The Passing of National Defense Commission Chairman Kim Jong Il

Press Statement

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State

Washington, DC

December 19, 2011

---

With the passing of National Defense Commission Chairman Kim Jong Il, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is now in a period of national mourning. We are deeply concerned with the well being of the North Korean people and our thoughts and prayers are with them during these difficult times. It is our hope that the new leadership of the DPRK will choose to guide their nation onto the path of peace by honoring North Korea’s commitments, improving relations with its neighbors, and respecting the rights of its people. The United States stands ready to help the North Korean people and urges the new leadership to work with the international community to usher in a new era of peace, prosperity and lasting security on the Korean Peninsula.

PRN: 2011/2174

Remarks for Istanbul Process Conference on Religious Freedom

Remarks by Suzan Johnson Cook
Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom

As Prepared - Washington, DC

December 12, 2011

---

Good morning. Thank you all for coming here for what I hope will be the first in a series of meetings that will advance respect for religious freedom and religious tolerance around the world. I am Suzan Johnson Cook, the U.S. Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom, and I am honored to be your host for the next three days.

Before we begin, I would like to salute the many people, governments, and organizations here today who worked so hard to pass Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18, “Combating Intolerance, Negative Stereotyping and Stigmatization Of, and Discrimination, Incitement to Violence, and Violence Against Persons Based on Religion or Belief.” That historic resolution was adopted by consensus in Geneva in March. As Secretary Clinton said in Istanbul in July, by passing it, “We have begun to overcome the false divide that pits religious sensitivities against freedom of expression.”

The international community reinforced the spirit of Resolution 16/18 at the UN General Assembly, where the UNGA Third Committee adopted a similar resolution by consensus. I want to thank all of those who made that breakthrough possible, especially the Ambassadors from Geneva and New York who are with us here today.

Resolution 16/18 secured an international consensus around an action-oriented approach to combat religious intolerance in line with respect for universal human rights—including religious freedom and freedom of expression.

The resolution calls on states to take specific measures to combat religious intolerance. The focus of this implementation meeting is identifying best practices on prohibiting discrimination against individuals based on religion or belief, training government officials to avoid discrimination in their official duties, putting enforcement mechanisms in place and engaging with members of religious communities.

It is important that experts like you, practitioners of human rights protection, law enforcement, and community relations, share your views and exchange information on how to protect religious minorities.

You represent over 30 countries and a wide range of international organizations, including the European Union, the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. With this kind of expertise, we can make progress on implementing this resolution. History will judge us not by the resolutions we pass – but by whether we put these resolutions into practice. As the famous American abolitionist Wendell Phillips once remarked, “Governments exist for the purpose of protecting the rights of minorities.” Those rights include the right to believe and the right practice a religion not sanctioned by the state -- or no religion at all.

Though we come from a wide range of backgrounds, this resolution, representing the consensus of the international community, unites us in a common purpose. This purpose is to advance religious freedom, promote religious tolerance, and combat discrimination on the basis of religion or belief—consistent with universal human rights principles. This means a commitment to protect religious minorities and protect freedom of expression. Fighting discrimination and improving respect for religious freedom also creates a climate of tolerance that promotes stability, social harmony, and security.

We know that some people distort various religious doctrines to justify intolerance, foment violence, or create strife that serves their narrow political purposes. We must denounce offensive speech whenever we encounter it – but our commitment to universal principles makes clear that faith must never be a crime and religion must never be used as an excuse to stifle freedom of expression.

Secretary Clinton put it this way in a February speech on Internet freedom: “Some take the view that, to encourage tolerance, some hateful ideas must be silenced by governments. We believe that efforts to curb the content of speech rarely succeed and often become an excuse to violate freedom of expression. Instead, as it has historically been proven time and time again, the better answer to offensive speech is more speech. People can and should speak out against intolerance and hatred. By exposing ideas to debate, those with merit tend to be strengthened, while weak and false ideas tend to fade away; perhaps not instantly, but eventually.”

In this country, religious freedom is guaranteed in our Constitution’s Bill of Rights. We continue to work at improving respect for our religious diversity and protecting freedom of expression. Yet we continue to see individuals involved in acts of intolerance, and attempts to discriminate against other religious groups. They usually get wide coverage in our free press, and yet, we have freedom of expression and use effective measures to deal with these issues that are consistent with the steps recommended in Resolution 16/18. Complacency is not an option.

Over the next three days, we seek frank discussions that will help our governments promote tolerance, combat discrimination and violence, and help us learn from each others’ experiences. Resolution 16/18 is a roadmap. Our agenda for the next three days is to explore how to use that map to implement the resolution in ways that will improve conditions for all of our citizens.

Today, we will hold plenary sessions where you will meet your counterparts from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and Department of Justice. They will share with you how our approaches to these problems are evolving, what we have adopted from other countries, and how we adapted based on experience. On Tuesday and Wednesday, our meetings will be divided into two tracks. The first track will explore effective government strategies to engage religious minorities. This discussion will include methods for training government officials on religious and cultural awareness. The second track will explore ways to better enforce laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of religion or belief. We urge members of your delegation to participate in both tracks to ensure that we capture the full range of opinions and ideas you all represent.

Following this conference, we will compile a set of best practices that will be submitted to the Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights to be shared with States and the general public.

This is a historic opportunity for all of our countries to make concrete advances in promoting tolerance and combating the discrimination and violence that blights so many lives. I welcome you to Washington as together we find ways to promote mutual respect between governments and citizens of all religions, creeds, and beliefs. Thank you.

Background Briefing on Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention Review Conference

Special Briefing - Senior State Department Officials

Intercontinental Hotel - Geneva, Switzerland

December 6, 2011

---

MODERATOR: All right, everybody. We are in Geneva, where we just completed a fascinating day. And tomorrow the Secretary will be addressing the Biological Weapons Review Conference, which happens once every five years. To give you a sense of tomorrow’s event, we have two folks with us. We have [Senior State Department Official One], hereafter known as Senior State Department Official Number One. Sorry about that, [Senior State Department Official One.]

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Or make her Number One. She’s going to speak first.

MODERATOR: [Senior State Department Official One] and I have known each other a long time without a consideration. And then we have [Senior State Department Official Two] whose title is [title redacted], another old friend, hereafter Senior State Department Official Number Two. Take it away, [Senior State Department Official One.]

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Actually, I – we’ll let [Senior State Department Official Two] begin.

MODERATOR: Take it away, [Senior State Department Official Two]

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Okay. Maybe I’ll just start really quickly. Well, in addition to the title that [Moderator] mentioned, last year I was asked to be – take on a different hat, an additional one as [Senior State Department Official]. And this was very much to prepare over the following year for this review conference. And as you know, this Administration has placed a premium on arms control and nonproliferation. The Biological Weapons – its full title is Biological Weapons and Toxin Convention – is one of the three pillars of the global WMD regime. It is the first treaty to ban an entire class of weapons, that is, biological and toxin weapons, entered into force in 1975.

And so again, as you know, this Administration has placed a premium on arms control, nonproliferation, multilateral engagement. In particular, this is an area that this Administration early on took an interest in. The major review that was issued by the Obama Administration was only the second to come out of the White House, which was issued in 2009. So the President specifically asked the Secretary of State to head our delegation out here. She’ll give our national statement tomorrow.

Now, the focus really is that, one, this is a cornerstone, as I said, of the global nonproliferation regime. But we are trying to make sure that this Convention is adaptable and is focused on the 21st century challenges out there. When the treaty came into force, basically we thought in terms of state actors. We all know that that world has changed. As a matter of fact, it’s 10 years since the United States experienced a biological incident. The anthrax letters killed a number of American citizens, caused billions of dollars in damage. So we know, from first hand, the havoc that can be wrought. Japan suffered a terrorist incident with biological weapons. And indeed, you look at al-Qaida. They have put out bulletins. You’ve seen things where they have called for people to work on biological and chem weapons. So it’s a real threat.

But the positive side of that story, in terms of adapting this Convention to 21st century challenges is that when you develop the tools to deal with a biological weapons incident, the result of which is disease, the same tools give you the same benefits for the global health security, because disease is disease, whether it’s the result of a weapons incident, whether it’s manmade, whether it’s the result of, say, a lab accident. So when you build the national capacities around the world to deter, detect, and deal with disease outbreaks, then you build capacity that’s got benefits for global health in general.

As a matter of fact, the Secretary has spoken about health security in speeches in the past, so it’s – again, this is certainly a long term interest approach. So as I say, it’s keeping to reconfigure this treaty to meet those challenges. And so [Senior State Department Official Two], I think, is going to talk about some of the elements that you could – themes that the Secretary may speak about, programmatic aspects we’d like to hear about.

But ultimately, in this brochure you’ve got some reference materials and a description of some of the programmatic elements we’re looking for. It’s not a press – it wasn’t designed as a press kit, but if you find it useful we just brought it along.

Thank you.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: This will be the first time that we’ve asked the Secretary of State to speak at this review conference. This is the seventh held. The themes that you’ll hear her talk about tomorrow are first, to essentially lay out why we think that continued cooperation against biological threats is important, the universality of a threat given travel times and the connectedness of the world today, and also the interconnectedness of the solutions – of the remedies. How building your national capacity to detect and respond to any biological threat enhances the security of the whole world, and that we do this together.

Second, she’ll give a brief recount of the United States’ efforts to comply with the Convention, which of course, includes destroying all of our biological weapons back in the 1970s. But more importantly is a proactive agenda we cooperate with dozens of countries including many in the less-developed world, not only through State and the ISN bureau, but through DHS, AID, CDC, DOD – all of these agencies play a role. We think we have a very positive record of cooperation.

And finally, she’ll lay out three areas in which we propose this review conference consider for further action. I should note that the review conference does not amend the Convention. What we do is we meet and agree on items we want to focus on in the next five-year period. We have found the last two five-year periods, what they call the intercessional period, to be extremely valuable in bringing together not only many different countries, but filling a room not just with arms control specialists and diplomats but with scientists, industry, law enforcement officials, defense officials, for a genuinely multi-sectoral approach to global health security.

So she’ll put out ideas in three areas – first, the interface of health and security, that is what can we do to enhance the surveillance and response capability of all nations? Secondly, a proposal on national implementation – how can we get states to report more regularly more useful information about their compliance with the Convention in a way that promotes transparency and builds confidence among state’s party that the Convention is respected? And third, on science and technology, to have a discussion about measures the scientific community needs to take to build the consciousness of the risks of bio-science research. We know the tremendous benefits. We wish to encourage those. But a good discussion about responsible, ethical behavior by researchers in this intercessional period is what we’re pushing for. So again, none of these proposals change the Convention; they are, rather, ideas for where to focus our work in the next five-year period. Many other countries are making similar ideas.

I’ll close just by highlighting two areas that I think will not be so highlighted in the end. There are a couple of areas where there are disagreements within the Convention state’s party. One is in the area of verification. A number of states look at the BWC as they look at other arms control agreements, the Nuclear Nonpro Treaty or the Chemical Weapons Convention, and ask, why don’t we have a protocol for verification for intrusive inspections? The United States and a number of other countries believe that the very nature of biological research is such. It is so decentralized, it requires relatively simple equipment, fairly simple level of scientific knowledge, that you simply cannot design a verification mechanism that would work in the way that the IAEA works in the nuclear field. So this is one area where there are different views among state’s party.

Second is what we call Article 10. Article 10 of the Convention requires states to exchange information and technology. We believe, as I said, the U.S. has an excellent record, along with many other developed nations, in genuine two-way exchange with countries on scientific knowledge, on technology, on best practices. Some states, particularly in the nonaligned movement, believe there should be a more centralized, regularized mechanism to require and enforce this kind of technology exchange.

Now as I said, these are two longstanding issues in the Convention. I don’t expect either one of them to prevent us from having a successful inclusion – conclusion of a very forward-looking agenda for the next five years. There’s far more consensus than there is discord among the members of the Convention.

And with that, I think we have a few minutes for questions.

QUESTION: Can I ask just one simple one?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: I get that essentially what you do at these revcons is to look at what you’re going to work on for the next five years. Do you believe that the Convention itself does need to be formally adapted, the language changed, presumably re-ratified by everybody, to deal with the 21st century threats that you were talking about, or not?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: If I might, I would say no, we’re not looking for any amendment because we think it’s flexible enough, and [Senior State Department Official One] mentioned this intercessional process that’s been a huge success of these last five years. What we’d like to do is further enhance and institutionalize that process. So instead of, say, having this group [Senior State Department Official One] was talking about, this huge convening forum here that brings together diplomats, scientists, NGOs, law enforcement, animal and health experts together, instead of, say, just come in, having a meeting and then sort of going away, our idea is to have an institutional process where you have working groups. And I think we sketch out sort of three baskets there where you would develop recommendations then for the state’s parties, that you have a continuing dialogue.

And again, the rapid pace of change in biological sciences is so extraordinary that, for example, science and technology is one of the areas that we’d like to see a working group or an ongoing one established to try and keep up with that. For example, there’s the other non-nuclear (inaudible) of the chemical weapons convention obviously deals with chemical weapons. But what’s fascinating science here is you have a convergence of chemical and biological areas. You could now chemically synthesize biological pathogens. So it’s extraordinary how rapid a change. And we believe that you need to, as I say, institutionalize this dialogue to try and stay ahead of that curve, both for traditional arms control security issues and also because, as we were talking about, this sort of health security and the extraordinary challenges we face in today’s global world where we all know disease knows no borders.

QUESTION: Can you say which countries are pushing for – if any, are pushing for the verification protocol?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: So far – you’ll see in your packet an example of a summary of a U.S. proposal. We posted on the website of the Convention our specific language for proposals, and a number of other countries have done the same. So far, we have not seen any country that has posted a proposal for a verification mechanism. It’s a common element of rhetoric among a number of non-aligned states and among a number of allied states as well, who simply disagree with us about the impossibility of concluding such a mechanism. So there’s a wide array of states that believe a Convention like this needs a protocol for verification.

QUESTION: There’s not a risk of something like the (inaudible), where there’ll be an in-run around the normal process by some group of like-minded countries?

QUESTION: I’ll take that one as a yes. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: I don’t know the details.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: I think for one, this Convention runs by consensus. And as [Senior State Department Official One] said, that by and large there’s sort of a traditional attachment to the goal of the verification regime. That’s, for example, the position of the neutral/non-aligned movement, which is about a hundred and – it’s a huge chunk of the (inaudible) the international – it’s (inaudible), for example.

But as I say, it’s more sort of a standard thing, but not the big sort of floor piece. I would perhaps identify – I mean, Iran is one country that, for example, the prepcon that we had here last April, which went extraordinarily smoothly, Iran was the one country that was isolated in terms of trying to specify a specific focus on verification at the review conference.

QUESTION: Wouldn’t we like a verification process with Iran, so we can go in there and start poking around?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Well, one – this goes back to this notion of the changing nature of the threat out there. In terms of biological terrorism, how do you conceivably verify that?

MODERATOR: I think the point that [Senior State Department Official Two] is trying to make is that false verification is worse than no verification, in the sense that it gives you this sense of security that is not warranted.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: We’ve got no bias against verification. We have a bias in favor of things that work. And we simply don’t believe you can design a verification mechanism in this field that will achieve the goal of giving genuine confidence about other countries’ programs and intentions.

QUESTION: But is that because they – the threat now is really not so much countries as opposed to the non-state actors?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: It’s not because of that, but I agree with the sentence. We think there is more reason to be concerned about sub-national actors and terrorists than about states. The BWC has been an enormous success in establishing an international norm that really treats biological weapons, as the preambles say, as abhorrent to the conscience of mankind. And even those countries that have not signed the Convention would not dream of making the argument that they have the right to pursue such a program.

MODERATOR: Do you want to go a little deeper on why you can’t verify?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Well again, the dual-use nature. Because the same facilities that can produce equipment that would be used as a biological weapons – are the same facilities, the same substances that are vital for our industry, pharmaceuticals, our health, and so on. So it’s how you distinguish between the essential, vital, peaceful uses of the biological field and something that would be a biological agent. And as I say, that’s a huge problem just within, say, State programs. But then when it comes to, say, terrorism – and unlike the nuclear field, where you need massive infrastructure, complex programs, and so on, it’s – especially with the geographic changes in technology, it’s not that difficult to synthesize the materials. I mean, sort of –

MODERATOR: Anybody can do it in their basement.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: In their garage. That A-student in high school biology.

QUESTION: So if I might push just a little bit more on that. So basically, right now, as you go towards this revcon, is this really your main concern about these verification –

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: No.

QUESTION: No.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: I mean, it’s an issue out there. We’ve tried to sort of reframe the debate as have a lot of countries, in terms of talking about enhancing confidence in our minds.

QUESTION: What about proliferation? What about – I mean, verification obviously, but what about proliferation? I think that’s a much greater concern than verification.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: And our proposals are aimed at that. The programs that we do through State, Defense, DHS, are designed at providing the kind of security at biological research facilities around the world that will prevent the misuse or the diversion of any of these materials. So that’s an active step against proliferation. We also believe that enhancing a country’s ability to detect early a biological outbreak and to respond effectively is, in fact, a deterrent against the development of biological weapons. If all countries are well-prepared to respond, the value, either to a state or to a terrorist organization, of biological weapons will decline. So it’s a – inherently both a health security measure and a deterrent measure.

MODERATOR: Anything else?

All right, guys. Thank you very much.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Thanks.

MODERATOR: Appreciate it.

QUESTION: Thank you.

PRN: 2011/T57-17

20th Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice

Remarks

John Bargeron
Deputy Director, Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs

U.S. Opening Statement

Vienna, Austria

April 11, 2011

---

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the floor. We are pleased to see you leading our work today and during the coming week, and pledge our assistance as you work to help make this Crime Commission a productive one. We would also like to in with the Chair in offering our condolences to the government and people of Japan following the devastating earthquake and tsunami that took place recently.

It has been 20 years now since Member States agreed to create the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice. In 1991, Member States knew that more needed to be done to reduce the disastrous effects of transnational crime on our citizens, economies and security. The UN General Assembly at that time recognized that crime poses “a threat to stability and to a safe environment.” Among other things, the General Assembly anticipated twenty years ago that this Commission would provide a forum for “inter-State cooperation and coordination to respond to the serious new forms and transnational aspects and dimensions of crime.”

As prescient as we were back in 1991, we could never have imagined how transnational crime – particularly transnational organized crime – would evolve. Twenty years ago, the United States was enjoying a string of success against American mafia families, finding new ways to penetrate and dismantle these hierarchical organizations.

However, what we could not appreciate during that time was the impressive adaptability of criminal organizations. Despite our past successes, criminals have an impressive ability to react and reconstitute in ways that allow them to continue their profitable activities and avoid detection. Today, most criminal organizations bear no resemblance to the hierarchical organized crime family groups of the 1980’s. Today’s criminal groups consist of loose and informal networks that often converge only when it is convenient. These networks are not always permanent, and individuals involved in these networks often have no idea about the larger structure and cooperation of various links in the chain. These networks benefit tremendously from instant global communication, and interact in an environment that knows no borders. The subject of the thematic debate for this Commission is a good, but not the only, example of criminal networks that have exploded over the past 20 years.

We discussed at last year’s Crime Congress the growing convergence of these criminal networks and how we are finding that the tentacles of such networks are stretching out to embrace multiple types of criminal activity. Gone are the days when one crime family focused its attention on one or two types of criminal activities. Criminal groups now go where they can make a profit. Groups that specialize in trafficking human persons, for example, are also using all or parts of their networks to help move drugs, counterfeit goods and even proceeds of crime.

Mr. Chairman, as anticipated by Member States when they created this Commission two decades ago, we must use this forum not only to develop strategies for how to address individual types of crime, but also to keep informed of the larger picture. The global priorities for criminals should be the global priorities for this Commission - and for Member State cooperation.

Mr. Chairman, as we commemorate the 20^th anniversary of the Commission, our hope is that Member States, with the assistance of UNODC, spend more time on the bigger picture of transnational crime. Member States have discussed this in the context of our efforts to improve UNODC’s crime data collection and analysis capabilities. Last year’s UNODC report entitled “Transnational Organized Crime Threat Assessment,” while not without its controversy, represented a useful step in this direction. By gathering, exchanging and reporting information on problems and best practices, we can paint an evidence-based picture that will help us identify shared global priorities and potential tools for countering transnational crime.

The work of UNODC can help us in gaining a more complete perspective on the evolving threats of transnational organized crime. The United States will be introducing a resolution that calls greater attention to the way that transnational crime has evolved as an international threat in recent years, and promote information exchanges to give us a more complete view of the bigger picture. By doing this, we may find new paths for this Commission that we could never have imagined twenty years – or even a decade -- ago.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak, and we look forward to a productive week.

Gates in the ROK

Defense Secretary Robert Gates, along with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, made an historic trip Wednesday to the demilitarized zone separating the Republic of Korea from North Korea.

Alliance with the ROK

Defense Secretary Gates and Secretary of State Clinton spoke about the U.S. - Republic of Korea alliance while visiting Seoul, South Korea.

Gates at DMZ

Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited U.S. troops stationed at the Korean demilitarized zone Wednesday.

Visiting ROK and N. Korea

Defense Secretary Gates and Secretary of State Clinton will visit the demilitarized zone dividing the Republic of Korea and North Korea on Wednesday.

Clinton Arrives in Kabul

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton arrived in Kabul, Afghanistan, Monday for talks with Afghan President Hamid Karzai ahead of an international aid conference.

Gates on START Treaty

The new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with Russia signed by President Obama last month will not affect America's deterrent to nuclear threats.

START Treaty Hearing

Defense Secretary Robert Gates says the START treaty between the U.S. and Russia signifies ongoing cooperation between the two countries.

Briefing On the Situation in Haiti

Cheryl Mills - Counselor

USAID Administrator Raj Shah
Department Spokesman Gordon Duguid

Washington, DC - January 14, 2010

---

MR. DUGUID: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. We have with us today Cheryl Mills, who is the Counselor to the State Department and the Chief of Staff, and Raj Shah, who is the USAID Administrator, for a briefing on U.S. efforts on Haiti. We have a brief window here today, so we will go straight to our first speaker, Ms. Mills.

MS. MILLS: Thank you so much.

Good afternoon. We just wanted to provide an update and we’ll gladly take your questions. So I’m just going to make a few brief remarks. First of all, we are continuing to see the quite challenging situation that’s on the ground in Haiti, and our thoughts and prayers are continuing to go out to so many of the Haitian people and our families and others who are there. And it is a quite, quite devastating situation. And with more visibility on it, we are seeing the scope and breadth of this, and it is quite challenging.

As the President has said, we are committed to a swift and coordinated response, a very aggressive one, and that is what we actually have been putting on the ground. A lot of our assets have hit the ground now and we are actually being able to go about the efforts of searching and rescuing individuals as well as making the kinds of assessments and the kinds of arrangements for bringing in the kind of resources we need to have to be able to ensure we can be as impactful as possible. And my colleague, Administrator Shah, will spend some time discussing that.

We have a whole-of-government approach. We have had several meetings with the President where all of the various agencies have been represented and have spoken directly to the issues. And he’s made clear what a top priority this is, and to ensure that in the end the Haitian people get the kind of support and the kind of response that’s going to be necessary, given the direness of the situation.

We’ve been in touch with Prime Minister Bellerive today. Our Ambassador Ken Merten met with him earlier today and is now going to be meeting with him again this afternoon. The Haitian Government and Prime Minister Bellerive had indicated they are beginning to be in a place where they can be more effective and being partners in the planning and the coordination for the disaster response, and they are looking forward to – now that they have been dealing with a lot of, obviously, the challenging situations and personal situations, to being able to provide that leadership. So we’re looking forward to supporting them and ensuring that they have the necessary communication and other equipment and other things that they need to be able to provide the leadership to the Haitian people.

I just would like to say with respect to American citizens there, we are continuing our efforts to ensure that we are providing appropriate support. And for those individuals who are electing to return home, we are providing passage for them to do so. To date, we anticipate there might be about 300 people who would be traveling back today. Other than that, we are not seeing a large number of individuals who’ve indicated a desire to actually leave. People who are actually staying and being supportive and helpful. And also, since so many of the citizens who are there or obviously make their lives there in Haiti are continuing to see how they can best continue with the community that they are a part of.

I just would want to make one note. We have been getting a lot of offers for in-kind donations, everything from planes to goods. To the extent that those kinds of donations are being offered, it would be great if people would make those through www.cidi.org. That’s the Center for the International Disaster Information. And they can provide both guidance and coordination with respect to those.

So with that, I will turn it over to my colleague, Administrator Shah.

MR. SHAH: Great. Thank you. I would echo Cheryl’s comments that upon learning about what we were able to survey and getting a better understanding of the extent of the damage, it is a tragic situation. We’re in a position where we’re learning every minute a little bit more information about which roads are passable, which buildings are in which condition. But it is – it’s a dramatic situation and one that is – continues to be a challenge for our teams to move around and to do the work that we hope they can do.

Nevertheless, we’ve been mounting a swift and aggressive response, and we’ve been doing that in coordination with the Department of Defense, with the Department of State, and with a number of other major assets and entities of the federal government.

We have – our first wave of responders are now on the ground as – and have been actively engaged in search-and-rescue since last night. That’s – since yesterday afternoon, actually, the Fairfax, Virginia urban search-and-rescue team, with all of its capacities, and 72 professionals, have been active now for more than 24 hours. They’ve identified a number of buildings, done a lot of surveying for us, and are also serving as a point of coordination, helping to work with the Haitian Government and with the United Nations and with other countries that are bringing search-and-rescue gear, equipment, and professionals to this problem.

We have more than 250 American relief workers actively engaged that have been just a part of the recent deployment. That number is increasing significantly as we speak as planes land at the airport that has now been operationalized as a 24/7 airlift operation.

We have coordinated engagement with a number of other partners, partners from Canada and the UK, Belgium, and others to make sure that we are deploying our assets in an effective way.

There are more than eight urban search-and-rescue teams actively working. I mentioned the Fairfax team. We have a team from Los Angeles that has been working today, and multiple teams coming from Miami as well that are in the process of doing their work.

We have – we’ve been doing a number of things in the areas of health and medical planning and work. The United States Agency for International Development has a long history of working with a range of nonprofit partners and contract partners in Haiti that have been actively involved in providing medical care and medical services to the Haitian population. We are activating that network and exploring how we can expand on their capacities and capabilities to provide access to medical care, trauma services. We’re looking at bringing in direct emergency medical assistance teams that will be on the ground there very shortly and that will be able to provide the kind of tertiary trauma support that’s, of course, needed.

And we’re making active plans for the transport of food and water and other critically needed commodities – tarps, other kind of equipment that can help enable greater access to shelter for both – for the Haitian people that have suffered in this terrible tragedy.

All of this is taking place as we speak and is accelerating quite significantly. It really does amount to the first wave of response. There’s a second wave, of course, that the President alluded to earlier today that we have a significant military capacity, a number of resources from the 82^nd Airborne, the USS Carl Vinson, an aircraft carrier, and the Comfort U.S. hospital ship. Those assets will be deployed and are on their way to being engaged in this effort. So this will be a significant effort that is really about trying to, first, save lives in this first critical 72-hour period, then lay the groundwork for providing access to critically needed commodities – medical services, food, water, water purification – and then lay the groundwork for rebuilding.

So the teams are there. They’re working hard. I want to thank, in particular, the Fairfax, Virginia team that was the first team on the ground doing this work and took great risks, but has had some early successes.

Thanks.

MR. DUGUID: I think we have about seven minutes for questions, so please keep them brief, and we will try and get as many as we can.

Matthew and then Kirit.

QUESTION: Yeah. I’ll keep it very short. Just two things. One, is there any update on American casualties? And two, P.J. said this morning that, quote, “We’re not taking over Haiti.” And yet the President has made it very clear that this is going to be – that you’re taking – basically, you’re taking ownership of this crisis. And so I’m wondering who exactly is in charge of the civilian side? Who’s in charge of the military side? Are you, Administrator Shah, are you going to be the Paul Bremer of Haiti or is this going to be done somehow differently?

MS. MILLS: Let me address part of that, and obviously, I’ll let my colleague Administrator Shah speak for the questions that you put in.

With American casualties, we are still obviously continuing to do our search. We are at an instance where we at least know of one of instance of an American casualty. We are continuing to be working through the rubble for others, and so we are hopeful. At this point, we still have several Americans that are unaccounted for of which we are aware at this time, and several folks who are USG that are unaccounted for, so we’re going to continue our search. And once we have a more specific update, we will actually provide one, likely by the end of the day.

I do think I want to say one thing with respect to Haiti, having spent a fair amount of time there in the last nine months. I mean, the Haitians are a very proud people, and properly so. More particularly, this is a government that is committed to providing the kind of partnership that would be necessary to be effective with an international community. This is a president who actually did have a prime minister and a team that provided a plan for how Haiti could be rebuilt after the hurricanes, and more particularly how Haiti could also go about seeing the kind of vast economic growth that it should see.

I am confident that this government is not looking for the United States to take over. They are looking for a good partner. And we are confident that we will be that partner and that we will provide the kind of leadership that’s necessary to support and bring together the communities that are out there wishing to help. But we have no intention of supplanting the leadership of Haiti. And indeed, we actually see our role as ensuring that the leadership of Haiti is able to provide the leadership that the Haitian people properly expect them to provide.

QUESTION: Just to interrupt, one thing to clarify. You said one casualty. Do you mean fatality?

MS. MILLS: The person is no longer alive, yes.

ADMINISTRATOR SHAH: Yeah. I would just echo that comment that I think we have, example after example – we’re working in partnership with the Haitian Government, with the people of Haiti, with the United Nations. Much of early search and rescue, some of our overnight capacities were engaged in the UN compound and in rescue efforts there. We’ve been working with – on government sites. We’ve also – we’ve been meeting regularly and communicating regularly with members of the government. Our task team leader, our DART team leader, the Disaster Assistance Response Team, is very engaged working with the Embassy, the ambassador, and with members of the Haitian Government to make sure we do coordinate our efforts very closely.

But there are some unique things we can provide at this time of crisis and this time of need. So for example, part of that Fairfax team has been sitting at the airport and helping as other search-and-rescue teams come in, provide communications, equipment, and information to those teams, pointing them towards parts of Port-au-Prince that have not yet had search-and-rescue teams working there. And they can do that because they’re connected to our larger response effort. That’s all done in coordination with the Haitian Government and with Haitian partners. But those are unique things that we are able to do, and we’re committed to doing everything we can do to really help stand up an effective and aggressive response.

MR. DUGUID: Thank you. Kirit Radia, ABC News.

QUESTION: Hi. Kirit with ABC. I was curious what your plan is with this amount of aid that’s backed up at the airport right now. It seems that a lot of the roads are blocked. Can you tell – gives us an assessment from your DART teams whether those are starting to open up, how you’re planning on getting this aid out to the affected areas? It seems from the reports we’re hearing that it’s all kind of concentrated in one place right now.

ADMINISTRATOR SHAH: Well, while the airport is the primary way to get people and technical capacity and equipment in, we do have – the Southern Command is operating the airport together with the Haitian Government and is running it around the clock so that we’re maximizing our ability to get planes in there to unload them and to move them forward. There are going to be times when things do get jammed up there, but we’re moving them as fast as we possibly can. We are also looking at a range of other strategies for making sure that we get things from the airport out into town fast, get the teams deployed as quickly as possible.

Many of the urban search-and-rescue teams come with their own capabilities to get around and to be self-sustaining, and so that’s important in this first 72-hour period, because you obviously want them deployed as quickly as possible. But we have teams working on that. And we feel confident that we can get that done in the next few – in the next day and a half, get as many more search-and-rescue assets engaged in that effort while we still have time to save lives.

QUESTION: Not necessarily search and rescue – I think that the aid is just sitting there still. I mean, how do you get that out? That’s my question. It’s not the search and rescue. The actual pallets of aid that are arriving off all these ships from all the –

ADMINISTRATOR SHAH: Well --

QUESTION: -- different countries is just sitting there.

ADMINISTRATOR SHAH: Well, so part of it is it depends on which commodities we’re talking about. Our team leader and our Disaster Assistance Response Team have identified a set of priority needs and priority commodities. Those things are actually flowing into – per their surveying, are getting out there quite quickly. There are lot of things that are coming that aren’t – that weren’t – that are coming from other countries, coming from other sources that are there that will become part of that supply chain, but are not currently part of that supply chain.

It’s one of the reasons why it’s actually for people willing to give and the generosity of the American people is best displayed by giving cash at this point. That’s the most effective way to provide individual support, and there are a number of different ways to do that.

MR. DUGUID: We have time for one more question. Michele.

QUESTION: I wanted to ask Cheryl about the United Nations mission – I mean, what it was able to accomplish leading up to this, and how do you help the UN rebuild what it had?

MS. MILLS: Well, I think one of the things that has been very successful that the UN and Haiti had done, and certainly MINUSTAH, had been in providing the kind of security and stability that allowed the kind of progress that we were seeing in Haiti. And I think in a lot of ways, one of the things that we are grateful for is that we have the commander from MINUSTAH back in Haiti now and is able to actually deploy his teams in a way that actually reminds the civilians that are there that we actually have the support and capacity to be able to help.

I do think that as a general matter, there are so many things that Haitians themselves were actually already beginning to do – they had been successful in beginning to attract investment and actually to stand up the kinds of resources and arrangements that would actually make it attractive for individuals to decide that they would start investing in Haiti. And so that’s one of the things we want to continue to pay attention to and be thoughtful about. Because certainly now in this – what will ultimately become in the long term a rebuilding exercise, it’s going to be critical to make sure that the investments and the investors who had been looking at Haiti appreciate now more than ever the kind of support that’s going to be necessary.

Thank you.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

ADMINISTRATOR SHAH: No, I would just echo that I think – the one thing I would add is as we’re doing this overall, we’re trying to be very conscious of putting in place resources and assets that meet the immediate need and also will be appropriate and sustainable for the Haitian people. We want to do things now that will help create the basis of effective service provision and effective rebuilding of part of this society, so that’s something we’re taking very seriously.

MR. DUGUID: Thank you, Ms. Mills. Thank you, Administrator Shah. That’s all the time we have at this point, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you very much for coming to the State Department today.

# # # PRN: 2010/054

State Department, FBI Release Digitally Enhanced Photos Of Most Wanted Terrorist Suspects

Office of the Spokesman

Washington, DC

January 14, 2010

---

The following is the text of a joint Rewards for Justice – Federal Bureau of Investigation statement on a new initiative to update existing photos of terrorism suspects:

The U.S. Department of State and FBI are starting the New Year with newly enhanced photos of terrorist suspects on their most wanted lists.

Using sophisticated digital enhancement techniques, forensic artists at the FBI’s laboratory in Quantico, Virginia have “age progressed” old photos of 18 terrorist suspects listed on the State Department’s Rewards for Justice (RFJ) website (www.rewardsforjustice.net). Fourteen of these suspects also are being sought by the FBI.

The RFJ program is offering monetary rewards for information leading to the apprehension and/or conviction of these suspects. FBI forensic artists modified the suspects’ facial features to show what they might look like today. In other cases, their features have been modified to show how they might appear with different grooming and clothing choices. Federal investigators hope these updated images will enable the public to better identify these wanted suspects.

“It is our hope that these digitally enhanced images will help someone recognize these terrorist suspects and then contact the Rewards for Justice program with information that leads to their apprehension,” said Robert Eckert, assistant director for Diplomatic Security’s Threat Information and Analysis Directorate, which oversees the Rewards for Justice program.

"These new images are powerful examples of how advances in technology and science can be used to help find and bring to justice wanted persons,” said Louis E. Grever, Executive Assistant Director for the FBI's Science and Technology Branch.

“The FBI has and will continue to apply cutting-edge forensic, biometric, and technical capabilities to our most challenging cases. Together with our many partners, both here and abroad, we now call on the public to help us locate and take into custody those who threaten us."
The updated photos and information about RFJ’s terrorist suspects may be viewed on the Rewards for Justice website: (www.rewardsforjustice.net).

We encourage anyone with information on these suspects to contact the nearest U.S. embassy or consulate, any U.S. military commander, or the Rewards for Justice office via the website (www.rewardsforjustice.net), e-mail (RFJ@state.gov) or mail (Rewards for Justice, Washington, DC 20520-0303, USA).

All information will be kept strictly confidential.

Photos and information on some of these suspects also may be viewed on the FBI’s Most Wanted Terrorist website at http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/fugitives.htm.

Since its inception in 1984, the Rewards for Justice Program has paid more than $80 million to more than 50 persons who provided credible information that has resulted in the capture, prosecution, or death of terrorists or prevented acts of international

PRN: 2010/051

Remarks on the Earthquake in Haiti

Hillary Rodham Clinton

Secretary of State

Honolulu, Hawaii

January 12, 2010

---

SECRETARY CLINTON: Before I begin with this critically important subject about our future in Asia, I want to just say a few words about developments in Haiti. We are still gathering information about this catastrophic earthquake, the point of impact, its effect on the people of Haiti. The United States is offering our full assistance to Haiti and to others in the region. We will be providing both civilian and military disaster relief and humanitarian assistance. And our prayers are with the people who have suffered, their families, and their loved ones.

PRN: 2010/036

Assault on Cuban Bloggers - DoS

Press Releases: Assault on Cuban Bloggers

Ian Kelly

Department Spokesman

Washington, DC

November 9, 2009

---

The U.S. government strongly deplores the assault on bloggers Yoani Sanchez, Orlando Luis Pardo, and Claudia Cadelo. On November 6, these three activists were forcibly detained by plain clothes security personnel and beaten while en route to a peaceful demonstration in Havana.

The President has proclaimed November 9 World Freedom Day. It is precisely this sort of repression and violence against the voices of freedom and reconciliation that World Freedom Day is meant to expose. We call on the Government of Cuba to ensure the full respect of the human rights and fundamental freedoms of all its citizens.

We have expressed to the Cuban government our deep concern with the assaults, and we are following up with inquiries to Yoani Sanchez, Orlando Luis Pardo, and Claudia Cadelo regarding their personal well-being and access to medical care.

PRN: 2009/1120

---

U.S. and Libya Relations

After nearly 30 years of strained relations, the United States and Libya may now partner against the very issue that severed diplomatic ties years ago -- terrorism.

Situation in Honduras

Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary of State

Washington, DC - June 28, 2009

The action taken against Honduran President Mel Zelaya violates the precepts of the Inter-American Democratic Charter, and thus should be condemned by all. We call on all parties in Honduras to respect the constitutional order and the rule of law, to reaffirm their democratic vocation, and to commit themselves to resolve political disputes peacefully and through dialogue. Honduras must embrace the very principles of democracy we reaffirmed at the OAS meeting it hosted less than one month ago.

PRN: 2009/653

The United States Welcomes Statements on Decommissioning

Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary of State

Washington, DC -June 27, 2009

We welcome the statements today from the main unionist groups in Northern Ireland regarding the decommissioning of their weapons.

The announcements underscore the remarkable progress that has taken place in Northern Ireland over the years. All parties agree, as the people of Northern Ireland do, that the only way forward is through peace and reconciliation, and not through violence. Peter Robinson and other unionist leaders should be commended for their efforts in convincing these groups to take this courageous step. Leaders on all sides deserve our praise for their continued commitment to moving the process forward.

The United States remains engaged in order to support Northern Ireland in its progress towards a future of peace and prosperity.

Middle East Quartet Issues Statement

Date: 06/26/2009 Location: Trieste, Italy Description: Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov; UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon; European Union High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy Javier Solana; and U.S. Special Envoy to the Middle East George Mitchell answer questions during a press conference in a G8 foreign ministers' meeting in Trieste, Italy. © AP Image

(June 26): "The Quartet underscored that the only viable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one that ends the occupation that began in 1967 and fulfils the aspirations of both parties for independent homelands through two states for two peoples, Israel and an independent, contiguous, and viable state of Palestine, living side by side in peace and security. The Quartet welcomed the commitment of Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas to the two-state solution." -Full Text

Radovan Karadzic's May 25, 2009 Filing before the ICTY

Bureau of Public Affairs

Office of the Spokesman

Washington, DC - June 25, 2009

On May 25, 2009 Radovan Karadzic filed a motion before the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) titled the “Holbrooke Agreement Motion” in which he argues that his indictment should be dismissed on the grounds that Ambassador Richard Holbrooke promised Dr. Karadzic immunity from prosecution in The Hague in return for his resignation from public life.

The United States is aware of this allegation and repeatedly has made clear that no agreement ever was made to provide Radovan Karadzic immunity from prosecution. Neither Ambassador Holbrooke nor any United States official was in a position to offer Dr. Karadzic such immunity, and no such offer was made. Dr. Karadzic did sign a statement, the text of which was negotiated in Belgrade on July 18, 1996, by Ambassador Holbrooke and a team of United States government officials with senior Serbian officials at a meeting where Dr. Karadzic was not present. In this statement, Dr. Karadzic pledged to leave office and withdraw from public life. There was no “quid pro quo”.

As part of an ongoing commitment to assist the work of the ICTY, the United States regularly provides information to both prosecution and defense counsel. As part of this standard practice and in response to requests from Dr. Karadzic’s legal advisor, we have provided a number of documents to Dr. Karadzic, a few of which were cited in the motion filed on May 25. However, we believe that Dr. Karadzic has mischaracterized the evidentiary import of the information he received.

In the interest of transparency and accuracy, we are making available to the public documents that pertain to the allegation of an immunity agreement and, in particular, demonstrate the lack of an underlying basis for that assertion. As these documents show, the United States Government repeatedly made clear at the time of Dr. Karadzic’s agreement to withdraw from public life that it still expected Dr. Karadzic to be tried in The Hague. This position is reflected in both official statements to the press and in private diplomatic communications, including in letters from Secretary of State Warren Christopher and Ambassador Holbrooke to Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic.

The United States respects the ICTY’s judicial independence and strongly supports the work and mandate of the ICTY to investigate and try some of history’s most horrific crimes. We applauded Serbian authorities following the arrest and transfer of Radovan Karadzic to The Hague on July 21, 2008, and heralded the day as an important milestone for justice for the victims and reconciliation for the Balkans. Our longstanding policy is to ensure that those accused of atrocities face justice.

PRN: 2009/643