pakistan/2010/136250.htm.

# # #

Taken Question: U.S. Submission to Copenhagen Accord

Office of the Spokesman

Washington, DC

Question Taken at the January 28, 2009 Daily Press Briefing

January 29, 2010

Question: Do we have voluntary mitigation actions or other deliverables due at the end of this month for the Copenhagen Accord? If so, are we on track to meet the deadline?

Answer: On January 28, 2010, the U.S. sent a Notification to the Secretariat of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change of its Copenhagen association and its emissions reduction target.

###

The Secretary of State's Speech on European Security

Office of the Spokesman

Washington, DC

January 29, 2010

In a speech today at L’Ecole Militaire in Paris, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton emphasized that the United States and Europe are essential partners in meeting today’s global challenges, and stressed that we are eager to strengthen cooperation with a Europe that is strong and unified. Today, thanks to the partnership between our nation and many others, Europe is more secure than ever before. But much important work remains unfinished. We welcome the new thinking on European security that is underway on both sides of the Atlantic. As we work with our partners to strengthen and extend security in Europe, we will do so on a firm foundation of core principles. These principles include:

• Dedication to the Sovereignty and Territorial Integrity of all States. The United States must and will remain vigilant in our efforts to oppose any attempt to undermine the right of all countries to pursue their own foreign policies, choose their own allies, and provide for their own defense. The United States strongly objects to any spheres of influence in which one country seeks to control another’s future.
  
• Recognition that Security in Europe Must be Indivisible. The security of all nations is intertwined. We must work together to enhance each other’s security, in part by engaging with each other on new ideas and approaches. We want to work together with Russia to reaffirm the principles of the Helsinki Final Act and the NATO-Russia Founding Act. The United States is proud of what our two countries have accomplished together during the past year. We will continue to build a more substantive and constructive relationship based on our mutual interests.
  
• Unwavering Devotion to the Collective Defense and Security of NATO Allies. This pledge is enshrined in the NATO treaty’s Article 5, wherein an attack on one is an attack on all. The United States is working with our Allies to develop contingency plans for responding to new and evolving threats. We are engaged in productive discussions with European allies about their potential participation in the new missile defense architecture. We are also exploring ways to cooperate with Russia in ways that enhance the security of all of Europe, including Russia.
  
• Commitment to Practicing Transparency in Our Dealings with Europe. To keep Europe safe, we must keep the channels of communication open by being forthright about our policies and approaches. The United States supports a more open exchange of military data, including visits to military sites. The Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty also needs our attention. Our goal should be a modern security framework that strengthens the principles of territorial integrity, non-first use of force, transparency, and the right of host countries to approve the stationing of troops in their territory.
  
• Belief that People Everywhere Have the Right to Live Free from the Fear of Nuclear Destruction. President Obama has declared a goal of ridding the world of nuclear weapons. As long as nuclear weapons exist, we will retain a safe, secure, and effective deterrent to protect us and our allies. The United States and Russia are close to concluding a new START treaty to reduce our strategic nuclear arsenals. The United States will also chart the future of its nuclear forces in the Nuclear Posture Review, host a Nuclear Security Summit to address the risk of unsecured nuclear material, seek to strengthen the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, pursue negotiations on a Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty, and move toward ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
  
• Recognition that True Security Entails Not Only Peaceful Relations among States, but Opportunities and Rights for the Individuals Who Live Within Them. Governments must promote and defend the human rights of their citizens so that all can live in dignity, free from fear of violence or oppression. The United States and Europe are acting together to expand opportunity, advance democracy, and protect human dignity around the world. The United States seeks to partner with and strengthen institutions to broaden the respect for human rights, to end the scourge of human trafficking across Europe, and to reach out to marginalized groups.

A transcript of Secretary Clinton’s remarks is available online at www.state.gov.

# # #

Fifth Plenary Meeting of the Contact Group on Piracy off the Coast of Somalia

Washington, DC

January 29, 2010

The Contact Group on Piracy off the Coast of Somalia met at United Nations Headquarters in New York on January 28, 2010, and agreed upon the following statement.

Begin Text:

The Contact Group on Piracy off the Coast of Somalia (CGPCS) held its fifth meeting in New York on 28 January 2010, under the Chairmanship of Norway.

The CGPCS has since the establishment served as an excellent forum for international cooperation and coordination to prevent piracy. Through its working groups it has facilitated military coordination off the Coast of Somalia, developed Best Management Practices (BMPs) for self-protection of the industry and established the IMO Djibouti Code Trust Fund and the International Trust Fund to Support Initiatives of States Countering Piracy off the Coast of Somalia. Still, piracy attacks remain at a significant and worrying level and the area of attacks are expanding into the Indian Ocean, which requires an effective military response. The CGPCS therefore reiterated its pledge to continue its activities.

The CGPCS welcomed Security Council Resolution 1897 (2009) commending the work of the CGPCS to facilitate coordination in order to deter acts of piracy and armed robbery at sea off the Coast of Somalia.

The CGPCS noted that the agreed BMPs are effective preventive tools against piracy off the Coast of Somalia. It is of vital importance that the BMPs are followed. While welcoming agreed BMP compliance by the majority of the shipping industry, the CGPCS noted with concern the continued non-compliance by a minority, and urged increased action by flag states and shipping companies to continue to minimize risk, including through ship security plans as agreed in the New York Declaration.

The CGPCS invited its working groups and the IMO to keep the CGPCS updated on action in this area.

The CGPCS noted with concern ongoing piracy attacks, but welcomed the continued reduction in the rate of successful attacks by pirates off the coast of Somalia. As a result of the Shared Awareness and De-confliction process (SHADE) the combined military presence has been a key contribution in significantly reducing the number of successful attacks in the Gulf of Aden with only two attacks in the last six months resulting in vessels being hijacked. The Somali Basin has seen an increase in the number of active pirate groups but improved reconnaissance could enable timely routing advice and the interdiction by naval forces. As a result of this military activity some 90 pirates have been detained and nearly 50 skiffs and associated paraphernalia have been destroyed.

The UN-DPA and UNPOS, who serves as the chair of the International Contact Group for Somalia (ICG), addressed the CGPCS plenary and emphasized the importance of addressing the root causes of the piracy problem off the coast of Somalia. Measures at land and at sea should be well coordinated. The CGPCS welcomed the agreement of intent reached by the Transitional Federal Government of Somalia (TFG) with the regional authorities of Puntland and Somaliland in Kampala, Uganda, on 10 – 12 January to establish a technical coordination mechanism for counter-piracy. The CGPCS expects this mechanism to act as an efficient interlocutor on technical aspects as highlighted in the Working Group 1 Needs Assessment.

The CGPCS noted with satisfaction that the communication and cooperation with the ICG is established and that such cooperation will further enhance the efforts of the two groups.

The UK reported on the Working Group 1 meetings of 16-17 November 2009 and 27 January 2010, held in London and New York City respectively. The CGPCS reaffirmed its strong support for the activity of multinational and national anti piracy military operations in the region, and welcomed their continuing success in delivering a substantial level of security for international shipping, in particular in the critical Gulf of Aden Internationally Recognized Transit Corridor (IRTC).

The CGPCS welcomed the intention by China to harmonize its military operations with the IRTC patrol system co-ordinated by the multinational SHADE mechanism, and thus optimizing the most efficient possible use of military assets in the fight against piracy, bearing in mind that international escorting cooperation is on a voluntary basis and under the guidance of independent military command.

Recalling its agreement on the need for early action to deliver increased counter-piracy capability throughout the region, including within Somalia, as the sustainable means to combat piracy and address its root causes in the longer term, the CGPCS welcomed the regional counter-piracy capability development needs assessment and prioritization mission report delivered by Working Group 1. The CGPCS endorsed the agreement by Working Group 1 that the report should provide the basis for further detailed work to address regional counter-piracy capability development needs. This is without prejudice to decisions on detailed implementation and funding of projects, especially through implementation of the Djibouti Code of Conduct, led by the IMO, and through the development of legal structures, led by the UNODC, both of these areas of work being of great importance. The CGPCS stressed the importance of enhanced coordination capacity development efforts. The CGPCS welcomed the offers of bilateral and multilateral support which had already been received to implement the needs assessment report, and encouraged all CGPCS partners to provide support, financially or in kind, including to build up effective Somali structures in relevant areas. The CGPCS tasked Working Group 1 to continue to promote effective military coordination between different naval forces combating piracy off the coast of Somalia, as well as to enhance further regional capability development.

Denmark reported on the work of Working Group 2 on legal issues, emphasizing the following:

· The list of Working Group 2 accomplishments (“the legal tool-box”);

· The need for all participants to maintain focus on both own legal and actual ability to prosecute suspected pirates and to ensure timely and sufficient capacity building assistance to States willing to prosecute; and

· The need to develop further specific instruments to ensure prosecution, including the availability of witnesses.

The CGPCS underlined the need to end impunity of piracy off the coast of Somalia. The effective prosecution of piracy suspects is a key element to countering piracy and crucial to the success of the international efforts off the coast of Somalia. The CGPCS emphasized the urgent need for all States and Organizations to continue to review rules and procedures in order to ensure prosecution of suspected pirates and the necessary global and regional burden sharing in this respect.

On the issue of an international, regional or other mechanism for the prosecution of suspected pirates as a possible addition to national prosecution, the discussion in Working Group 2 showed that the most feasible model would be a specialized or dedicated piracy chamber – with or without international elements - established within the existing domestic criminal justice system of one or more States and located in one or more States willing and able to undertake prosecution, including Somalia when this becomes possible. The Chair underlined that this conclusion was without prejudice to the position of States and organizations on the need for such a mechanism.

The CGPCS took note of the Working Group 2 discussions on this issue. It welcomed the efforts of Kenya and the Seychelles to ensure prosecution of pirate suspects and - in the strongest possible terms - called on all States and Organizations to step up assistance to targeted judicial capacity building in the region, including in support of the development towards establishing specialized or dedicated piracy chambers. The CGPCS underlined the need for continued close cooperation between Working Group 1 and 2.

The CGPCS asked the Working Group to continue its work based on the future actions described in Chairman’s conclusions and the guidance given by the CGPCS, in particular to look into the ways and means of how to overcome the incompatibility of national criminal procedural norms and rules that hamper the effectiveness of criminal prosecution of suspected pirates. The next meeting of Working Group 2 will be held in Copenhagen before the next CPGCS plenary meeting.

The CGPCS adopted the revised Terms of Reference for its Trust Fund with UNODC as the fund manager. Germany reported to the Plenary from the Extraordinary Meeting of the CGPCS in New York City on 7 December 2009 on which the Board of the Trust Fund was elected. The CGPCS welcomed the support of Cyprus, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Japan Sweden, UK and Norway who have already pledged support to the fund, and encouraged other countries to do so as well.

The United States reported from Working Group 3 that updating BMPs for self protection has proven to be a useful process, thanks to the collaborative efforts and commitment of industry with the support of Maritime Security Center-Horn of Africa (MSC-HOA), UK Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO), and Maritime Liaison Office (MARLO). Delegations should remain aware of these efforts, encourage their respective vessels to use the services of MSC-HOA, and disseminate current versions of BMPs and other piracy counter-measure guidance. While an estimated 90% of vessels are following some parts of the BMPs, the positive effects are often being undermined by vessels not reporting to MSC-HOA and UKMTO. Opportunities exist to improve these reporting trends through the use of Long Range Identification and Tracking (LRIT) and Shipboard Security Alert System (SSAS) information.

Human factors continue to emerge as increasingly relevant to anti-piracy efforts, and more comprehensive guidance is felt needed to complement the vessel protection measures in the BMPs and other piracy counter-measure guidance. Some flag states include anti-piracy training in their respective maritime schools. Clinical studies, now underway to address the impact of piracy on seafarers are expected to produce more comprehensive guidance in this regard. Broad support for these efforts have been expressed by ship registries, vessel operators, shipping advocates, labor relations personnel, and regulators in supporting protection of crews and vessels. Working Group 3 will continue to identify issues related to human factors and seafarer welfare, develop or identify guidance in support of crew training and post event activities, and facilitate their validation and dissemination from authoritative sources.

Working Group 3 will continue to work primarily through correspondence to review BMPs and anti-piracy guidance, and identify and develop labor related guidance to strengthen shipping self awareness as well as to inform and complement the work of the Maritime Safety Committee of IMO. A formal meeting is being planned at IMO headquarters in London on 18 and 19 March 2010.

Working Group 4 reported on its third meeting held in New York on 27 January 2010. The CGPCS underscored the importance of making the Somali region inhospitable to piracy. This goal can be achieved by pursuing a strategic and comprehensive implementation of the CGPCS communication strategy and by pursuing land based and other policies. The CGPCS confirmed the central role of the United Nations in coordinating implementation of the CGPCS communication and media strategy and stressed the need to strengthen coordination with the ICG.

The CPGCS invited the United Nations to elaborate project proposals to support the implementation of the CGPCS communication and media strategy. For this purpose, the United Nations can submit project proposals to the trust fund board as well as to other donors. The Chair of Working Group 4 intends to play an active role in fundraising for these projects.

INTERPOL reported that it will establish a dedicated Working Group to assist its member countries to curb maritime piracy. Participants of the CGPCS emphasized the importance of the increased collection and exchange of investigation information and intelligence on maritime piracy issues and its financial ramifications; enhanced capacity building and trainings for law enforcement agencies of regional countries affected by piracy; and international cooperation with all relevant stakeholders and the international community to efficiently coordinate the efforts undertaken to successfully eradicate maritime piracy off the coast of Somalia.

The CGPCS welcomed the offer of Greece to chair the sixth Plenary Meeting which will be held in New York in May 2010.

The CGPCS also welcomed the offer of The Republic of Korea to chair the seventh Plenary Meeting, and The Republic of Turkey to chair the eighth Plenary Meeting, both to be held in New York.

Interview With Jill Dougherty of CNN

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State

London, United Kingdom

January 28, 2010

QUESTION: Secretary Clinton, thank you very much for spending some time with us. I want to start with this idea of reintegration and reconciliation in Afghanistan. President Karzai today, in fact, said that he believes that the insurgents will definitely be invited to the peace talks. What do you think about that idea?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, in general, Jill, you don’t make peace with your friends; you make peace with your enemies. And I think what President Karzai is trying to do is to send some very clear messages. Number one, if you are one of the many, many Taliban members who is there because it’s a living, you actually are making money by being in this fight, or you were, in effect, drafted through intimidation of some sort, come off the battlefield and reintegrate into society. If you are a mid-level leader of the Taliban, not ideologically committed to their world view, then you too can rejoin society. However, there are very clear conditions: You must renounce violence, you must lay down your arms, you must renounce al-Qaida, and you must be willing to live by the laws and the constitution of Afghanistan.

So I think that this is the way peace usually gets made. You send out feelers. You see who’s willing to lay down their arms and abide by the conditions. You see how far up that will go. I do not expect Mullah Omar and those people to be at all interested in this. In fact, they’ve made it very clear that they’re not. But I think there are many members of the Taliban who will see this chance to reenter society under these very stringent conditions to be attractive enough to test.

I also think it’s clear that our commanders on the field, General McChrystal and his team, who are in the fight and reversing the momentum of the Taliban, they know, as we learned in Iraq, there is an opportunity to try to convince the insurgents to quit the fight and come back. And that’s part of this peace effort.

QUESTION: You mentioned Iraq. And in fact, the Sunni Awakening was what happened in Iraq. The United States was very actively involved in Iraq in that movement. In Afghanistan, what would be the role of the U.S., briefly? And especially when we get into the financial side of it, there’s going to be a fund, an international fund. Can the U.S. actually contribute money to that? Because after all, there are Treasury regulations that seem to preclude that.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, just as we did in Iraq, the United States military will have funds available for these battlefield decisions. And all of the rules and regulations will be abided by, of course. But what our commanders tell us is that it is extremely useful when somebody shows up and says to a young lieutenant or captain, “I’d like to quit, I want to go home, I want to plant in my fields,” that happens a lot. And so to be able to say okay, and here’s what you’ll get if you meet our conditions and you go forward as a member of society – so we want to equip our military.

Now, on the civilian side, a number of countries today made commitments to what is being called the reintegration fund. And that will be a means also to make sure that the people who are now making more money as a Taliban fighter than they made as a farmer or doing something else within Afghan society will be able to support their families and contribute. I mean, that’s the way this works. We’ve learned a lot and we know much more today than we did five or six years ago in Iraq. And I have the greatest confidence in General McChrystal and his team to know how to pull this off.

QUESTION: But can the U.S. actually contribute to that fund without getting some type of a waiver?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Oh, yeah. All the rules have to be abided by, yes.

QUESTION: Okay. Now, when you get into reconciliation, that would deal with the leadership, more important members. Five former leaders, in fact, have been delisted – as they say, taken off the UN list of suspected terrorists. Could they be part of the government?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, actually, one of the people who was on the list has already renounced the Taliban and has actually joined the government. So we’re kind of playing catch-up here, that the list has names of people who are irreconcilable – that is clear. The list also has at least one name we’re aware of, of someone who has already died. But there are people on that list who everyone believes, including the gentleman who has already met the conditions, who should be taken off the list and given a chance to be reintegrated.

QUESTION: But the irreconcilables – what if the government, the Afghan Government, actually did want to deal ultimately with Mullah Omar, thinking that perhaps he could bring them Osama bin Laden or something like that? What could the U.S. do in that case?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, the U.S. is a partner with the Afghan Government. So we are going to be closely consulting on the structure of the fund, the standards for the fund. I had a long meeting with President Karzai last night and we went over many of these matters that are going to have to be addressed. It is the kind of situation that, by the very nature of it, is going to be somewhat fluid because we don’t know what’s going to happen, who will come forward.

But based on our experience in many areas of Afghanistan today, the Taliban is extremely unpopular. There was a recent poll that has a lot of credibility, pointing out that most people in Afghanistan now believe that they can have a better future, they do not want the Taliban back. But they’re scared and they are looking for some support. And one of the ways, as we saw in an article in The New York Times, I think it was today, is that the military is going in and not just talking to individuals, but talking to tribes, talking to villages. This is classic counterinsurgency, and everyone knows that, as General McChrystal has said, you’re never going to kill or capture everybody calling themself a Taliban. But you can change the political environment so that those who continue to call themselves Taliban become more and more isolated, and that’s what we’re seeking.

QUESTION: Let’s talk about women, because in – this is a subject that’s very dear to your heart, it’s very important.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes.

QUESTION: We know the traditional approach that the Taliban have taken to women. So if you bring these people in, isn’t it ultimately a deal with the devil?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, not if they abide by the conditions, which they have to in order to be eligible. They have to abide by the constitution and the laws of Afghanistan. That means girls are entitled to go to school, girls and women are entitled to get healthcare. Girls are given the same rights that they should have to be trained. Women have the right to participate in the government. In fact, the new Karzai government has some very prominent women nominated for ministers.

So I think that that’s a concern that some people have raised, but I don’t think that it, in and of itself, is what will impact women’s future. We have to change mindsets. There are very serious continuing problems for many women in Afghanistan that still need to be addressed. And women are just like the men of Afghanistan; they don’t want to see the Taliban come back, obviously, but they still have to be given the opportunities to participate in society.

But a lot of progress has been made. I just was meeting with one of the Afghan women who was presenting at the conference, and she said we want to protect women’s rights, we want to continue to get what we deserve to have, we don’t want anything done in the name of peace to interfere with that. And I said neither do I. And I made that very clear in what I said publicly and privately at this conference.

QUESTION: Now, on Iran, to change the subject here, Iran did not send a representative to this conference on Afghanistan. What do you read into that?

SECRETARY CLINTON: I’m not sure yet, because the foreign secretary here in London had told me that he expected Iran to send a representative. There was a name plate for Iran. It may, Jill, be another example of the uncertainty, confusion, division within the existing Iranian leadership. On many issues, it appears that they aren’t quite sure the way forward because the leadership is being challenged and there are lots of forces at work within the society. But I don’t know any more than that.

QUESTION: So we understand that you have at least an outline of sanctions that you want to impose or – on – we understand that you have at least an outline of sanctions that you want to impose on Iran. How quickly will we see those?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I was meeting all day today not only about Afghanistan, but also about Iran, with many countries. I brought with me two of the experts who are working on the design of the sanctions and the enforcement of the sanctions, and we are beginning to share ideas. It is premature to talk about those because I don’t want to preempt the consideration that other countries will be given to this, but it is very much our agenda to move forward.

We want as much support as we can possibly muster, and we want to be sure that we are aiming at the mindset of the Iranians so that they understand that the international community will not be turning a blind eye to their continuing violations of Security Council obligations of International Atomic Energy Agency regulations. But it is premature to talk in specifics.

QUESTION: You have said that the sanctions are basically aimed at the Revolutionary Guard. The Revolutionary Guard, of course, control key elements of the Iranian economy. So in hitting them, how do you avoid hurting the Iranian people?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, they have a lot of business interests, as we have discovered. And our assessment is that the sanctions will be tough and clearly aimed at the Iranian economy, but that the international community does not have a choice, that this is, unfortunately, a situation in which the behavior of the Iranian Government, not just in this instance but what they’re doing to protestors and demonstrators. I mean, one of the foreign ministers from a Muslim country told me with just total bewilderment, he said, “How can they have a death penalty to demonstrate?” I mean, that’s basically what they’ve come to.

So their society is under a lot of stress. We think it’s imperative to change the calculus of the leadership, and we think this is an appropriate way to proceed, so we are pursuing it.

QUESTION: But could that be a way – if you make it difficult for the people, could the aim ultimately be to get the people angry at their own government and, hence, have some type of regime change?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, this is not meant to punish Iran; it’s meant to change their behavior, and it’s not meant as a target at any one person. It’s meant to change the calculation of the leadership, where – whether that leadership is in the supreme leader’s office or in the Revolutionary Guard or the president or anyone else. And I think that it’s hard to sit here and predict exactly how Iran will respond, because we still are open to the diplomatic track, but we haven’t seen much to really prove that they’re willing to engage with us.

And I think the time has come for the international community to say, no, we cannot permit your continued pursuit of nuclear weapons. It is destabilizing, it is dangerous, and we’re going to take a stand against you.

QUESTION: But you seem to be changing – the United States seems to be changing the focus, at least broadening it. Originally, of course, it’s about the nuclear program; however, there seems to be now a desire to punish the people who are responsible for repression.

SECRETARY CLINTON: No.

QUESTION: Isn’t that a broadening of --

SECRETARY CLINTON: No. I mean, if – for example, if the leadership had accepted the offer that we made on the Tehran research reactor to ship out their low-enriched uranium, we would not be sitting here talking about sanctions. It was their choice. They chose not to. And I think that the Iranian people are at a crossroads. They have the opportunity to demand more from their own leadership, which has, obviously, from the outside, appeared to have failed the Iranian people and failed the very principles that they claim to govern by. So the voices of protest, the voices of opposition, are going to continue to challenge this regime in Iran.

But the outside world is not involved in that. This is an internal societal matter for Iranians to decide. What the outside world is concerned about is their nuclear program. Absent a nuclear program, we would still be expressing our regrets and our condemnation of their behavior toward their citizens, but we would not be looking for sanctions. We are looking for sanctions because their nuclear ambitions threaten the rest of the world.

QUESTION: Well, Madam Secretary, thank you very much.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you, good to talk to you.

Anti-Trafficking Efforts in Haiti

Philip J. Crowley
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Public Affairs

Washington, DC

January 28, 2010

The Department of State is actively involved in addressing the potential for trafficking in persons, particularly children, in post-earthquake Haiti.

The disaster in Haiti has displaced many people and separated numerous children from their families, posing great risk and higher vulnerability to human trafficking. The Department has acted swiftly to mobilize coordinated efforts both on the ground in Haiti and here in Washington to prevent and combat trafficking in persons as part of the USG’s emergency response and long-term planning for recovery.

The Department’s Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons has been engaged on this issue prior to the earthquake and in its aftermath. While UNICEF has taken the lead role in overall child protection and safety in Haiti since the earthquake, we are working to supplement their efforts in combating child trafficking.

Currently, the Department and its partners are intensifying efforts on five different fronts, including: support for protection of vulnerable children (led by UNICEF with the government of Haiti, the Red Cross, and other international and non-governmental organizations), such as registration of unaccompanied and separated children, tracing, and family reunification; helping remobilize the Haitian Police’s Child Protection Brigades; preventing the trafficking of displaced Haitians; educating Haitians about the risks of giving away children in times of crisis; and, rebuilding the capacity of Haitian NGOs already working to protect child domestic servants, known in Haiti as restaveks.

This is just the first wave of coordinated efforts in the aftermath of the earthquake which builds on existing efforts and expertise on the ground. We are coordinating further action to be announced in the coming days.

Barry Larkin to visit Taiwan

Office of the Spokesman

Washington, DC

January 28, 2010

Major League Baseball All-Star and Hall of Fame nominee Barry Larkin will visit Taiwan as a Sports Envoy for the U.S. Department of State February 1-7, 2010. Former Montreal Expo pitcher Joe Logan will join Larkin for their second Sports Envoy program for the SportsUnited Office of the Department’s Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs.

During the six day trip, Larkin and Logan will visit Taipei, Kaohsiung, and other locations in Taiwan. The Envoys will conduct six baseball clinics, visit an orphanage and a school for at-risk youth and attend an exhibition baseball game between two Taipei high schools. They will also interact with ten youth from Taiwan who visited the United States in September 2009 on a Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs SportsUnited program.

For more information, please contact Darlene Kirk at 202-203-7616, kirkdx@state.gov or the American Institute of Taiwan’s press office at [886] (2) 2162-2037; media@mail.ait.org.tw.

Remarks at the International Conference on Afghanistan

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State

London, United Kingdom

January 28, 2010

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, good afternoon, everyone. I think we have just wrapped up a very productive conference and we have seen the results of cooperation in the international community on a number of very important issues. I want to thank Prime Minister Brown and Foreign Secretary Miliband, the Government of Afghanistan, and the United Nations for bringing us all together and sponsoring this important meeting.

And I think that what we have seen is a global challenge that is being met with a global response. I especially thank the countries that have committed additional troops, leading with our host country, the United Kingdom, but including Italy, Germany, Romania. We also are grateful to all those who made their contributions known today. There are other countries such as Russia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, who are providing air space rights and other transit assistance.

But as important as our military mission is, we know that force alone cannot achieve our goals. Last week, I released the U.S. Afghanistan and Pakistan Regional Stabilization Strategy. Its goal is to support Afghan-led efforts to transform and strengthen their own society and ensure their own security. As we heard a lot today, starting with Prime Minister Brown and President Karzai and many others, the goal is to have an Afghan-led and Afghan-owned strategy, and we are seeing that translated into reality every day.

President Karzai laid out an ambitious agenda for reform at his inauguration last year. There have been a number of plans put forth and Afghanistan has moved forward on preparation for a conditions-based transition to take responsibility for its own security and an agenda for development and governance, which is critical to the future. Among the decisions made today was to establish a Peace and Reintegration Trust Fund to support the Government of Afghanistan’s efforts to draw disaffected Taliban back into society so long as they renounce violence, renounce al-Qaida, agree to abide by the laws and constitution of Afghanistan.

Japan has shown an extraordinary commitment with its announcement of $50 million for the fund. And in parallel, the United States military has been authorized to use substantial funds to support the effort, enabling our commanders on the ground to support Afghan Government-led initiatives to take insurgents off the battlefield.

We’ve agreed to support NATO’s plan to work with the Afghan Government on the conditions-based, province-by-province security transition. As President Obama has made clear, our efforts will allow us to begin to transition our own troops out of Afghanistan in July of 2011. But as I said this morning and would underscore this afternoon, this is not an exit strategy. It is about assisting and partnering with the Afghans.

Now, the kinds of reforms that President Karzai and the Afghan Government have announced are important, and we’re going to watch them carefully and make clear our expectations that they be fulfilled. Among them are their efforts to combat corruption, provide more public services to people, effectively manage international aid. We also had very constructive conversations last night at dinner, hosted by Secretary Miliband this morning at breakfast, hosted by Prime Minister Brown and during the conference, about how the international community can support these reforms more effectively, including significant progress toward Afghanistan’s benchmarks for debt relief from the Paris Club and international financial institutions.

I also believe very strongly, as is apparent in what I say about this issue, that women have to be involved at every step of the way in this process. To that end, I unveiled our Women’s Action Plan. It includes initiatives focused on women’s security, women’s leadership in the public and private sector; women’s access to judicial institutions, education, and health services; women’s ability to take advantage of economic opportunities, especially in the agricultural sector. This is a comprehensive, forward-looking agenda that stands in stark contrast to al-Qaida’s recently announced agenda for Afghanistan’s women, attempting to send female suicide bombers to the West.

So the agreement reached today brings us closer to the goal of a stable Afghanistan and advances our efforts to combat the violent extremists who threaten all of our citizens. In addition to this important work on Afghanistan, I had the opportunity to meet one-on-one with a number of my counterparts on the sidelines of this meeting. We discussed a wide range of common concerns, including relief efforts in Haiti. And I thank the British Government for its significant assistance support for the people of Haiti.

I also had a chance to discuss Iran’s refusal to engage with the international community on its nuclear program. They continue to violate IAEA and Security Council requirements. We were disappointed by the Iranian Government’s rejection of an offer that would have built confidence by trading some of Iran’s stockpile of low-enriched uranium for reactor fuel to meet the legitimate medical needs of the Iranian people.

The revelation of Iran’s secret nuclear facility at Qom has raised further questions about Iran’s intentions. And in response to these questions, the Iranian Government has provided a continuous stream of threats to intensify its violation of international nuclear norms. Iran’s approach leaves us with little choice but to work with our partners to apply greater pressure in the hopes that it will cause Iran to reconsider its rejection of diplomatic efforts with respect to its nuclear ambitions.

Tomorrow, I will travel on to Paris where I will continue many of these discussions with President Sarkozy and Foreign Minister Kouchner. I look forward to our close consultations with respect to the challenges facing us. And I’m delighted that we had an opportunity to get a lot of work done on many matters in one place, a particularly favorite place of mine. So again, I thank the British Government for their partnership and hospitality, and I’d be glad to take your questions.

MODERATOR: This question is from Duncan Gardham of the Daily Telegraph.

QUESTION: Hi.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Hi.

QUESTION: I’d like to ask about the general tenor of the conference seems to be changing the pace of what’s been going on in Afghanistan, and to some extent, looking towards the time when troops can leave. A time scale has been mentioned this morning by President Karzai of around 15 years. And I wondered whether you thought that was a practical time limit to start pulling troops out, and also to have the Taliban lay down their arms in that – within that sort of time period?

SECRETARY CLINTON: No, and I don’t think that’s what President Karzai meant. First of all, we have increased the numbers of our military forces. There will be more to come. As you know, the United States has added 30,000. Other international par