Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Susan Rice’

11-30-12-Y-02

In the passive-aggressive tradition of women journalists like Tina Brown who casts herself as a Hillary Clinton supporter while charging in 2009 that Obama was keeping her in the shadows and that her famous *snap* in Democratic Republic of Congo happened because she was hot and “feeling fat,”  Maureen Dowd cast Hillary as a Hitchcock blonde of the Ingrid Bergman, Grace Kelly “survivor” type in an editorial, Spellbound by Blondes, Hot and Icy, in yesterday’s New York Times.

The piece is a kind of left-handed compliment dubbing  Hillary “America’s blonde obsession” while a sub-theme plays out of Hillary neatly escaping blame for Benghazi while Republicans jump all over Susan Rice whom MoDo characterizes as “rough-elbowed” compared to the “smooth Hillary.”   She goes as far as speculating that Hillary is secretly enjoying watching Rice “walk the plank.”

Judge Judy would call all of that “a lot of  who shot John,” but one charge is a shot across the bow and requires an answer.

While Republicans continue their full-cry pursuit of Susan Rice, the actual secretary of state has eluded blame, even though Benghazi is her responsibility. The assault happened on Hillary’s watch, at her consulate, with her ambassador. Given that we figured out a while ago that the Arab Spring could be perilous as well as promising, why hadn’t the State Department developed new norms for security in that part of the world? After 200 years of expecting host countries to protect our diplomats, Hillary et al. didn’t make the adjustment when countries were dissolving.

I guess MoDo missed this:  Aftermath … Benghazi, The Great Debate, and Hurricane Hillary.  I have repeatedly countered such charges here in the nearly three months since the assault on the consulate using Victoria Nuland’s concise explanation of how all embassy security for all countries in all countries works: Clearing The Air On How Embassy Security Works.    The truth is that Hillary et al. did make adjustments by evacuating personnel, closing embassies and consulates as necessary when revolutions were hot, and reinstating personnel and reopening as situations cooled.  What Dowd is expecting is very unrealistic. Countries exchange diplomats according to The Vienna Convention.   Host countries are responsible for the security of diplomats and staff outside embassy walls.

While the fighting was ongoing in Libya and we were participating in a No Fly Zone, many friends were betting that in the end we would have boots on the ground.  We did not.  But now  some of those same people are implying that we should have when the fighting was over, a new government was installed, and we reopened our missions.  You cannot have it both ways.  Boots on the ground  on  foreign soil is invasion, so MoDo is dead wrong on this.

One thing I think we all would agree about is that Hillary Clinton is cool in all the right ways.

Read Full Post »

I am sharing this article for two reasons.  First, it states accurately and articulately my personal position on the statements I have been seeing and hearing since the attack in Benghazi three weeks ago from people were not even on the continent of Africa at the time.  If so many people *know* so much, perhaps the government is better off hiring psychics to inform them than sending in the FBI, CIA, and ARB.

Second,  Ms. Kemper alludes to the uncommon tsunami of ill-will and incivility that appears to be sweeping  the electorate.   It stuns me to hear and read some recent remarks from people who claim to have supported Hillary Clinton in 2008.   I see comments that resemble nothing of the tone of Hillary’s campaign and everything negative in the way the Obama campaigners approached some of us:  the shouting, the anger, and the insults.

It is high time for everyone to step back – out of each other’s faces, take a deep breath, and think and reflect for a  moment.  It is inappropriate to use the tragedy in Benghazi in any political way.  There is no place for rudeness in discussions.

This country has been here for 236 years.   Neither of these candidates is the best we have but neither is Satan either.  Neither is going to take this country down.  Make your choice, but if it differs from mine  that does not mean that I am less informed,  less intelligent,  less American than you are.  I simply see things differently.  Your vote – and mine – are precious.  Let’s be a little more respectful of each other.  Take a deep breath – and turn off your caps lock.

October 3, 2012, 11:08 am

Dishonoring Ambassador Stevens and his colleagues

By Kathy Kemper

As a proud, patriotic American, I am embarrassed by the calls that are being made for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice to resign. Not even a month after the murder of our ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens, and three other Americans, many are politicizing their deaths rather than honoring their service — hardly the behavior that one would or should expect from the citizens of the nation that leads the free world.

Read more…

 

Read Full Post »

The Secretary of State released this statement today.

The Human Rights Council’s Special Session on Syria

Press Statement

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
August 23, 2011

I congratulate the Human Rights Council for its work to create an international independent Commission of Inquiry to investigate the deteriorating human rights situation in Syria and to make clear the world’s concern for the Syrian people. Today, the international community joined together to denounce the Syrian regime’s horrific violence. The United States worked closely with countries from every part of the world – more than 30 members of the Human Rights Council, including key Arab members — to establish this mandate.

The Commission of Inquiry will investigate all violations of international human rights law by Syrian Authorities and help the international community address the serious human rights abuses in Syria and ensure that those responsible are held to account.

There are credible reports that government forces in Syria have committed numerous gross human rights violations, including torture and summary executions in their crackdown against opposition members. The most recent attack by Syrian security forces on protesters in Homs is as deplorable as it is sadly representative of the Asad regime’s utter disregard for the Syrian people.

The United States condemns in the strongest possible terms the slaughter, arrest, and torture of peaceful protesters taking place in Syria. We continue to urge nations around the world to stand with the Syrian people in their demands for a government that represents the needs and will of its people and protects their universal rights. For the sake of the Syrian people, it is time for Asad to step aside and leave this transition to the Syrians themselves.

The State Department posted today’s press briefing in which Victoria Nuland made the following statements about developments in Libya.  Once again everything said on the subject of Libya is included along with a little about Syria.  Those who would like to read the entire transcript can follow the live link below to the text released by the State Department.  All emphasis here is mine.

Victoria Nuland
Washington, DC
August 23, 2011

MS. NULAND: I have nothing at the top, so why don’t we go to – directly what’s on your minds.

QUESTION: Right. Okay. So why don’t you enlighten us as to what’s going on in Libya and your understanding? And also, what’s happening in terms of the diplomacy, in terms of what the Secretary is doing and what other officials are doing? As specific as possible, please.

MS. NULAND: Good. Well, obviously, the battle for Tripoli continues and the ground situation is somewhat fluid, but we have seen some amazing images in the last little while. But there is no question that the Qadhafi regime has nearly collapsed. There is also no question that the best thing he could do for his people would be to relinquish power immediately. We stand with the proud people of Libya at this historic time. Their transition has begun. The Transitional National Council, with whom we maintain daily, hourly contact, is preparing to lead the country through its democratic transition. And we support and echo their calls for national unity at this time, for calm, for no retribution, for no reprisals.

The Secretary spoke yesterday to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon regarding the next steps that the UN can take in the planning that it is doing to assist the Transitional National Council and the Libyan people as they prepare for the transition. They talked about support in the areas of humanitarian relief, security assistance if it is requested, the support the UN can and will offer in the area of political and democratic transition support, constitution writing, and especially in the area of support for the rule of law. This transition will have to be Libyan led, it must be Libyan led, but both the U.S. and the United Nations will support the Libyan process and will be guided by the principle that this is Libya’s to lead.

We are also working urgently today, as you may have heard Ambassador Rice say just a little while ago, this week to be able to release between $1 billion and $1.5 billion in U.S.-held frozen Libyan assets. We are working in the UN Sanctions Committee to be able to do this. We want to give this money back to the TNC for its use, first and foremost to meet humanitarian needs and to help it establish a secure, stable government and to move on to the next step in its own roadmap. And we hope this process will be complete in the coming days. There’s quite a bit of diplomacy both in New York, here in Washington, out in capitals. And the Secretary has been involved in this herself, of course, to get this work done in coming days.

QUESTION: Before you get to the money, can you say – you said that what the best thing for Qadhafi can do now is to relinquish power immediately. What power does he have that you see that he can now relinquish?

MS. NULAND:Well, that’s a good question. He doesn’t seem to have much control of anything. It’s interesting that he still hasn’t been seen –

QUESTION: Are you sure that he hasn’t —

MS. NULAND: — are wondering where he’s been —

QUESTION: — relinquished power? I mean, he doesn’t seem to be leading – making any kind of an attempt to lead a —

MS. NULAND: I think what the —

QUESTION: — to lead his people.

MS. NULAND: — what the Libyan people are looking for, what the international community is looking for, is a reliable, affirmative statement not only to the Libyan people and the international community but to his own loyalists that he understands this is over, that he understands that the days of his leadership are over, so that everybody can move on to have the democratic, strong, united Libya that they deserve.

QUESTION: So short of him turning up dead someplace, you would like to see him come out and say, “I give up, I relinquish power,” so that his supporters won’t carry on the fight?

MS. NULAND:Well, that’s certainly what the Libyan people themselves have been asking for.

QUESTION: Well, then that’s what you would like to see.

MS. NULAND: It’s what the Transitional National Council has been asking for. And it’s what the United States has called for, for many, many weeks.

QUESTION: And on the money issue, this between 1 and 1.5 billion, that’s the – part of the liquid assets, right, that are frozen?

MS. NULAND: Correct.

QUESTION: And you said to give back that money to the TNC, but actually isn’t it to give the TNC? It’s not really their money —

MS. NULAND: To give back to the Libyan people, managed by the legitimate governing authority, the Transitional National Council, their own money.

QUESTION: All right. And what’s your understanding of what needs to actually happen at the UN for that? Because yesterday, you were saying that you would prefer not, or you would have preferred not to have to go through the UN. So —

MS. NULAND: Yesterday, I believe what we said here was that we would prefer for the UN Sanctions Committee to take action, but if the UN Sanctions Committee could not act, that we would find ways to do this unilaterally. So the diplomacy goes on. Ideally, the UN Sanctions Committee will make an affirmative decision to allow this money to be released under its own (inaudible).

QUESTION: Can you (inaudible) how you arrived at that $1 to $1.5 billion figure? And would any decision by the Sanctions Committee cover further releases down the line? I mean, is this a point of principle, that they would then sort of roll back that control over the money that would allow you to unfreeze other things as they become liquid?

MS. NULAND: Under the Sanctions Committee’s own rules and regulations, individual participants can appeal, can request of the Sanctions Committee that exceptions be made for extraordinary circumstances – in this case, humanitarian need – and then the Sanctions Committee has to make an affirmative decision. That’s how the committee works. And in the absence of the international community yet having taken the next step, which will obviously be necessary at an appropriate moment, which is to look at, based on what the Libyan people themselves want, what the TNC wants, what aspects of 19 – UNSCR 1973 still make sense, this is the best and fastest route to get relief, to get money, to the TNC, to do it in a way that has the support of the international community.

QUESTION: And the figure, that 1 to 1.5 billion, is that the amount that’s actually liquid in accounts here that could be sent as cash money to them now?

MS. NULAND: It’s a portion. It’s a little less than half of what is liquid. It is our judgment that this is the right amount now to meet immediate humanitarian and governance needs. And again, the question of the onward release of assets will depend on the situation on the ground, will depend on the desires of the Libyan people, what the TNC requests of the UN, et cetera.

QUESTION: So this money —

MS. NULAND: Josh.

QUESTION: Do you believe that – does the Administration believe that this money should be released with the condition of accountability and transparency on the TNC to make sure it’s not diverted for other than humanitarian purposes? And how would that transparency and accountability mechanism work?

MS. NULAND: Absolutely. The TNC has made strong commitments to the United States. It has made strong commitments in support of the UN – U.S. request to the UN Sanctions Committee with regard to the use of the money, with regard to transparency, et cetera. I’m not prepared to go into details here from the podium, but we would not have taken this step if we didn’t have confidence that the money will be used – will get to the people who need it and will be used appropriately.

QUESTION: How do you —

MS. NULAND: And that’s the case —

QUESTION: What gives you that confidence?

MS. NULAND: That’s the case that we’re making to the Sanctions Committee. You know that we’ve been in close contact with the TNC. We have our mission in Benghazi. This has been the subject of discussion at Assistant Secretary Feltman level, at the Secretary’s level in her diplomacy, to ensure before we went to the Sanctions Committee and during this process of convincing members of the Sanctions Committee, that this money would be used properly and would be used for the purposes that we requested its release, namely humanitarian and good governance.

QUESTION: How could you – could you explain to us how this money is released? Does it go to, let’s say, the ministry of finance, the Libyan ministry of finance, or a Libyan bank? Or does it go through an escrow process under supervision?

MS. NULAND: Again, I think this is as far as we can go today on how this might happen, because the discussions continue in New York. The diplomacy continues. So I’m not prepared from the podium today to get into all the nuts and bolts. The most important thing now is that the Sanctions Committee take action in coming days so that this money can get to the Libyan people.

Please.

QUESTION: But your comment seemed to imply that there are some of the Sanctions Committee who are standing in the way of speedy action. Can you – is that true, and who are they?

MS. NULAND: This process is very complicated. It’s very complicated anytime you want to go to the Sanctions Committee and get release, because every individual member of the Sanctions Committee has his or her own national – I mean, each nation has its own laws, has taken the sanctioning action in conformity with its own laws. So the relief has to be reviewed nationally by each country in terms of precedent, in terms of its support for the stated intent. In this case, for its understanding of how the money will be used and whether it’s in keeping with the spirit of the Sanctions Committee relief clauses that you’re trying to exercise.

QUESTION: Madam, just to follow up —

MS. NULAND: Please.

QUESTION:What many people are asking, even within the (inaudible) there in Libya that it has taken too long for the United States to help the opposition or to get Qadhafi out. One, why it took so long because thousands of more people have been killed by Qadhafi regime; and second, now do you believe that you – do you believe and you have confidence in this group now that they will be supporting the fair and free elections and democracy?

MS. NULAND:Well, Goyal, thank you for that opportunity to step back a little bit. As I said, although this situation remains fluid in some neighborhoods of Tripoli, and we all understand that this isn’t over until it’s completely over and until all weapons are laid down and the process of transition completely begins, it’s important to remember that this fight has lasted less than 200 days. It was February 16th, around then, that the protests really began in Libya. Ten days, just a mere 10 days after that, UN Security Council 1970 was passed, which froze the assets of the Qadhafi regime, which imposed the arms embargo and the travel ban, which allowed humanitarian aid to begin to flow. I said yesterday I think that under the President’s leadership, the Secretary, Ambassador Rice at the UN, all of us, have been working to assemble one of the broadest and deepest communities of common action in current memory to address this situation.

So 10 days after the protests begin, you see this first UN Security Council resolution. Thirty days after that, on March 17th, a mere 30 days, UN Security Council 1973, which not only imposed the no-fly zone, but also authorized all necessary means to protect civilians. Just two days after that, the President approved U.S. to begin action to implement that resolution, to use our unique capabilities to take out the air defenses of the regime. And it was just a week after that, March 26th, that the NATO operation was approved and NATO began picking up more and more of this mission. That same week, March 29th, the Secretary proposed, and the international community stood up, the Libya Contact Group. It initially had 20 countries and a number of international organizations. It now has 40 countries, including not only the UN and NATO and the EU, but also the African Union, the GCC, the Arab League, to support the Libyan people, to support the TNC politically, economically, militarily in this fight for transition.

And just a couple of months after this all began, we opened our mission in Benghazi, and then on April 15th you saw the NATO ministers, at the Secretary’s initiative, all call for Qadhafi to go, and that call, obviously, echoed throughout the international community thereafter.

So less than 200 days, one of the broadest coalitions in history – U.S. leadership absolutely essential in galvanizing this community. But again, it’s not over till it’s over. And not only does this community need to help the Libyans finish the job, it’s got to stay with Libya, stay with its government, as it moves through the difficult transition. Because we’ve all seen that sometimes the hardest work starts after liberation when you have to rebuild a state, and in the case of Libya, a state that’s been ruled by a dictator for 40 years.

QUESTION: Can I follow up on the money, please?

QUESTION: You’ve been talking about the credibility of the NTC, and there was an incident last night that undercut that credibility. I know this is military versus financial, but the point is, of course, save Qadhafi, the NTC assuring people that he had been arrested, and then he pops up smilingly after that. So what can you say? I mean, can you trust them if you have information like that? Could you trust it if we take it to the financial part of it? Are they trustworthy?

MS. NULAND: We said yesterday that the situation was fluid, that we were asked by a number of folks whether we could confirm Qadhafi’s location, whether we could confirm the son’s under arrest. We’ve got a little bit of a fog of war situation here, including in some of the reporting on the TNC side that makes – it’s not a surprise given the fact that they are established primarily in Benghazi, they have locations elsewhere in Libya. But until the full leadership of the TNC is able to take root in Tripoli and is able to get its feet under it, I wouldn’t pay too much attention to these fog of war things.

What we are focused on with them is planning for this transition, getting them – working with them as they plan the economic, political, rule of law, security underpinnings of the new Libyan state so that it can lead a transition towards democracy. So in the context of the action that’s going on in New York, our contacts, those of the international community with them have enabled them to think through very systematically how they would use this money. So I think you’re comparing apples and oranges, a stray report in the fog of war, versus real strategic planning that they’ve been doing, that they’ve been doing with a lot of their members on what comes next. That doesn’t mean they’re not going to need our continued support; they are.

QUESTION: Are you briefing members of Congress? Maine Senator Susan Collins says we don’t know enough about the TNC and she expressed concern about their eastern Libyan roots. What are you telling Congress, and how are you assuring them that this is a reliable group?

MS. NULAND: Wendell, we have briefed Congress all the way along. As you know, we’ve had a number of hearings. I don’t have the precise number, but just in the last couple of days, we had a flurry of phone calls with staff and with members, and later on today, there is a broad briefing call with members of Congress so that all of their questions can be answered. But obviously, we want and need members of Congress to have their questions answered, and we’re prepared to work with them. And as we move forward, we hope that they too will have more contacts with the TNC and with members of the Libyan leadership team that has come into Tripoli.

QUESTION: Collins is concerned that the group might be susceptible to extremism in some form. What are you telling them when they express that concern?

MS. NULAND: This has been an issue that the TNC itself has been thinking about and working on from the beginning, and that has been a central subject of our conversation with them from the beginning. We are heartened and encouraged by the fact that the TNC, in all of its public pronouncements, in all of its private commitments to us and other members of the international community, has said that it wants to govern in a transparent, democratic way, that it wants – that it is prepared to meet all of its international human rights commitments, and that it does not want a state led by extremists; it wants a government of national unity that supports the universal human rights of all Libyans. So those are the statements that the TNC themselves have made. That’s what the international community will hold them to going forward.

QUESTION: Can I just follow up on that?

MS. NULAND: Please.

QUESTION: In his remarks on TV a couple days ago, Assistant Secretary Feltman said that the assassination of General Younis highlighted the dangers of Islamist elements in the – among the rebel forces. And I was just wondering, is it the State Department’s conclusion that they were somehow responsible for that assassination, and do you think that that’s a warning sign going forward?

MS. NULAND: I think the fact that the TNC itself decided after that incident that it really needed to conduct an internal audit, that it needed to dissolve its executive committee and refresh its leadership speaks to their commitment to ensure that not only in name, but in action they meet the highest standards of universal human rights and that they present to the Libyan people a governing committee that meets their aspirations for a democratic future, for a future free of extremism and free of any obstacles to the highest standards of universal human rights.

QUESTION: On the financial issue, just a follow-up: I know you said you don’t want to talk in details, but is there a mechanism already in place to monitor where this money is going to to avoid mistakes that happened in Iraq?

MS. NULAND: These are the things that we’re talking about now within the Sanctions Committee. I don’t want to get ahead of decisions there. So I think I’ve said what I can, but clearly, we have worked hard to –with the TNC. They, too, want to learn lessons from Iraq and elsewhere where there have been difficulties in the past, and we have every expectation that if this money is released, it will be used well, and it will get to the people who need it.

QUESTION: My point would be a U.S. committee to oversight or to be in charge of where this money is going.

MS. NULAND: Again, I’ve said what I can on the mechanics of this for today. I think the first thing is to get the action, and then we’ll be prepared to brief a little bit more on the mechanics.

QUESTION: All the assets frozen in U.S. are subject to Sanctions Committee? Because we knew that the total amount of these frozen assets was $30 billion, something like that, and it was a combination of some multilateral sanctions and the United Nations Security Council resolution. So now all this money, $30 billion, are subject to Sanctions Committee only, not a multi – bilateral sanction issue?

MS. NULAND: I didn’t say that. I said simply that in order to release this 1 to 1.5 billion dollars, we would like to do that tranche through the Sanctions Committee. That’s our preferred course. We’re working hard on it in coming days. If we can’t move it through the Sanctions Committee, we’ll have to find other ways to do it.

QUESTION: Wait. Going back to your timeline that you gave in response to Goyal’s question, it was over a month ago that the meeting in Istanbul where the recognition took place, correct?

MS. NULAND: Correct.

QUESTION: So why is it just now that you’re getting around to going to the Sanctions Committee? Because, I mean, at the time the idea was to get that money freed up as soon as possible, and yet it’s taken more than a month to do it. Is it just – were people preoccupied with other developments in other parts of the region? I mean, it seems to me that you could have gone to the Sanctions Committee the Monday after the conference on Friday and said, “Why can’t you do this?”

MS. NULAND: Well, immediately after Istanbul there was some work to get the kinds of assurances that we needed to make the presentation. I would say that the work in the Sanctions Committee has been going on for a couple of weeks, and we’re hoping to bring it to resolution quickly.

QUESTION: But it was just presented today?

MS. NULAND: No. It’s been going on for a couple of weeks.

QUESTION: What was it then that Susan Rice was doing today?

MS. NULAND: Susan Rice simply made a public statement, similar to the statement that I made at the top of the briefing, saying that our hope and expectation is that this Sanctions Committee work will be completed in coming days.

QUESTION: Are you planning direct aid to the TNC, other than frozen assets?

MS. NULAND: If we can get this billion – 1.5 released, that’s a big chunk of money —

QUESTION: I mean, it’s —

MS. NULAND: — and it’ll do some good. And then we have to see where things go in terms of finishing the work in Tripoli, moving on, and deciding about the future of the 1973 regime, et cetera, and led very much by the desires of the Libyan people.

QUESTION: Do you favor sending – having the United Nations send a UN peacekeeping force?

MS. NULAND: It’s – we talked about this yesterday. It’s premature to talk about any of these kinds of things until the TNC has a chance to evaluate its own needs, until it can come forward to the UN with some proposals. But the UN is preparing for all contingencies.

Please.

QUESTION: You talked yesterday about preservation of Libyan institutions. With this last sweep going on, I mean, are there any signs that anybody might be selling off the assets of Libyan institutions or trying to dip into the bank accounts in Tripoli or elsewhere? Is there any reason for concern?

MS. NULAND: I can’t speak to that here, I think, until the ground situation is a little clearer in Tripoli. One probably couldn’t say one way or the other, but I think the fact that the TNC has called for calm, that we’ve seen calm in the vast majority of the neighborhoods in Tripoli that are under the TNC and the anti-Qadhafi forces control, there has been calm, it gives us hope. But I wouldn’t want to say one way or the other, based on what we know today.

Please, here.

QUESTION: Still on —

MS. NULAND: Still on Libya?

QUESTION: Yeah. The stray report about Saif al-Islam, did – how did you guys find out that he was in fact not in opposition hands?

MS. NULAND: Again, we are not in the business of commenting on every stray rumor in the middle of a ground battle in Tripoli. So I’m not going to get into what we knew when and what we didn’t know, only to say that this kind of stray reporting is not uncommon, as all of you who have covered war zones know. So —

QUESTION: Chris Stevens —

MS. NULAND: I’m looking here at Steve.

Please.

QUESTION: Chris Stevens – I just wondered what – has he made contacts today with the TNC? I mean, what’s been on his agenda today?

MS. NULAND: He has been following up on the Secretary’s call with TNC Chairman Jalil yesterday. He’s been working on all of these issues that we’ve discussed.

Josh.

QUESTION: If the TNC is planning to move its headquarters to Tripoli, will the U.S. team in Benghazi move with it to Tripoli? And what is your thinking about where they will set up? I’m told that the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli is uninhabitable.

MS. NULAND: We have to, obviously, assess this on a daily basis. Looking at the security situation in Tripoli, our understanding is that there is some damage to our building, but I can’t speak to whether it’s habitable until we are able to get an advance team in there. We’ll obviously move the Embassy back to Tripoli as soon as we can, but in the meantime, Benghazi’s fully functional. The bulk of the TNC remains there. They, as you say, have said that they will start moving some of their folks west, so we will look and see how that goes as well.

QUESTION: And then do you plan to have an ambassador to Libya, either Gene Cretz or —

MS. NULAND: We have an ambassador. He never —

QUESTION: In Libya?

MS. NULAND: He never stopped being Ambassador to Libya.

QUESTION: Is he going to return to Libya?

MS. NULAND: And the expectation is that when he can, he will.

QUESTION: Just a follow-up. It was raised yesterday, and I’m just wondering if there’s anything further on it – the suggestions not only from Mitt Romney but now from a number of Congress people that the U.S. should be asking the TNC to extradite somehow Mr. Megrahi of the Lockerbie attack. I’m just wondering if those requests or opinions have been lodged with the State Department and if that’s something that you would consider. Is that something that’s possible to do? Have you made any decisions on that?

MS. NULAND:The Secretary has said many times, you’ve heard her say, that Megrahi would be better off behind bars. The Libyan people, the TNC, will obviously have to look at this when they can. We will be in consultations with them. The Justice Department will have the lead.

QUESTION: Well, I’m – so you’re actually saying that you might – that there might be some case to be made? This guy was convicted and served his sentence.

MS. NULAND: This will be —

QUESTION: You’re suggesting that now that you’re going to – that you, who agreed to the UN – to this international court in the first place, will now say that you want this guy put back – brought to the U.S. to be put in jail? I mean, the Scots let him go. But you —

MS. NULAND:I never said anything about the U.S. The Secretary has made clear this guy should be behind bars. The Department of Justice has the lead on these issues.

QUESTION: Right. Well, the —

MS. NULAND: No decisions have been made. We have to let justice do its job here, and we also have to have a Libyan government back in Tripoli before these conversations could happen.

QUESTION: But I thought that the question was about the – was about extraditing him, bringing him to the States, correct?

MS. NULAND: Andy, was it about extradition?

QUESTION: That’s the demand. That was the demand, but I’m interested in any further steps on the Megrahi case.

MS. NULAND: Yeah. I don’t have anything further on details, other than to say that the Secretary thinks he ought to be behind bars and Justice will have the lead.

QUESTION: On Syria?

QUESTION: Can I – I have one more on – you just called – or a little while ago you said that the group of countries that was supporting the opposition was one of the broadest and deepest communities of common action in recent memory. Is that – do I have that right? Yesterday you said it was an unprecedented coalition.

MS. NULAND: I don’t think I called it a coalition. I think I’ve called it a community, but coalition works as well.

QUESTION: Well, the word is – unprecedented is what I’m getting at. And I think that was the word used by some people at the White House as well. Is there a reason that you’re no longer calling it unprecedented? Have you discovered that, in fact, it’s not unprecedented, that it’s just one of the broadest and deepest in recent memory?

MS. NULAND:I heard, Matt, that you were comparing it to the Hanseatic League. I think we can take —

QUESTION: No, no, that was NATO.

MS. NULAND: We can take your comparing NATO to Hanseatic League. I don’t think that I can remember a time, certainly in my lifetime, when we had the UN, the EU, NATO, the GCC, the Arab League, and the AU pulling – AU in some of its member-states – all pulling in the same direction, all supporting the same international action politically, economically, militarily. So I stand by unprecedented. That works.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: Just one quick one on Libya. The planning, I presume, is somehow in place, but aside from the money, when you talk about aid to help write constitutions, nation-forming assistance, is there a plan to use NGOs, or would this be, like, U.S. State Department or AID people who might provide that assistance?

MS. NULAND: You’re talking, Jill, about the 1 to 1.5 or are you talking about humanitarian and other assistance?

QUESTION: No, just humanitarian in addition to perhaps the actual financial aid. You were talking about assistance which would be kind of the NGO world assistance. But would the United States, the State Department actually, provide people on the ground or in some capacity who would work with the NTC on writing a constitution, putting elections together, that type of assistance?

MS. NULAND: First of all, before I get to your question, you’re using NTC. We use TNC.

QUESTION: I know.

MS. NULAND: Just to say that for all of you who might be confused out there, the Libyans themselves have used both in their documents interchangeably, so we’re going to continue to call them the TNC. That’s what trips off our tongues, but it’s all the same entity for the world out there.

I think you’re getting a little bit ahead of the game. What we need now, first, is for the TNC representing the Libyan people to come forward with its set of interests in terms of how the international community can help. Our sense of how this should work – and the Secretary discussed this with Secretary General Ban Ki-moon yesterday – is that the UN should be the lead international organization for providing the humanitarian, political, economic support, that the nation-states of the UN would then support that effort.

And again, until we have the list, we have to – we wouldn’t be able to speak to how we might play our role. But traditionally in transitional countries, whether you’re talking about support now in Egypt or Tunisia, in the past support in other places, there are some programs that the State Department offers, programs in the areas of rule of law, security support, humanitarian assistance. And there are other programs that we contract through NGOs, et cetera. So I think it remains to be seen.

QUESTION: A follow-up on that timeline. How quickly do you expect the TNC will be able to produce this wish list for the United Nations? And without that, what’s going – what’s the political directors meeting in Istanbul going to do? I thought they were also going to be looking at some of these needs. How are they doing that before, or are you expecting them to have the list on hand come Thursday?

MS. NULAND: The first job is obviously to finish the job in Tripoli, so that’s very much the focus of the TNC inside Libya at the moment. And it’s not going to be able to fully evaluate, I would suspect, all of its needs until it’s fully in charge. That said, the planning, the next phase of planning and thinking about these things, goes forward in Istanbul on Thursday.

Yesterday, I told you that the U.S. delegation would be led by Assistant Secretary Gordon. He will be on the delegation. But yesterday, Secretary Clinton asked her deputy, Deputy Secretary Bill Burns, to lead the U.S. delegation, so he will be going as will Assistant Secretary Feltman, Gordon, others.

And indeed, Andy, that meeting will put together the TNC leadership, the UN, the EU, NATO will be represented, the member countries will be represented, so that we can hear the most updated report from the TNC on what it expects. The UN can talk about how it’s organizing, and this coordination can continue in preparation for the day when we have a more formal request and a more formal UN process.

QUESTION: One more on Libya quickly?

MS. NULAND: Please. Wendell.

QUESTION: In February, P.J. said there were still chemical weapons (inaudible) to the Libyan (inaudible) comfortable with their security then. Are you comfortable with their security now, and why?

MS. NULAND: This will obviously be a priority for everybody, and that’s all I’m prepared to say on that one at the moment.

QUESTION: In Libya, Libyan —

MS. NULAND: Are we finished with Libya still? No?

QUESTION: Hold on.

MS. NULAND: One more Libya?

QUESTION: Can you just expand on that just a bit?

MS. NULAND: I can’t, frankly, because we’re getting into areas of intelligence, so I don’t want to go —

QUESTION: No. But what will obviously be a priority for everybody? What? Exactly what?

MS. NULAND: Ensuring that we have a full accounting, and I don’t think it simply speaks to the question of WMD. It also speaks to the larger question of weaponry, et cetera, ensuring that the governing forces in Libya have full command and control and are – of any WMD or any security assets that the state might have had, and are prepared to meet international obligations and international standards of nonproliferation, transparency, et cetera.

Please.

QUESTION: On Libya, you described Qadhafi regime as near collapse. My question is: Do you see any need or are you taking any precautions to protect the Qadhafi loyalist in the case of total collapse of the current regime?

MS. NULAND: The TNC itself has called for calm, has spoken against retribution, point-scoring, score-settling. We are very supportive of that sentiment. We think it’s very important. We want to see Libyans have the government that they deserve – a government of national unity, a government where all Libyan points of view that are in keeping with international best practices and standards are represented, including the fact that the TNC itself has said that it would be willing to have former Qadhafi loyalists who don’t have blood on their hands be considered in the leadership structure.

So we need to see how this goes forward, but clearly, the TNC is saying the right thing, and we are encouraged by the fact that those parts of Tripoli and other parts of the country that they are managing have not seen reprisals.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) the 1970 and 1973 UN Security Council resolutions also can apply to protecting civilians or loyalists? Just to make sure.

MS. NULAND: I think you probably saw today that NATO made a statement that its mission continues until the job is done, until it is confident and has assurances from Libyans that civilians have been fully protected. And we obviously support that.

QUESTION: Syria?

QUESTION: On Syria?

MS. NULAND: Yes.

QUESTION: An Administration official just said that Mr. Asad should learn the lessons of Mr. Qadhafi. What lesson is that?

MS. NULAND: I’m not sure what official you’re talking about or what lesson that —

QUESTION: Well, according to CNN, just a news – breaking news that an Administration official said that Mr. Asad should learn from the fate that Mr. Qadhafi is facing. Could you —

MS. NULAND: Okay. Well, I haven’t seen the report and I don’t know who the official was, but there are any number of lessons that might apply.

QUESTION: Such as —

QUESTION: (Inaudible) opposition formed a national council and another (inaudible). Are you in a position to support them immediately? Do you know who they are? Are you willing to work with them? How does it go forward?

MS. NULAND: We’ve seen these reports that those Syrians in exile, who are meeting in Istanbul, have taken a next step to organize themselves politically. We are, as you know, also watching what’s going on inside Syria with the coordinating committees, and their increasing strength in working together and their commitment to have their own roadmap for Syria’s future. So we support all such efforts, and we also support efforts of Syrians outside and inside to work towards that democratic future.

For the record, the official was Ambassador Rice who spoke to CNN at length from Rome today.

Read Full Post »

Ahmedinejad is also showing up. Secretary Clinton this morning on Meet The Press: “I don’t know WHAT he’s showing up for!” (Huge blue eyes!)

Secretary Clinton to lead U.S. Delegation to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty Review Conference at the United Nations

https://i0.wp.com/msnbcmedia2.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Photo/_new/g-mtp-100429-clinton-9a.grid-3x2.jpg

Office of the Spokesman
Washington, DC
April 27, 2010

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton will lead the U.S. delegation to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty Review Conference at the United Nations in New York City, which begins Monday, May 3.
Secretary Clinton will deliver remarks on Monday afternoon. Additional details will be forthcoming.
The Secretary’s role underscores the Obama Administration’s top-level commitment to revitalizing and strengthening the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).
Other members of the delegation will include Ambassador Susan Rice, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations; Ellen Tauscher, Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security; Tom D’Agostino, NNSA Under Secretary for Nuclear Security and Administrator; and Ambassador Susan Burk, Special Representative of the President for Nuclear Nonproliferation.
The Review Conference meets every five years to assess the status of the world’s nuclear nonproliferation efforts and to reach a consensus on further steps to strengthen it. For 40 years, the Treaty has been the cornerstone of our efforts to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons, material and technology. As more states and non-state actors seek to acquire nuclear weapons, nuclear terrorism and proliferation have become the gravest threats of the 21st century.
Secretary Clinton will underscore the need to revitalize and strengthen the grand bargain in the NPT: nations with nuclear weapons will move toward disarmament, nations without nuclear weapons will not seek them, and all nations have the right to the peaceful uses of nuclear energy.

Read Full Post »



Daily Appointments Schedule for March 12, 2010

Washington, DC
March 12, 2010

SECRETARY OF STATE CLINTON

9:45 a.m.
Secretary Clinton meets with Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice, at the Department of State.
(CLOSED PRESS COVERAGE)

3:15 p.m. Secretary Clinton delivers Remarks in Honor of the 15th Anniversary of the UN World Conference on Women in Beijing, at the United Nations.
(OPEN PRESS COVERAGE)

4:00 p.m. Secretary Clinton attends a Bilateral Meeting with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, at the United Nations.
(POOLED CAMERA SPRAY)

8:00 p.m. Secretary Clinton delivers Opening Remarks of the Documentary Play “Seven,” in New York City.
(CLOSED PRESS COVERAGE)

Read Full Post »

Susan Rice will be the Alternate Head of the delegation.

U.S. Delegation to the 54th Session of the UN Commission on the Status of Women
Washington, DC
February 27, 2010

The Department of State is pleased to announce the U.S. Delegation attending the 54th Session of the UN Commission on the Status of Women, to be held from March 1 through March 12, 2010 at UN Headquarters in New York.

* Secretary Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary of State, Head of Delegation.
* Ambassador Susan Rice, U.S. Permanent Representative to the UN, Alternate Head of Delegation.
* Ambassador Melanne Verveer, Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women’s Issues, U.S. Department of State, Alternate Head of Delegation.
* Ambassador Rick Barton, U.S. Representative on the UN Economic and Social Council, Deputy Head of Delegation.
* Meryl Frank, Deputy Head of Delegation with the personal rank of Ambassador.

They will be accompanied by five Public Delegates.

* Beth Brooke, Global Vice Chair of Public Policy, Sustainability and Stakeholder Engagement at Ernst & Young.
* Ellen Chesler, distinguished lecturer and director of the Eleanor Roosevelt initiative on Women and Public Life at Roosevelt House, Hunter College.
* Connie Evans, President and CEO of the Association for Enterprise Opportunity.
* Geeta Rao Gupta, President of the International Center for Research on Women.
* Asifa Quraishi, Assistant Professor of Law, University of Wisconsin, and founding member of the National Association of Muslim Lawyers and the California group American Muslims Intent on Learning and Activism.

Other members of the U.S. Delegation include technical experts from the Department of State, the United States Mission to the UN, the United States Agency for International Development, and the Department of Health and Human Services.

The theme of this year’s session is “The sharing of experiences and good practices, with a view to overcoming remaining obstacles and new challenges, including those related to the Millennium Development Goals.”

For more information, please visit:
http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/beijing15/index.html

Read Full Post »

I am at work, so I am putting this up quickly having neither read nor viewed the video myself.

Remarks on the Sudan Strategy

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Susan E. Rice
U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations , U.S. Mission to the United Nations
Scott Gration
Special Envoy to Sudan
Washington, DC
October 19, 2009

SECRETARY CLINTON: Good morning. Good morning. Well, I’m very pleased to be joined today by our Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice and the President’s Special Envoy to Sudan General Scott Gration. And let me begin by saying that the Sudan policy we are outlining today is the result of an intensive review across the United States Government that included the three of us, but many others as well. It reflects the Administration’s seriousness, sense of urgency, and collective agreement about how best to address the complex challenges that have prevented resolution of the crisis in Darfur and full implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement.

President Obama and I have discussed this issue over many months and most recently over this past weekend. The fate of the Sudanese people is profoundly important to him, to me, to Ambassador Rice, to General Gration, and to our nation. Sudan is the largest country in Africa, one that has been torn by myriad religious, tribal, ethnic, racial, and political divisions for most of its half century of independence. During the past decade, genocide in Darfur and protracted violence and conflict between the North and South have claimed more than two million lives, subjected civilians to unspeakable atrocities, and led to mass human suffering.

While the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement between the North and South in 2005 was a historic step forward, Sudan today is at a critical juncture – one that can lead to steady improvements in the lives of the Sudanese people or degenerate into more conflict and violence.

An unstable Sudan not only jeopardizes the future of the 40 million people there. It can also be an incubator of violence and instability in an already volatile region, it can provide a safe haven for international terrorists, and trigger another humanitarian catastrophe that Sudan, its neighbors, and the world cannot afford. All too often, efforts to bring peace and stability to Sudan have been undermined by factionalism, broken peace agreements and cease-fires, and the involvement of regional states affected by the crisis.

For these reasons and others, we are realistic about the hurdles to progress. Achieving peace and stability in Sudan will not be easy, nor is success guaranteed. But one thing is certain: The problems in Sudan cannot be ignored or willed away. Sitting on the sidelines is not an option. It is up to us, and our partners in the international community, to make a concerted and sustained effort to help bring lasting peace and stability to Sudan and avoid more of the conflict that has produced a vast sea of human misery and squandered the potential and security of a vital region of the world.

Now, my views on the genocide in Darfur are well known. I have been speaking out and acting on this issue for a number of years. And the President also has spoken out about the genocide that’s taking place in Darfur. But at this point, the focus must be on how we move forward, and on finding solutions. Even while the intensity of the violence has decreased since 2005, the people of Darfur continue to live in unconscionable and unacceptable conditions.

So our focus is on reversing the ongoing, dire human consequences of genocide by addressing the daily suffering in the refugee camps, protecting civilians from continuing violence, helping displaced persons return to their homes, ensuring that the militias are disarmed, and improving conditions on the ground so that the people of Darfur can finally live in peace and security.

Our strategy has three principal objectives: First, an end to conflict, gross human rights abuses, war crimes, and genocide in Darfur; second, implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement that results in a united and peaceful Sudan after 2011, or an orderly path toward two separate and viable states at peace with each other; and third, a Sudan that does not provide a safe haven for terrorists.

In the past, the United States’s approach too often has focused narrowly on emerging crises. This is no longer the case. Our effort sets forth a comprehensive U.S. policy toward Sudan.

First, we view the crisis in Sudan as two-fold: The situation in Darfur remains unresolved after six years. And the Comprehensive Peace Agreement between North and South will be a flashpoint for renewed conflict if not fully implemented through viable national elections, a referendum of self-determination for the South, resolution of border disputes, and the willingness of the respective parties to live up to their agreements. So we are approaching two key issues − Darfur and the Comprehensive Peace Agreement – simultaneously and in tandem.

Second, we are looking to achieve results through broad engagement and frank dialogue. But words alone are not enough. Assessment of progress and decisions regarding incentives and disincentives will be based on verifiable changes in conditions on the ground. Backsliding by any party will be met with credible pressure in the form of disincentives leveraged by our government and our international partners.

Third, we will use our leadership globally to reconstitute, broaden, and strengthen the multilateral coalition that helped achieve the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, and we will work equally hard to translate international concern about Darfur into genuine international commitments.

Let me be clear: It is too late for talk, or idle promises, or delays over misperceptions and misunderstandings.

This crisis is both a responsibility and an opportunity for the international community to help steer Sudan along a path that can lead to stability and security for the people of Sudan, the region, and the world. It is also a responsibility and opportunity for the Sudanese people and their leaders to demonstrate their commitment to taking concrete steps toward durable peace. Anything short of that will destine Sudan to failure.

As I said earlier, this review has involved discussions among many members of the Administration, Congress, and outside experts. Now I’d like to call on Ambassador Rice and General Gration, both of whom have worked so hard on this issue, to offer their comments. Ambassador Rice, let me turn it over to you first.

AMBASSADOR RICE: Thank you very much, Madame Secretary. It’s an honor to be with you and with General Gration for this important announcement.

I’d like to begin by expressing our appreciation to Scott for the exceptional commitment, energy, and integrity he’s brought to this critical work as Special Envoy for Sudan. And on a more personal note, though Scott and I have long been friends, I want to thank him especially for being the only man ever to testify before the Senate that he loves me. (Laughter.) He did. (Laughter.)

SPECIAL ENVOY GRATION: I cleared it with my wife. (Laughter.)

SECRETARY CLINTON: Went through the clearance process. (Laughter.)

AMBASSADOR RICE: President Obama has repeatedly made clear that protecting civilians and forging lasting peace in Sudan is a top priority for his Administration. The President, like Secretary Clinton, has for many years been dedicated to ending the suffering and the genocide in Sudan. There was never any question that this deep commitment to improving the lives of the people of Sudan would be backed by a thoughtful and results-oriented strategy. I’m personally proud of the strategy that has emerged. It is the product of extensive deliberation, careful consideration of very complex challenges, and a lot of hard work by all of us on this stage and many others.

Let me underscore two core objectives of U.S. policy. First, as the Secretary said, to end the genocide that’s taking place in Darfur and to forge lasting peace for all Darfuris. And second, to support full and effective implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement between the North and the South. To meet these twin goals, the United States is prepared to work with all sides. We will employ calibrated incentives as appropriate and exert real pressure as needed on any party that fails to act to improve the lives of the people of Sudan. There will be no rewards for the status quo, no incentives without concrete and tangible progress. There will be significant consequences for parties that backslide or simply stand still. All parties will be held to account.

President Obama’s Sudan strategy is smart, tough, and balanced. It takes a clear view of history, which reminds us that for years, paths to peace have been littered with broken promises and unfulfilled commitments by the Government of Sudan. With both the lessons of the past and the opportunities of the future in mind, we embark on the challenging road ahead. Bringing about lasting peace and improving the lives of millions of people are daunting tasks. We understand the importance of effective and faithful implementation of our strategy, and we will use all elements of U.S. influence to transform our objectives into reality.

Let me conclude by underscoring this unrelenting truth. Too many lives have already been lost. Too many innocents have suffered immeasurably. Too much human dignity has been denied. Too much hatred has been sown. This painful reality drives the President’s commitment and our shared efforts to work to bring the Sudanese people the peace, security, and freedom they so deserve.

Thank you very much, and now, General Scott Gration.

SPECIAL ENVOY GRATION: Thank you. Madame Secretary, Ambassador Rice, it’s really an honor to be able to share this podium with you this morning. Secretary Clinton’s words are so very true. The challenges in Sudan are complex and serious. Success will require a unified approach, a renewed sense of urgency. The President’s Sudan strategy provides that approach, that resolve.

The strategy is comprehensive and integrated. It’s focused on fully implementing the Comprehensive Peace Agreement on achieving a broad and sustainable peace in Darfur. The strategy uses all elements of our nation’s influence – diplomacy, defense, development – to bring about a stability, a security, human rights, opportunities for a better future in Sudan. Our strategy aims to give the people of Sudan a country that is governed responsibly, justly, and democratically, a country that’s at peace with itself and with its neighbors. The United States Government is committed to creating an environment where the Sudanese people themselves can make positive changes for their future.

We’re acutely aware of the urgency of our task and the shortness of our timeline. We have only six months until Sudan’s national elections take place. The referendum on self-determination is only 15 months away. Success requires frank dialogue with all parties in Sudan, with the regional states and international community. We all must work together to get tangible results on the ground, to achieve a lasting peace, a better life for future generations of Sudanese. And we must not stop until our task is complete. The tragedies of Darfur, past and present, the threat of new violence in the South and North call for immediate action.

The people of Sudan have suffered terribly from the pain and loss that conflict brings, and millions continue to suffer today. It is for these people that we strive to produce verifiable progress on the ground. It’s for them that we’ll endeavor to generate positive change that they can experience. We have no option but to succeed. Working together, I believe we will. Thank you.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you so much. Thank you, Scott and thank you, Susan, and the three of us would be willing and welcoming of your questions.

MR. CROWLEY: Jill.

QUESTION: Secretary Clinton, can you tell us, ultimately, what are these calibrated incentives and the real pressure that you can exert? And also could I ask, on Mr. Karzai, the word now is that he is refusing a runoff, there might be a prospect of the coalition government. What is the latest that you are hearing from him? And how is this going to affect this very important timing in moving forward on these election results?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, Jill, with respect to the second question, I would like to get back to you on that. We really would hope to stay focused on Sudan, because this is such an important issue for so many people, and literally millions of people are kind of waiting to hear what we have to say on it. But I will certainly get back to you. I spent a lot of time over the last several days, as you know, working on this and I’d like to bring you and others up to date on that.

But let me just say with respect to Sudan, we have a very clear measure of whether or not the changes we are pursuing are being implemented, and that is whether conditions on the ground are changing and improving. We have a menu of incentives and disincentives, political and economic, that we will be looking to, to either further progress or to create a clear message that the progress we expect is not occurring. But we want to be somewhat careful in putting those out. They are part, in fact, of a classified annex to our strategy that we’re announcing the outline of today.

But suffice it to say, and let me underscore, that both incentives and disincentives based on changes in conditions are what we intend to employ going forward.

MR. CROWLEY: Mary Beth.

QUESTION: Thank you. Good morning, Secretary Clinton.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Good morning.

QUESTION: When President Obama was a candidate, he talked about imposing additional sanctions on Sudan to try to get them to move forward, and also discussed a no-fly zone. I’m wondering what has happened to those ideas that he put forth very forcefully.

And a second question, if I could, for General Gration. You’ve talked about the genocide as essentially being over. You’ve suggested taking Sudan off the terrorism list. I’m wondering, did you sort of lose out in this debate that’s occurred on Sudan?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, first, let me say that we don’t see winners and losers in this debate. We see collective agreement among many people with long and broad experience and concern about Sudan. And I’m very proud to be standing here with two of the principal architects of the strategy that we are rolling out today. So I think that – I know it’s kind of the typical sort of Washington back and forth, but I want to underscore how strongly we adhere to this new strategy. And the President, the principals, the deputies, all of the interagency process that hashed out this approach are fully on board in our going forward to implement it, and fully confident and supportive of Scott Gration’s work.

I think too that the sanctions issue is certainly part of our strategy. And I believe that the President’s commitment to sanctions as one of the tools that we have to employ in dealing with the leadership in Sudan is as important to our overall strategy today as it was yesterday and will be tomorrow. We want to take a hard look at these sanctions to make sure they are producing the kind of changes in conditions that we’re looking for. But it is a tool, and it’s a tool that we have employed and we will continue to employ.

Scott, do you want to respond?

SPECIAL ENVOY GRATION: Sure. I just want to make sure everybody knows that I fully support this strategy, the comments that the Secretary and that Ambassador Rice have said. I will work diligently to implement the policies of this strategy. And we really have no option; people in Darfur continue to live in conditions that are dire and unacceptable. We must work every day to change those conditions on the ground. That’s what we’re committed to, that’s what the people deserve, and that’s what I will do.

MR. CROWLEY: Andy.

QUESTION: Yeah. Secretary Clinton, you mentioned that you’re – you will be judging this policy based on your assessment of whether or not things are changing on the ground. I’m wondering if you can give us a sense of how you’re going to make that judgment. On what information are you going to rely? The Ambassador spoke about backsliding and obfuscation on the part of the Khartoum Government in the past. How are we going to feel confident that we’re getting the right information going forward on what actually is happening on the ground?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well – and I’ll let Susan add to this – but that’s why we are focused on outcomes and verifiable changes. There have been, as you rightly point out, lots of promises made, there have been white papers, there have been commissions. There have been all kinds of promises and agreements that have not been fulfilled. We’re looking past that. This is going to be a very results-oriented analysis that we’re engaged in. And there’s a lot of ways of measuring that.

And one of the reasons why Scott is spending so much time both in Sudan and the region is to enlist our international partners in helping us to measure the kind of progress that we all hope to see. The urgency, as he pointed out, is acute. The elections are coming up. The referendum is coming up. And there are many aspects of how we try to secure a credible, legitimate election, how we try to help the Sudanese, both South and North, prepare for the referendum.

In Darfur, we are looking to help unite a lot of the disparate groups so that there can be a stronger voice on the ground about what’s needed. Scott helped to negotiate a return of NGOs to help alleviate the suffering in the camps. I mean, there’s many different factors that have to be taken into account, but we’re way beyond just taking anybody at their word or their stated commitment. We want to see results that we can point to.

Susan, do you want to add?

AMBASSADOR RICE: I would just add that we have many different sources of information, more so than in the past. Obviously, we have a substantial American presence throughout Sudan. Other partners have a presence as well. We now have two substantial United Nations forces on the ground that do a lot of observation and reporting and monitoring on violations, and so we received that information as well through the Security Council and other channels. And the human rights – the High Commissioner for Human Rights also has a person that will remain in the position of reporting on what occurs on the ground.

So we have many sources. We’re in contact with all the parties. And I have every confidence that our challenge will not be lack of information.

QUESTION: Yes. Secretary Clinton, Ambassador Rice, and Envoy Gration, all of you have mentioned that too many people have been suffering. And I think the sentence applied to nearly five million people living in the refugee camps. And I will get you back to a comment Secretary Powell one day said here, that the only thing these people need is to be sent home, and they know how to take care of themself.

It’s been more than five years now. The situation is dire. New kids are born there, no school, no healthcare. They all are divided and it’s very difficult to unite them as we are following your effort, Special Envoy Gration. And also the government in Sudan hasn’t produced any solution to this.

Don’t you think there is a sense of urgency to get these people back and secure their villages, and to get them back to their villages? And then, you wait to see when the political settlement will come to this, as we all – we don’t know when that will happen.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, certainly, we are well aware of the difficulty of our goals here to work on behalf of the people of Sudan for a better future, peace, and stability. And that is one of the reasons why this strategy clearly integrates our approach to Darfur and our approach on the North-South. These are two critically important aspects of the overall challenge that Sudan faces and they can’t be treated separate from one another. They have to be treated in this integrated approach that we are advocating. And we are, of course, doing all we can in our strategic approach to empower the people of Sudan to solve their own problems. That’s what the election is about, that’s what the referendum is about. But we are conscious of how difficult this will be. We don’t expect quick or easy solutions to these quite complex problems. But we are working to try to create the conditions on the ground that will lead to both better lives for individual Sudanese, but also a potential environment in which a political settlement of all of these various problems could be achieved.

Scott, do you want to add to that?

SPECIAL ENVOY GRATION: Sure. Security is the number one issue that we are facing that’s keeping people from going back. And we support the efforts of the Chad Government and the Sudanese Government to end the tensions on the border and to stop that proxy war. We’re working very closely with UNAMID to ensure that it gets the forces and the capability that it needs, and they can provide some security. We’re also working with local forces to increase local security with the people of the camps themselves to try to improve security.

But we believe that we have to reach a position where the people can voluntarily return with their dignity and human rights, and live in security and stability. And until those conditions are met, we cannot have them go back. And so that’s what we’re trying to achieve. That’s what we’re working for in our efforts.

MR. CROWLEY: We have time for one more question. Charlie.

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, can you talk about international contacts that have already been made? And specifically, have you – how much have the Chinese signaled a willingness to help or not? And secondly, can you talk about any new monies that you’re going to commit to this? Are you going to do this with whatever presently is there?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, Charlie, I’ll have both Susan and Scott add to this. We have had intensive international outreach, both Susan at the UN, Scott in numerous meetings around the world, including one that he convened here in Washington, bringing together the international partners who have either already been involved or we wish to see more involved. During our meetings with the Chinese back in July, I raised it directly, seeking more support and a partnership that would result in some additional opportunities for us to influence the Sudanese Government.

So I’m going to ask Scott first to talk about what he’s been doing, because it’s extensive, and I’m not sure everybody knows, and then Susan to have the final word on the UN.

SPECIAL ENVOY GRATION: Thank you. We’ve worked in several venues to get international cooperation. We’ve put together a group, what we call the Envoy 6, and they include the envoys from the P-5 countries, plus the EU, and we meet regularly and exchange emails and VTCs. And that group has been very important. China and Russia, obviously, are part of that. And we continue to reach out to them on a consistent basis.

We also have a group called the contact group. It grew out of the donors. And we continue to meet with them not only to get the donations, but also to help us with policy and implementation issues. As you know, that – during the Nevasha discussions in 2005, the troika made up of the UK and Norway were very helpful. We’ve reconvened that group to help us not only with the implementation of the CPA, but also to help us as we work these negotiations on the sticky points like the census, the elections, and referendum.

So there’s a whole large group that includes EGAD countries, that includes neighbors, and it includes an international community that’s working very well together.

QUESTION: Well, I don’t doubt the willingness in the meetings, but how positive have the Chinese especially been in signaling a willingness to do what you want to do?

SPECIAL ENVOY GRATION: The Chinese have been very helpful. If you look at their objectives in the region, they require stability and security. And so there’s a great overlap. And while we might have differences in some of the tactical issues, certainly strategically, we have the same goals. We’re working very closely together and the Chinese have been very helpful in providing influence and pressures not only to work the Darfur issue with the proxy war, but also working in the South.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Susan? Final word?

AMBASSADOR RICE: Thank you. I would just add that at the United Nations, we look at the situation in Darfur. And between the North and South, on a very regular basis, this is an issue that’s constantly almost every month on the Security Council agenda. We are now in a position where there’s a substantial presence on the ground of some close to 10,000 each of Darfur and the South. And that presence is very much engaged in the implementation of the very objectives that support the policy we outlined today.

So while we do differ on occasion with partners in the Security Council about tactics and the relative timing and nature of pressures versus incentives, this is something we will continue to work on with them. And as we pursue implementation of our strategy, obviously, the good work that Scott has done and continues to do to keep our partners with us is very important, and we will see it manifest in the United Nations.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you all.

QUESTION: Is this new money, any new money here or —

SECRETARY CLINTON: I don’t know the answer to that, so I – let me get back to you, Charlie. I mean, I want to make sure that we don’t misstate things.

QUESTION: Okay.

AMBASSADOR RICE: Thank you all.

# # #

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: