US Department of State Press Briefing January 10, 2012

Index for Today's Briefing
(Index Links Lead to Content Areas on the US State Department Website)

• DEPARTMENT
  • Deputy Secretary Burns' Meetings in Turkey / Travel to Egypt
  • Secretary Clinton's Meeting with Secretary of Defense Panetta and National Security Advisor Donilon
• SYRIA
  • President Assad's Speech
  • Arab League Monitoring Mission
  • UN Security Council Session
  • Ambassador Ford's Demarches / Physical Security of U.S. Embassy
• ISRAEL/PALESTINIANS
  • Sesame Street / Funding Cuts
• PAKISTAN
  • Bombing in Jamrud
• SAUDI ARABIA
  • Secretary Clinton's Meeting Today with Foreign Minister Prince Saud al Faisal
• YEMEN
  • Reported Travel of Former President Saleh
• IRAQ
  • Secretary Clinton's Call to U.S. Mission Iraq, Afghanistan
  • Transition
• NORTH KOREA
  • Nuclear Program
• IRAN
  • U.S. Coast Guard Rescue of Iranians in Distress at Sea
  • Amir Hekmati Sentenced to Death
• NIGERIA
  • Nationwide Strikes
  • Boko Haram

TRANSCRIPT:

12:46 p.m. EST
MS. NULAND: Afternoon, everybody. I have a brief statement at the top with regard to Deputy Secretary Burns’s trip to Turkey and Egypt, and then we’ll go to your questions. Deputy Secretary Burns wrapped up a visit to Ankara today, where he met with Turkish Foreign Minister Davutoglu. He also met with Under Secretary of Foreign Affairs Sinirlioglu. They discussed a number of issues of shared interest, including developments in Iraq, the importance of international solidarity on Iran, our shared concerns about the situation in Syria, and ways that we can coordinate to support Egypt’s democratic transition. Deputy Secretary Burns obviously affirmed our continuing support for Turkey’s own struggle to combat internal terrorism, and inclusive and transparent constitutional reform, and reiterated our desire to strengthen U.S.-Turkish economic ties.
Ambassador – Deputy Secretary Burns has now landed in Cairo. He has meetings there tomorrow. He’ll meet with senior Egyptian Government officials. He’ll also meet with political leaders and members of civil society and the business community. His discussions in Cairo will focus on U.S.-Egyptian bilateral relations; our strong support for Egypt’s democratic political transition, including an active and independent civil society; and the current economic challenges facing Egypt; and, obviously, regional issues of shared concern.
Let’s go to what’s on your minds.
QUESTION: Can we ask on Burns first?
QUESTION: Go ahead.
QUESTION: Yeah. Is he going to be meeting with members of political parties, or is he going to follow Feltman’s rule that he won’t meet with them?
MS. NULAND: He is going to meet with some political party leaders. I think we’ll wait until he has those meetings and then we’ll give you a sense of them tomorrow.
QUESTION: You can’t say that he’s going to meet the Muslim Brotherhood, then?
MS. NULAND: I, frankly, don’t have the list of who’s going to be included in those meetings. I think it’s a roundtable, but let me read it out for you tomorrow, Lach, after he does it.
QUESTION: It would be expected, though, that the biggest parties now in the country would be included in that roundtable, I’m guessing.
MS. NULAND: Well, let’s let him do it. But we will have more for you tomorrow after he does it.
Please, Michel. Still on this one?
QUESTION: On Syria?
MS. NULAND: On Syria?
QUESTION: Have you read the Syrian president speech today, and what’s your reaction to it?
MS. NULAND: Well, obviously, we’ve seen the reporting on the president’s speech. It’s interesting, throughout the course of this speech, Assad manages to blame a foreign conspiracy that’s so vast with regard to the situation in Syria that it now includes the Arab League, most of the Syrian opposition, the entire international community. He throws responsibility on everybody but back on himself. And with regard to his own responsibility for the violence in Syria, he seems to aggressively deny any responsibility or any hand in the role of his own security forces.
So again, he’s doing everything but what he needs to do, which is to meet the commitments that Syria made to the Arab League to end the violence, to pull tanks and heavy weapons out of cities, to allow journalists in, to release political prisoners, and to allow a real space for political dialogue to take place. So that’s what we’re looking to see in Syria, and obviously, this was an effort to deflect the attention of his own people from the real problems.
QUESTION: Does that worry you that he hasn’t changed his tone at all?
MS. NULAND: I think it just confirms us in our view that it’s time for him to step aside, that he’s not the guy who can lead Syria in the direction that it needs to go.
QUESTION: Does it worry you that he’s kind of setting – he seems to be setting up sort of this scenario of it’s an us against the rest of the world? You could almost see what he was trying to achieve there, sort of rallying support because the whole world is out to get us. Does that concern you?
MS. NULAND: Well, sadly, Cami, this is not new from him. He’s been doing this all along. In March, when all of this started, he had an opportunity to do what some other leaders have done and start a dialogue and really address his people’s concerns. And even from that moment and escalating ever since, it’s all been about the enemies of Syria rather than truly understanding that this is an internal movement. It’s coming from the Syrian people who want change, who are sick of corruption, sick of a government that doesn’t represent all the needs of all the people, and a government that is for him and his cronies, not for the Syrian people.
So – and the fact that not only is he blaming everybody else, but he’s taken up arms against his own people. He’s responsible for this violence. So from our perspective it’s not new, and it’s also, obviously, not new that he is refusing to take any responsibility for the actions of his own security forces who are the instigators of the violence.
QUESTION: So to follow up on Cami there, I mean, you – she asked if you were concerned about what he said. I mean, the opposition has seized on the fact that he’s vowed to crush their terrorism with an iron fist. Does that worry you that the crackdown is going to be as strong as ever, or what kind of intentions do you see there?
MS. NULAND: It’s worried us all along, the kinds of violence he is perpetrating against his own people. This is a guy who’s overseeing a security apparatus that has tanks in every town and village, that is using those tanks on innocent civilians, that has security forces that are rampaging in towns, that is arresting and torturing members of the political opposition, that has thousands of political prisoners. So it’s already an iron fist. The question is: Is he going to meet any of these commitments that he’s made? The Arab League is doing its best to try to provide space for this opposition, but clearly he’s defiant.
QUESTION: Can we just – building on what Cami said, you mentioned that this tone dates back to March. So that’s just almost 10 months of political inaction and violent repression. Are we at an end point now for diplomatic efforts with this guy?
MS. NULAND: Well, the United States has been saying for some months, I think dating back – I can’t remember exactly, I think it was August or September – that we had given him an opportunity to be the guy to lead change; that rather than doing that, he has used violence against his own people. And so we believe that it’s time – well overdue – for him to step aside.
That’s a different matter than whether this Arab League initiative is worth giving a try to see whether they could bring the Assad regime to implement the promises that it made. And we see a very, very, very incomplete picture there, as we’ve talked about all week.
QUESTION: So are you --
QUESTION: Okay, but just one second.
QUESTION: Sorry.
QUESTION: Just – would you be supportive of further diplomatic efforts? It just seems that time and time again, he’s used each outreach effort as a stalling tactic, as a strategy to kind of keep the international community at bay while he continues with the crackdown and continues to fail to deliver on any meaningful political reform. So how would you approach continued efforts to – would you lend support to continued efforts in this vein?
MS. NULAND: We’ve made clear we think the man needs to step aside. We’ve made clear that we want – we will continue to work with allies and partners around the world, particularly those in the region, trying to open space for political change, getting the violence to end, that we need to increase the pressure on the regime, the economic and political pressure. That’s what we have been leading with our own sanctions, with our efforts to encourage others to step up their sanctions, as we’ve seen.
QUESTION: But what has been --
MS. NULAND: We did support this Arab League initiative because they made promises – he made promises to them. We wanted to see if they could be implemented. We’re seeing this incomplete picture. They are going to make their own evaluation on the weekend, and we have made clear that we will continue to work with the Arab League and other partners on the way ahead, including what more the international community can do to try to increase the pressure to end the violence and to allow space for change in Syria.
QUESTION: But just finally --
QUESTION: Victoria --
QUESTION: -- what has been the sum total then of these 10 months of diplomatic efforts? What have they actually accomplished?
MS. NULAND: Well, I think his regime is feeling the squeeze. I mean, many countries have stopped trading with him --
QUESTION: I’m not talking about the sanctions. I’m talking about outreach, whether it was Turkey, whether it was the Arab League, whether it was some of his Gulf neighbors. What have they done? If you take all of them together since March, have they accomplished anything for the people in Syria?
MS. NULAND: Well, clearly we have not had success. I think that’s obvious from the situation on the ground.

Please.
QUESTION: Yes. Victoria, I mean, he had very harsh words toward the Arab League. So obviously he is – they are – the regime is not going to cooperate with the mission, the monitoring mission by the Arab League. So why do you continue to have confidence in their ability and whatever report they’re coming up on the 19^th of this month?
MS. NULAND: Said, we have said that we thought that they took on quite a lot of responsibility to do what they could to try to open space, to try to bear witness to what was going on, to do an honest reporting of what’s going on. We want to give them the opportunity to make that report, to make their own evaluation, to share their conclusions with all of the rest of us. And frankly, that will strengthen all of us going forward in our resolve to continue to increase the pressure and do what we can.
So it is a matter of letting the Arab League complete this mission, as it plans to do on Friday and Saturday, to make its own evaluation. And then all of us can take stock based on what we’ve seen.
QUESTION: But the integrity of the – if I’m --
QUESTION: Toria, why is it --
QUESTION: Go ahead.
QUESTION: Why is it an incomplete picture? You could say, “Whose fault is it that it’s an incomplete picture?”
MS. NULAND: No, the point I meant there, Jill, was, as we’ve been saying all week, we’ve seen some sporadic incidents in Syria where the presence of the monitors over the last couple of weeks have allowed the Syrian opposition to feel comfortable enough to come into the streets and make its views known. We saw big demonstrations about 10 days ago, a week ago, but those have been few and far between. And at the same time, we’ve seen Syrians continue to die at the hands of the security regime. We’ve seen the security situation not improve. We’ve seen the heavy weaponry, et cetera, that is emplaced all over Syria, not pulled back, as they promised. Journalists have not been allowed in. And we still have a thousand-plus political prisoners in Syrian jails, including some very prominent ones, with reports of torture.
So the point is that the Assad regime promised that it would meet four commitments to the Arab League. It has not met any of them, which is to say – but which is not to say that the monitors, where they have been able to be present, where they have been able to operate, haven’t already begun to prove the point that when they feel safe, the Syrian people will go out into the streets and make their views known. And it is Assad who is denying them that right through his violence.
QUESTION: But particularly as the observers are under attack yesterday, a group of Arab League observers were attacked – or was attacked by unknown protestors in Syria. Who is responsible, do you think, for these attacks?
MS. NULAND: I think we’re not in a position, obviously, to say who attacked the monitors. But this is the issue: The violence has not ended; the violence continues; and the Arab League presumably will draw its – draw conclusions from that when it makes its report at the end of the week.
Lach.
QUESTION: On the UN Security Council, what do you expect from their discussions on Syria, especially since the last time you didn’t get the hoped-for targeted measures with the support of China and Russia?
MS. NULAND: Well, the Security Council is having another session on Syria this morning. I would guess that Ambassador Rice will have something to say in New York after that session concludes. I think you know where we are, Lach, that we continue to believe that it is overdue for the Security Council to make a strong statement in support of peace and security and in support of the moves that we can all take together to help the people of Syria.
We have a weak Russian draft on the table. We have consultations going on about how to strengthen it. So let us see if those lead anywhere today in New York and let them report from New York.
QUESTION: Any reason for optimism?
MS. NULAND: I think our sense is that we’re going to need to see the conclusion of this Arab League mission. We’re going to need to see their report. We’re going to need to have that report influence the views of the international community going forward.
Please.
QUESTION: Yeah. Ambassador Ford has expressed concern regarding security and safety of the Embassy and the staff in Damascus, and we were told that he conveyed this concern to the Syrian officials. How far the Syrians were responsive to his concern?
MS. NULAND: Well, my understanding is that Ambassador Ford made renewed demarches in the last couple of days about the physical security of the Embassy. I don’t know that the Syrian Government has responded to those demarches yet. My understanding is that they had not yet. But we, like a number of other embassies in Damascus, are concerned about whether or not the environment around our missions is well-enough protected.
QUESTION: Do you have any reason to doubt the Syrians’ resolve to protect the American Embassy or any other diplomatic missions in Damascus?
MS. NULAND: Based on history, Said, we --
QUESTION: Based on history, yes.
MS. NULAND: As you know, we had a bad incident in the fall. We’ve worked with the Syrians since. We’re now asking for more support, and we’ll see if the Syrian Government is forthcoming.
QUESTION: But – I’m not saying that they shouldn’t provide it, but given the fact that you’ve called this regime illegitimate and said it should step down, how can you then ask to it to be legitimate in the sense that it should provide security? I mean, you’ve already said this is an illegitimate regime, so where does it get its legitimacy to provide support to anybody? I’m not saying that they shouldn’t be doing it, but --
MS. NULAND: Clearly, they have the security forces available. Use less of them on their own people and more of them to protect diplomatic missions, including in conformity with the Vienna Convention. We protect their mission and their people here, and we expect the same for our mission and our people there.
Please.
QUESTION: I just actually – for some clarification on this legitimate/illegitimate discussion, a minute ago you said we’ve made clear that we think the man needs to step aside. I don’t – Bashar Assad is not going to step aside. So I guess what I’m wondering is: Is the United States calling for his ouster?
MS. NULAND: We have been clear about this. The President said it in August. We think that this is not the guy to lead this country in a democratic transition. We have made clear that we think it is time for a dialogue that does not include him. We are not dictating how this needs to go forward, but we’re simply saying that in terms of our confidence that he can lead his country in a better direction, that’s over.
Please.
QUESTION: Change topic?
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: Yes. Palestinian issue. The Palestinian television had to cancel Sesame Street because of the funds and the $200 million worth were cut and the – part of that money, 2 million, were going to the – was going to the Sesame Street fund. My question to you is that the State Department subsidized the Israeli version of Sesame Street to the tune of $750,000. Would the State Department do the same thing to restore Sesame Street and Elmo and the other characters?
MS. NULAND: This is a complicated picture here, and I had asked our friend Kermit the Frog to join us to explain this, but I’m going to have to do it without him because he’s busy promoting The Muppet Movie.
The U.S., as you know, as you said, Said, did provide some support for the airing of Sesame Street to Palestinian kids. Unfortunately, with the cut in Economic Support Funds, we had to make some hard tradeoffs, and that was one of the things that we’ve not been able to do.
We have also always supported television for young kids, kindergarten age kids, that is broadcast by Israeli TV to kids in both Israel and in the Palestinian territories, which supports the goal of kids understanding that they share citizenship, that Israeli Arabs and Israeli Jews need to live together, that they are neighbors with the Palestinians. This is programming in Israel designed to promote common sense of citizenship between Israeli Arabs and Israeli Palestinians, but also between all Israelis and folks in the Palestinian territories. We think it’s an important program for kids. And the science indicates that if you get to children at the young level, before they’re even in school, that’s the best way to influence them. So yes, that does continue, and it comes out of a different pot of money.
QUESTION: What I’m saying is could you provide the Palestinians with the same thing for the program that airs from Ramallah in Arabic?
MS. NULAND: Well, again, we had to make some difficult decisions because our funding that comes – that supports the purely Palestinian programs, as opposed to these pan-regional programs, comes out of the economic support funds, and the economic support funds have been cut. And so our priority has been funding those programs that support – and the institutions of the – Palestinian institutions, their ability to provide basic services to their people. And unfortunately, Kermit is not able to be supported at the moment.
QUESTION: So what was the message of this now-cancelled Palestinian version of Sesame Street? Was it a peaceful message that’s been lost, or was it one that didn’t support the institutions?
MS. NULAND: My understanding is it’s regular Sesame Street programming that is – but perhaps Said knows better. I haven’t seen it.
QUESTION: It’s like all the others, it’s just coordinated with --
MS. NULAND: Right.
QUESTION: -- New York. And part of it comes --
MS. NULAND: Right.
QUESTION: -- from here, and part of it comes from there --
MS. NULAND: Right.
QUESTION: -- the programming, and it’s a very unfortunate thing.
MS. NULAND: Right.
QUESTION: Even the Israeli program, saying they are cutting funds actually is a disservice to peace because it teaches children how to live together and overcome all social and national barriers and so on.
MS. NULAND: Well, this speaks to the larger issue that we had pushed hard in the Congress and will continue to push hard for the – for full funding of the ESF account. At this point, we only have partial funding.
Please, in the back.
QUESTION: Pakistan today, there was a huge bombing (inaudible). What is your reaction? Do you know who might be behind this bombing? And what is – how – what is the status of – where do the U.S. and Pakistan and Afghanistan stand in terms of combating this challenge of militancy? Because there have been bombings in Afghanistan and Pakistan both in recent days.
MS. NULAND: Well, let me say first that the United States strongly condemns today’s bombing at a marketplace in Jamrud, in the Khyber Agency. By callously targeting innocent people, the extremists who planned and perpetrated this attack are just showing their contempt for the value of human life. We offer our condolences to the families and friends of the victims, and we remain deeply committed to working with Pakistan to address these kinds of terrorist threats and the results of violent extremism. We’ve seen the reports, some claiming that there are al-Qaida hands behind this. Frankly, we’re not in a position to confirm one way or the other.
Please, Michel.
QUESTION: The meeting this afternoon between Secretary Clinton and the Saudi foreign minister, what are the topics that they will discuss? And is there any emergency for this meeting, especially that Assistant Secretary Feltman was in Saudi Arabia on Saturday and Sunday and Wendy Sherman was there last month, too?
MS. NULAND: Well, as you know, we – as you know, whenever we meet with representatives from the kingdom, it’s a very, very broad array of issues. From the Secretary’s side, I’m – I think she’s expecting that they’ll talk about virtually all of the regional issues – situation in Iran, situation in Iraq, promoting the democratic transition in Egypt, Bahrain, Syria, you name it. But let us let the meeting go forward. Obviously, we – they have a close relationship. We always see the foreign minister when he’s in town.
QUESTION: But is there any emergency, especially that Assistant Secretary Feltman was there and he just came back?
MS. NULAND: I can’t speak to the timing of the foreign minister’s visit except to say that we always have a heavy agenda. And as I just made clear, we have a very heavy agenda today again.
QUESTION: This meeting today with Saud Al-Faisal – I think tomorrow is – Hamad bin Jassim is coming?
MS. NULAND: That’s right.
QUESTION: Okay. And now on the 17^th, we have the Jordanian monarch coming in. Does the Palestinian-Israeli negotiations factor in at all in these discussions?
MS. NULAND: In virtually all of these meetings, there is an exchange on where we are in our efforts to bring the parties to the table. I would guess that the – that issue will probably come up in all of these meetings.
QUESTION: Were you expecting the Saudi foreign minister to be here today before the visit that Assistant Secretary Feltman made?
MS. NULAND: I can’t speak to the exact sequencing of these issues. I don’t think that this was a surprise to us, if that’s what you’re asking.
Samir.
QUESTION: Toria, did you find out if President Saleh of Yemen changed his mind to travel to Saudi Arabia instead of the U.S.?
MS. NULAND: I don’t have anything for you, Samir, on his travel plans. I would refer you to him. We don’t have anything new for you on that.
QUESTION: Because he withdrew his application for the visa to the U.S., Saleh.
MS. NULAND: Well, he took his passport back. What his travel plans are, I can’t speak to.
Yeah.
QUESTION: Any information on the other meeting the Secretary has at the White House with Defense Secretary Panetta and Mr. Donilon?
MS. NULAND: She – they meet regularly whenever they’re all home, and this is part of their regular consultation.
QUESTION: But there’s no specific topic that this is --
MS. NULAND: I’m sure there is, and I’m sure we’re not going to share it with you, Brad.
Please.
QUESTION: Toria, I forget, is it today that she’s speaking with the staff in Iraq?
MS. NULAND: Yes, she spoke to them this morning. She did.
QUESTION: Yeah. What did she say?
MS. NULAND: She had a phone call yesterday with our staff in Afghanistan and she had a phone call today with our staff in Iraq. These were New Year’s Day calls. Both of those staffs work extremely hard, seven days a week in most cases. They work under extreme conditions. And I think it was an opportunity to thank them for the work that they both did last year and to give them a pep talk going forward, because they’re both also shepherding important transitions in our relationships with both countries.
QUESTION: Right. And on the Iraq part, is there any early indication of how things are going now that the transition is happening?
MS. NULAND: In terms of the State Department picking up --
QUESTION: Troops out. Yeah. Right.
MS. NULAND: -- the lead, we’re working it through. As we’ve said from the beginning, this is – it’s a daunting effort, but we believe that we’re up to the task. I think you’ve seen that that Embassy’s been extremely busy, led by Ambassador Jeffrey, in its work with all of the Iraqi political parties to encourage them to talk to each other and encourage an Iraqi-owned process of national dialogue among the key leaders. So that continues, as do all of our civilian support opportunities and our training opportunities. So --
Please.
QUESTION: On North Korea?
MS. NULAND: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: North Korea announced that North Korea never ever give up their nuclear program. How is your response on that?
MS. NULAND: Well, I think you can imagine that that is disappointing. I think we’ve been absolutely clear that we are looking for North Korea to take significant steps on the path towards denuclearization to work with us to meet its obligations. So we’ve been clear in what we hope to see. Our Six-Party Talks partners have been clear as well.
QUESTION: What would be the response of the United States if North Korea insist to be formally recognized as a nuclear power to come to Six-Party table?
MS. NULAND: You mean as a precondition for coming to the Six-Party Talks?
QUESTION: Yes.
MS. NULAND: I think you know the answer to that question. It’s not acceptable.
QUESTION: Right. Thanks.
MS. NULAND: Please.
QUESTION: Toria, do you have any comments on the second naval rescue operation in the Sea of Oman that happened today --
MS. NULAND: Yeah. This is --
QUESTION: -- within a week?
MS. NULAND: I have to tell you that I don’t have all the details. I think Brother Little and Brother Kirby at the Defense Department were going to speak to this earlier today. I don’t know if they got a chance to go out and do so, but they’ve got the details. Again, the – I think in this case, the U.S. Coast Guard appears to have rescued some Iranians at sea and in distress. I heard this morning that it had something to do with engine trouble. There was a fire. But I’m going to leave it to the brothers at the Pentagon to give you more detail.
QUESTION: Do you have --
QUESTION: The P-5+1 talks aren’t really getting anywhere. How about a ship-to-ship diplomacy? (Laughter.)
MS. NULAND: Yeah, it sounds like we’re kind of de facto doing it, aren’t we? Yeah. It’s interesting because, as you know, the State Department runs a Twitter feed in Farsi. We have our virtual embassy with Tehran where we try to push out lots of information about U.S. diplomacy, et cetera. Massive interest in this – in the previous incident, on both of those platforms in this from regular Iranians wanting to understand more and some fascinating comments as well.
Yeah.
QUESTION: Do you have an update on Mr. Hekmati?
MS. NULAND: I have not a lot new, unfortunately. Let’s see. As I think I mentioned yesterday that we hadn’t yet been able to confirm the verdict, the Swiss protecting power has now been able to confirm to us the verdict. So we strongly condemn the death sentence verdict given to Mr. Hekmati. We’ve conveyed our condemnation to the Iranian Government through the Swiss protecting power. We maintain, as we have from the beginning, that these charges against him are a fabrication. We call on the Iranian authorities to release him immediately. We’ve also called on them to allow him to have legal counsel. Defendants in Iran are allowed to appeal within 20 days. And we call on the Government of Iran to respect the right – the fact that he is a U.S. citizen and grant the Swiss protecting power access to him.
QUESTION: Now, when the Swiss were informed of the sentence against him, was a justification for the charges or the sentence provided, or just simply the facts, as it were?
MS. NULAND: I don’t have details on that, I’m afraid.
QUESTION: Toria --
MS. NULAND: Please.
QUESTION: -- legally speaking, because Iran does not recognize the dual citizenship aspect, does the --
QUESTION: He doesn’t have dual citizenship.
QUESTION: I’m sorry?
QUESTION: He doesn’t have dual citizenship.
QUESTION: He doesn’t – so he’s just an American citizen, okay. So --
QUESTION: That is accepted – sorry – but informally.
QUESTION: What is informally?
MS. NULAND: Well, we’ve talked about this before here, Said, and we have a specific warning in our travel notice with regard to Iran to Iranian Americans that we have this problem with Iran, that if you’re born in Iran, even if you’re an American citizen, the Iranians don’t always recognize it, and it’s caused difficulties in the past.
So, anything else?
QUESTION: Just one on Iran. You said that he should have legal counsel. Did he have some sort of counsel for his case, some sort of court-appointed lawyer or something like that?
MS. NULAND: I have to say to you that I’m not sure we know enough about the way he was handled to answer that question. But you’ve seen his family speak about trying to get counsel to him – independent counsel. So --
QUESTION: So the Swiss have not had any contacts with any legal representative, whether he was state-appointed or --
MS. NULAND: To my knowledge, no. And they’ve not been allowed to see him.
QUESTION: Just a quick one on Nigeria.
MS. NULAND: Yes.
QUESTION: Yesterday you talked a little bit about it, but the Nobel Laureate Wole Soyinka said he feared the risk of a civil war in Nigeria. And I just wanted to ask you what you think the stakes are, if indeed you share that view. It’s an oil country. There’s large Muslim and Christian populations.
MS. NULAND: Well, as we said yesterday, Lach, we have concerns about what Boko Haram is doing about efforts to create and exacerbate existing tensions between Christians and Muslims in the country, north/south. We are supporting the efforts of the Nigerian Government to try to get a handle on that. On top of that, as you’ve probably seen, we also have nationwide strikes now in Nigeria in response to lifting of fuel subsidies. So that’s adding another layer to the difficulties in Nigeria. In the context of the nationwide strikes on the fuel situation, our view on that is that the Nigerian people have the right to peaceful protest, we want to see them protest peacefully, and we’re also urging the Nigerian security services to respect the right of popular protest and conduct themselves professionally in dealing with the strikes.
Anything else?
QUESTION: Thank you.
MS. NULAND: Okay. Thank you all.

US Department of State Press Briefing January 5, 2012 (Full Transcript)

Victoria Nuland

Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC

January 5, 2012

Index for Today's Briefing

• DEPARTMENT
  • Bureau of Counterterrorism
• ISRAEL/PALESTINIANS
  • Meeting/Quartet
• IRAN
  • Oil Imports/EU Continuing to Consult
  • Sanctions
• AFGHANISTAN
  • Bagram/Detention Operations
  • Support Afghan-led Peace Process
• IRAQ
  • Condemnation of Violence
• EGYPT
  • Assistant Secretary Feltman's Meetings in Cairo
  • Judicial Proceedings/International Standards
• CHINA
  • Assistant Secretary Campbell's Meetings
• CONGO
  • U.S. Supports Freedom of Speech
• BAHRAIN
  • Implementation of Commission Report
• TURKEY
  • Press Freedom Issues
• PAKISTAN
  • Ambassador Haqqani

TRANSCRIPT:

1:01 p.m. EST
MS. NULAND: Good afternoon, everybody. Happy Thursday. I don’t have anything at the top, so let’s go to what’s on your minds.
QUESTION: I have three very brief housekeeping items and then, really, nothing else. One is the taken question on the – yesterday’s scintillating briefing on the counterterrorism bureau. The TQ didn’t answer the question, which was whether or not the salary rise – a salary for an assistant secretary is higher than a coordinator for an office.
MS. NULAND: I am told that Ambassador Benjamin, because he’s already a presidential appointee and because he’s already Senate-confirmed for his ambassadorial title, will have an equivalent salary when he becomes an assistant secretary.
QUESTION: So there’s no change in any salary for those --
MS. NULAND: To my knowledge, no.
QUESTION: All right. Okay. Second thing is yesterday, you said that you expected the Israelis and Palestinians would meet again tomorrow --
MS. NULAND: Yes, that --
QUESTION: -- January 6^th in Amman. It’s looking like that’s not happening.
MS. NULAND: What --
QUESTION: Why? And is there a new day – is there a date for a next meeting?
MS. NULAND: I’m not sure whether I was incorrect yesterday or whether things have moved so that negotiators have a chance to consult with capitals, but the next meeting is now on Monday the 9^th. So the good news here is we do appear to be in a process where the parties will be meeting directly, and we hope that this will continue even beyond Monday the 9^th.
QUESTION: All right. And then the last one is that you were asked a question yesterday about the EU apparently coming to an agreement on a ban on Iranian oil imports. You responded by saying you thought this was a good thing, but haven’t – is it your understanding that the EU has moved beyond where it was on December 1^st when it said it was going to do this?
MS. NULAND: Our understanding is that the EU is continuing to consult, that it has not made final decisions, that it expects to bring these issues forward at its ministerial meetings closer to the end of the month. But you saw the – some of the press reporting out of Brussels that talked about an agreement in principle. So that’s what I was responding to, but you are correct, Matt, that it is not yet completely signed, sealed, and delivered.
QUESTION: Well, but isn’t it your understanding that that agreement in principle was actually reached on in early December, when they said that they were going to do this?
MS. NULAND: My understanding is that there were pieces of it that were agreed in early December and that work continued throughout December, and that’s why you’re seeing new press reporting about agreement in principle.
QUESTION: Well, can you describe what your understanding is of what is changed between then and – that and yesterday?
MS. NULAND: Well, there are a lot of details that have to go into this kind of thing when you take 27 countries and try to get them to harmonize their approach. So my understanding is that in early December, they agreed that they would work on this throughout the month of December. They have been working with technical experts, et cetera, to try to put together a package. That’s the package that’ll be finally looked at at the end of the month. But what you saw coming out of Brussels was an effort to say we’re making progress at that level.
QUESTION: But your understanding is that a package – a final package is ready – is now ready for approval at this meeting that could be on January 30^th or --
MS. NULAND: I think to get to that level of detail, I’m going to send you to the EU.
QUESTION: All right.
MS. NULAND: Okay?
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: I have a quick follow-up on the earlier one on the Israel-Palestinian meeting. Is that going to be in Amman as we previously understood?
MS. NULAND: I believe so, yes.
QUESTION: Okay. And it’ll involve the same interlocutors that we had in the past round?
MS. NULAND: Yes. They’re going to meet directly and they’re going to meet under the sponsorship of the Jordanians and, particularly, Foreign Minister Judeh. So we very much welcome the Jordanian leadership on this issue.
QUESTION: Victoria, what value will these meetings have? The Palestinians issued a statement yesterday that the settlements must stop for them to go back into direct negotiations.
MS. NULAND: Well, you know where we’ve been on this, Said – that we believe that the parties talking directly together is the best way forward. We’ve had one round of that. We’ll have another round next Monday. We’ve called on both sides not to set preconditions, not to negotiate in public. So we – but we are encouraged that they are both coming to the table, that they’re talking directly. We think that’s the best path forward.
QUESTION: Okay. But if there is still the entrenchment of positions, as we have seen, both by the Palestinians and the Israelis, how could you move forward? What kind of incentive can you give them, or, in fact, a threat can be issued to them so they can move the process forward?
MS. NULAND: Said, nobody said that this was going to be easy. This is hard work. They have to do that hard work primarily together. What the Quartet has tried to do, what the United States has tried to do, what the Jordanian Government is trying to do is provide a positive environment for them to work in to give them some ideas, to be supportive, et cetera. So – but from our perspective, the fact that they are now meeting face to face is a very good thing.
Please.
QUESTION: The president of Afghanistan today ordered for – that the U.S. prisoners in Bagram Air Base be transferred to the Afghanistan Government. He’s saying that there have been violation – human rights violation at prison by the U.S. authorities. What do you have to say on that?
MS. NULAND: Well, we’ve obviously seen President Karzai’s comments on Bagram. We have been working, as you know, for some time with the Afghan Government on appropriate timing and pace for transfer of the detention facilities. We’re going to continue to work with the Afghan Government to implement the transition that we have both agreed needs to happen of detention operations in Afghanistan. We need to do this in a manner that is maximally responsible. That’s what we want to do, and we’re going to keep working on it.
QUESTION: And what’s the timeline for this transfer?
MS. NULAND: Again, it’s a matter that we have to work on with the Afghan Government as appropriate mechanisms are put in place for the transfer. So those discussions are still ongoing, but when we have something further to announce, we will.
QUESTION: And what about his charges that – violation of human rights in these prisons?
MS. NULAND: Well, you know that we take seriously any charges or allegations of detainee abuse. We respect the rights of detainees who are in facilities that the United States manages, and we ensure that all detainees in U.S. custody are treated in accordance with international legal obligations, including Geneva Common Article III. Any specific allegations of detainee abuse are investigated fully by the Department of Defense and by ISAF.
Please.
QUESTION: Is there a number how many detainees are there in the Bagram --
MS. NULAND: That’s an issue that I would give – ask you to raise with DOD. I don’t have that.
QUESTION: Okay. And Mullah Omar yesterday said that they are negotiating with the United States on the proposed peace deal. So this is the --
MS. NULAND: I’m sorry. I didn’t hear the first word. Afghanistan --
QUESTION: Mullah Omar yesterday said that they are negotiating for a peace deal with the United States. This is the first time he has made this statement, so what have you – do you have some comment on it? What kind of peace deal is being negotiated? Do you think some headway has been made?
MS. NULAND: I don’t have anything further to what we’ve been saying all week, what we’ve been saying for months, which is that we support an Afghan-led process of reconciliation. This is something that the Afghans have to lead. We are pleased to be supportive of that process. We are pleased to participate as appropriate and when necessary, but this has to be an Afghan-led process.
QUESTION: Do you (inaudible) is that they are negotiating with the United States?
MS. NULAND: This is not a peace that can be negotiated by us. It has to be negotiated primarily among Afghans.
QUESTION: And are you considering removing him from the list of Rewards for Justice Program, the 10 million award that he has (inaudible)?
MS. NULAND: I certainly don’t have anything to announce on that.
QUESTION: Iraq?
MS. NULAND: Please.
QUESTION: Yes, ma’am. There was a tremendous spike in violence today. There was the killing of 60 mainly pilgrims in Nasiriyah. Another (inaudible) there were several explosions. Are there any particular efforts that Ambassador Jeffrey is going to be doing to sort of bring about positions that are – pulls apart or – in the effort of reconciliation? Are there – are you advising the Government of Iraq or the government of Maliki perhaps to retract some positions taken against the Vice President Hashimi?
MS. NULAND: Well, first, with regard to this latest spate of terrorist violence, we condemn these acts. We consider them acts of terror. They are desperate attempts by the same kind of folk who have been active in Iraq, trying to turn back the clock.
With regard to your larger question about our involvement in trying to support the Iraqis in settling their disputes peacefully through political means, as we’ve said for a number of days now, Ambassador Jeffrey’s been very active, Vice President Biden’s been active, in encouraging Iraqi politicians to talk to each other, to meet. And as I’ve said, we are quite encouraged that a number of Iraqi politicians are also calling for such a meeting which we hope takes place soon.
QUESTION: Another subject? A couple on Egypt: Firstly, do you have any updates on Assistant Secretary Feltman’s meetings there? Who has he talked to, what about? And then I have a couple of follow-on.
MS. NULAND: Yeah. First of all, he is still in Cairo. He has had meetings already with senior Egyptian and Arab League officials, including from the Egyptian ministries of foreign affairs and defense. He did his own press backgrounder in Cairo earlier today, so I call your attention to that, but I believe he has more meetings in Cairo tomorrow and on Saturday. He noted that in addition to discussing U.S.-Egyptian issues, including the situation with the NGOs, he’s also discussed a number of regional issues, including Syria, Israel-Palestinian issues, et cetera, during his meetings.
He has obviously, with regard to the ongoing election season in Egypt, reiterating our support for the Egyptian people’s quest for a democratic transition there, including a peaceful and legitimate transfer to representative government, which is committed to all the universal human rights of their people. He’s also been consulting with other foreign ambassadors in Cairo, taking soundings about the situation there. And he will – I think his next stop is Riyadh, where he goes, I believe, on Sunday.
QUESTION: Did he or will he have any meetings with any representatives of the Muslim Brotherhood given the (inaudible)?
MS. NULAND: I don’t have anything specific on that. I think his meetings today were with the government, but as I said, he’s got meetings tomorrow and on Saturday.
QUESTION: Okay. We have the deputy head of the Muslim Brotherhood in an interview with Al Hayat saying that they don’t regard the peace treaty with Israel as binding, that they didn’t sign it, and if they come to power, they might put it to a referendum. Do you have any reaction to that? Are you – is this something that you’re trying to seek more clarification on from them?
MS. NULAND: Well, we’ve seen this press report. I would say that it is one member of the MB. We have had other assurances from the party with regard to their commitment not only to universal human rights, but to the international obligations that the Government of Egypt has undertaken. As we’ve said again and again, not only with regard to Egypt but with regard to other states in that region in transition, we expect that legitimate parties will not only support universal human rights, but will also (inaudible) continue to support international obligations made by their governments.
QUESTION: So as far as you understand, this isn’t officially the Muslim Brotherhood position that was reflected in that interview. You still think that they are bound to uphold the treaty?
MS. NULAND: We – they have made commitments to us along those regards, and as I said, we will judge these parties by what they do.
QUESTION: Can you give us a bit of flavor from the meeting? I mean, did – from Feltman’s meetings? Did he – what – particularly with the Egyptian officials at the defense and foreign ministries, did he hear – what did he hear from them? Did they renew their pledge, which apparently wasn’t very serious, that was made to Ambassador Patterson last week on the crackdown of the NGOs? What was the other side of the conversation like?
MS. NULAND: I’m not going to get too much into details other than to say that he is continuing to work, as is Ambassador Patterson, to resolve these issues. Our perspective remains that these NGOs have cooperated fully with Egyptian judicial authorities. They continue to do so. He made the point that all of these parties are committed to – all of these organizations are committed to democratic principles, and they have been willing to register, et cetera, and it’s the Egyptian Government that hasn’t made a decision whether it wants to register them.
With regard to the assurances that he heard back, my understanding is that that conversation is ongoing.
QUESTION: So in other words, your concerns of yesterday or the day before earlier this week still exist and still --
MS. NULAND: This issue has not yet been resolved.
Please.
QUESTION: Just curious: Was Assistant Secretary Feltman planning to meet with any representatives from the NGOs themselves while he was on the ground in Cairo?
MS. NULAND: I don’t believe he’s done that yet. I know that our Ambassador Anne Patterson did meet with representatives earlier in the week. I don’t know whether Assistant Secretary Feltman also plans to do that, but I’m sure she’s heard from our Embassy folks and –
QUESTION: Can I ask a question about Iran? I mean –
MS. NULAND: Let’s just stay on Egypt.
Yeah.
QUESTION: As you’ve no doubt seen that the prosecutor in the trial of former President Mubarak has said that they’re seeking the death penalty, and I’m just wondering if you have any comment on that. Do you think that’s an appropriate punishment to be looking for in this case?
MS. NULAND: Not going to comment specifically on that issue. I think you know where we have been, that we want to see this judicial proceeding and any judicial proceedings go forward in conformity with Egyptian law and with international jurisprudence standards.
QUESTION: Victoria, a follow-up on Andy’s question on the Muslim Brotherhood. Now, they gave you these assurances in casual conversations, or are they stated policy – the party policy line, or how did they give you their assurances to abide by internationally agreed –
MS. NULAND: Well, let me say that among the reasons that we are trying to meet with different political actors in Egypt, including with the Muslim Brotherhood, is that this isn’t a monolithic organization. None of these groups are monolithic. We want to make sure that we have an open dialogue where we are being clear publicly, but we’re also being clear privately about our hopes and expectations for Egypt’s future, our hopes and expectations that any political actors will respect human rights and will uphold the international obligations of the Egyptian Government. So we have, in that context, had some good reassurances from different interlocutors, and we will continue to seek those kinds of reassurances going forward.
Let’s go to Iran in the –
QUESTION: I just want to go back to your answer on the Mubarak question.
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: You said you want to see this judicial proceeding as well as any other judicial proceeding go forward in accordance with – what’s your – with dot, dot, dot. What’s your opinion of the Egyptian judicial system at the moment? Is it capable of meeting these standards?
MS. NULAND: Well, I think the international community is looking to Egypt to set a high standard with this trial and with other procedures going forward now.
QUESTION: But – yeah, but right now do you have confidence –
MS. NULAND: I’m not going to give them a report card, Matt.
QUESTION: Well, in general, what’s your feeling about the Egyptian judicial system? Is it capable of delivering a just and fair and – verdict?
MS. NULAND: It is our expectation that they will meet international standards, and that’s what we’ll be looking for.
Iran.
QUESTION: So I mean, recently there’s a congressional letter requesting that the State Department to investigate Chinese company, Huawei, still in Iran, and this letter came at a time when the U.S. Government is working very hard to try to talk with the Chinese Government and get their support on the new rounds of sanctions on Iran. So the question is that: Do you think the release of this congressional letter at this time would add up to the U.S. negotiation power when dealing with – or when the U.S. is talking with the Chinese?
MS. NULAND: Well, first of all, you’re right. We are talking to China. We’re talking to other countries around the world about the importance of strengthening sanctions against Iran, which we think is important for all of us as we try to bring Iran back into compliance with its international obligations and truly ready to demonstrate the peaceful intent of its program. These are goals that we share with China.
Assistant Secretary Kurt Campbell was just in Beijing earlier this week. Among a broad range of other things, he certainly talked about Iran, and he talked about the implications for our partners and friends of the new legislation. That said, we already have legislation on the books, which the Chinese Government is well aware of, which could come into force in this case. We’ve received the letter from the Congress. We are looking at it. We have been aware for some time of these kinds of allegations, and we are following up on this. This is a complex issue. It’s going to take time. And as we have already explained to the Chinese Government, if we assess that the company involved was engaged in sanctionable activity involving the export of technology to Iran that was used specifically to disrupt, monitor, or suppress communications with the people of Iran, we will have to take appropriate action under the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, Divestment Act of 2010.
So we’ve been through these cases before with China, with other partners. I think what’s important in this case is that we maintain strong communication about our shared bilateral goals, our shared multinational goals with regard to Iran, but that we’re also clear about how U.S. law binds us in certain specific cases of – as I said, this one is under review. We’ll have to see where it goes.
QUESTION: That action that you –
QUESTION: May I do a follow-up on this? Because –
MS. NULAND: Say again.
QUESTION: May I do a follow-up on this?
MS. NULAND: Please.
QUESTION: I noticed that recently there are some former senior advisors from the State Department actually also raised concerns regarding the new rounds of sanctions, because the concerns basically think that this sanction might escalate the retaliation action from the Iranian side and also claims that the first casualty, if such escalation were to happen, would actually be the U.S. and European’s economic recovery. So I wonder – what’s your comment on this?
MS. NULAND: We’ve talked about this a little bit here. You’re talking about the – with regard to sanctions on companies that engage with Iran’s oil sector. We believe that it is important for countries around the world to look hard at their dependence on Iranian oil and to do what they can to diversify and to cut their ties. These are steps that we have taken; these are steps that we are encouraging of our partners around the world. This is not going to be easy; it’s not necessarily going to be quick, but it’s important, because this sector is a lifeline for the regime that is pursuing policies that are dangerous to all of us.
So this is a conversation that we’re having with our partners, including with China. But we believe that if we work together and if we also work to increase global supply generally that this will be an important next step in the global effort to tighten the noose on their regime.
QUESTION: You talked about that you would have to take appropriate action under the law. That would apply to China the country or the company?
MS. NULAND: The company.
QUESTION: So it would not apply to – and it’s not --
MS. NULAND: These are sanctions – these are company-designated sanctions. This is the CISADA legislation.
Yeah. Andy.
QUESTION: A follow-up just on China and Assistant Secretary Campbell’s trip. I know he’s been speaking out there and in Seoul about discussions on North Korea. But I’m wondering if the Taiwan election came up in his discussions with the Chinese? The Chinese Government has made some fairly strong pronouncements about how it wants to see the election turn out, calling the opposition a threat to peace and so on. And I’m wondering if – how the U.S. and China are squaring their positions on Taiwan’s upcoming election.
MS. NULAND: Well, we generally talk about cross-strait relations when we have these kinds of reviews at the level of Assistant Secretary Campbell. I don't have any specifics from those conversations. I think we’ve all seen the public statements from the Chinese Government. You know where we are, and I’m confident that he made clear our view that we want to see – we strongly support the – Taiwan’s democratic system and the will of the Taiwanese people to make their own choice in their upcoming election, that we’re not planning to interfere in it, we want to see it be free, fair, and open, we don’t take sides, and that we’ll continue to work with whomever the people of Taiwan elect within the current construct.
QUESTION: Does that – did that – did those conversations you mentioned this time around, where – that Assistant Secretary Campbell had with the Chinese – were they – did they go beyond the – what they usually are, which is the Chinese basically laying out the – laying out their objections to arm sales, to – and basically everything else and asking for a commitment to the one China policy?
MS. NULAND: I don't have any more details to share publicly --
QUESTION: I’m curious if your guidance, that the guidance there, that strongly supporting Taiwan’s democratic aspirations and that kind of thing, is related to his meetings or if that was just – if that was prepared just for the election and not having anything to do with --
MS. NULAND: No. I didn’t mean to imply that I was giving you the gist of his conversation with the Chinese. I’m --
QUESTION: Okay. This is just generally what you think about the Taiwan election?
MS. NULAND: This – correct.
QUESTION: All right.
MS. NULAND: Please.
QUESTION: Did the State Department provide any input to the Defense Strategic Review document, which was released in Pentagon today?
MS. NULAND: I’m sorry. One more time, slowly.
QUESTION: Did the State Department provide any input to the Defense Strategic Review document, which was released in the Pentagon today by the President?
MS. NULAND: Well, this was obviously a – primarily a Department of Defense effort to realign its own house to the current realities and to the global situation. Obviously we had input throughout the process. We are partners in implementing the national security strategy, and I would expect that the Secretary may have something further to say on this later in the day.
QUESTION: This document calls for a strong U.S. presence in Asia-Pacific region. What role do you see for India in that part of the world?
MS. NULAND: Well, I think we’ve spoken frequently and regularly – the President has, the Secretary has – about our desire for a strong, growing, robust partnership with India. I don't think I have anything particularly new there. I would refer you back to the strong statements that the President’s made and the Secretary’s made.
QUESTION: Right. So you said the Secretary’s going to say something about the --
MS. NULAND: I would expect she’ll have a written statement later today.
QUESTION: -- paper statement.
QUESTION: A question on Congo, if I might. Following last month’s election, you called on authorities in the government of Kabila Joseph to proceed with maximum openness and transparency. Can you give us any reaction to that government suspending broadcasts by RFI, allegedly because of their coverage of the opposition candidate Etienne Tshisekedi?
MS. NULAND: Well, we support freedom of speech around the world, in Congo included. We are concerned about these reports of Radio France International having been shutdown. We urge the relevant Congolese authorities to reinstate RFI’s frequencies immediately and we continue to advocate to all Congolese political leaders and their supporters to act responsibly and to renounce violence.
QUESTION: Could I question on Bahrain?
MS. NULAND: You may.
QUESTION: There was a very dismal report on the situation of the opposition today, that it was hammered pretty badly by the government. Is Bahrain and what is happening in Bahrain completely off your radar screen?
MS. NULAND: Of course it’s not off our radar screen. We continue to work with Bahraini authorities on the implementation of their own commission report, which calls for a number of significant reforms in the kingdom. We are working closely with them from the Embassy. We’re working with them here in Washington. I haven’t seen this report that you mention, but if we have anything further --
QUESTION: Are you able to meet with opposition figures in Bahrain?
MS. NULAND: We are. We are. Yeah. You know Assistant Secretary Posner for – Assistant Secretary for Human Rights, one of Under Secretary Otero’s bureau’s assistant secretaries, was in Bahrain – I think it was just before Christmas – and had a broad cross-section of meetings.
Please.
QUESTION: On the Rewards for Justice program, once a name is included in that list, is there any process to review it or remove it from the list?
MS. NULAND: You mean do we ever go back and take folks off the list?
QUESTION: Yes.
MS. NULAND: I’m going to have to take that one. I don't know how the process works.
QUESTION: And can you also include in that if any name has been removed from that list so far?
MS. NULAND: If any name has ever been removed from the list? We’ll take that one as well.
Andy.
QUESTION: Just another freedom of speech question. On the Turkish trial of the journalists – I know the Secretary brought that up in her visit to Turkey and that’s featured in your conversations with the Turkish Government in the past. They’re now going on trial. I’m wondering if you’ve made any new representations to the Turks about this trial. Is there – are you monitoring the process? What’s the story?
MS. NULAND: We are monitoring the process. I don't think the Secretary left the Turkish Government in any doubt about where we stand on the press freedom issues when she was in Istanbul. I think it was in October, November. She made some very strong statements about the ability of Turkey to realize its full potential as a vibrant democracy depending upon its support for openness and full freedoms, including a free exchange of ideas, free press, et cetera. So we are watching this carefully and continuing to make clear our strong concerns about press freedom in Turkey to the Turkish Government.
QUESTION: And are you concerned that the fact that this trial is going forward makes it appear as though the Secretary’s admonitions have fallen on deaf ears there.
MS. NULAND: Well, again, we have to see how this – whether this trial goes forward in a manner that is consistent with international standards, consistent with international human rights. So that’s the standard by which we’ll judge it.
QUESTION: Are you satisfied with the reaction of Turkish officials after you raised this concern with them?
MS. NULAND: This is an ongoing conversation that we are having and that, in fact, Turkish NGOs and Turkish members of the media are also having with their own government. So –
One last. Yeah.
QUESTION: Three U.S. Senators, including Senator John McCain, have issued a statement today saying that they are troubled by the reports of mistreatment of Husain Haqqani, the former Pakistani ambassador to the U.S. Do you share their views, and have they (inaudible) to you on this issue?
MS. NULAND: I haven’t seen this particular statement. I think we’ve talked about Ambassador Haqqani a number of times, including this week. We want to see any judicial proceedings go forward in a manner that is open, transparent, consistent with the highest standards of international justice.
Thank you very much.
QUESTION: Thank you.
(The briefing was concluded at 1:31 p.m.)

US State Deprtment Press Briefing Jan,3 2012 (Full Transcript)

Victoria Nuland

Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC

January 3, 2012

Index for Today's Briefing Hosted on the US Department of State Website. Full Archive Below

• IRAN
  • Strait of Hormuz
  • P-5+1 / Sanctions
  • Iranian President's Visit to Latin America
• PAKISTAN
  • Gas Pipeline Agreement
  • Judicial Proceedings
  • U.S.-Pakistan Relationship
• SYRIA
  • Arab League Monitoring Mission / Violence / Opposition
• INDIA
  • State Department Map
• QATAR/AFGHANISTAN
  • Taliban Office / Political Reconciliation
• DIPLOMATIC SECURITY
  • Los Angeles Arson Case / Visa
• LIBYA
  • Creation of an Army
• IRAQ
  • Reconciliation Talks
• EGYPT
  • NGO Raids
• MIDDLE EAST PEACE
  • Quartet Meeting
  • UN Action
• NORTH KOREA
  • DPRK-ROK Relations
• BURMA
  • Political Prisoners
• KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE
  • Permit Granting

TRANSCRIPT:

12:47 p.m. EST
MS. NULAND: Good afternoon, everybody. Happy New Year.
QUESTION: Happy New Year.
MS. NULAND: Welcome to 2012. Welcome to the State Department. I have nothing at the top, so let’s go to what’s on your minds.
QUESTION: The Pentagon has come out with a statement earlier today about the Iranian bluster or Iranian threats. I’m just wondering what the State Department’s view of what Iran has had to say and – well, what’s your – what is your view of that? And then I have something about the nuclear issue with Iran, just – first in terms of the Strait of Hormuz.
MS. NULAND: Well, I haven’t seen what our brothers and sisters at the Pentagon had to say, but as we --
QUESTION: They said they don’t care what the Iranians say; we’re sending ships – they’re sending ships back.
MS. NULAND: Well, as you know, we believe in freedom of navigation through the straits, and we believe in our right to move our vessels. And I’m sure that whatever they had to say with regard to their goals is in line with that.
With regard to the larger question of bluster and threats from Iran – we spoke to this a little bit last week – frankly, we see these threats from Tehran as just increasing evidence that the international pressure is beginning to bite there, and that they are feeling increasingly isolated and they are trying to divert the attention of their own public from the difficulties inside Iran, including the economic difficulties as a result of the sanctions.
QUESTION: Are you aware of this – what was presented as a new offer to talk with the P-5+1 over the weekend, and do you know anything about it?
MS. NULAND: We’ve seen the press reporting. As you know, the EU has the chairmanship of this. I think the EU spoke to its expectations sometime earlier today or yesterday. The foreign policy chief Cathy Ashton’s spokesperson made clear that if Iran wants to accept the opportunity that the P-5+1 put forward in September for talks, it needs to respond to the letter that the P-5+1 put forward, and we haven’t yet had a written request from the Iranians saying that they’re ready to talk. More importantly, the Iranians know what will be expected of them in the context of that – that they have to meet their commitments to the international community and that they have to be prepared to engage constructively and seriously on a comprehensive solution that restores the international community’s confidence in the peaceful nature of their program.
So we’ve seen press reporting, we’ve seen public statements. We haven’t seen what we need to see, which is a formal diplomatic request in writing to resume talks.
QUESTION: Okay. But that what you just read was the European response. There – is that your – that’s your response as well?
MS. NULAND: That’s the joint response of the P-5+1.
QUESTION: Can I go back to the question about the Strait of Hormuz? If the U.S. Government’s position is that this is bluster, given that we are in a political season here in the United States, how does the Obama Administration resist any sounds from the right wing in this country to perhaps step up any sort of military pressure on Iran?
MS. NULAND: Well, Ros, this is not a platform here for political debating inside the United States. If you want to ask a campaign question, you can ask it of the campaigns. I speak for the State Department and for the Administration more broadly with regard to how we see these threatening noises from Iran. And obviously, as Matt made clear, the Pentagon has spoken to freedom of navigation and we’ve repeated it here through Hormuz.
QUESTION: But certainly, there is the – there would be the discussion that some might argue that perhaps the best strategy for the Obama Administration going forward with Tehran would be to actually step up some sort of show of military power – raise the potential, if not just actually pursue something. Is that simply not on the table at this point?
MS. NULAND: Ros, as you know, the Administration has made clear at every stage, and the President himself has made clear that no option is off the table. No option is ever off the table. But we are where we have been, which is that we believe that the sanctions are biting, that we are seeking with the support of the Congress to strengthen multilateral sanctions – including those that target Iran’s oil sector, and that we are going to make clear that we believe the freedom of navigation through Hormuz is essential.
QUESTION: So --
MS. NULAND: Let’s go to Nina first.
QUESTION: The – it’s Nadia.
MS. NULAND: Nadia, sorry.
QUESTION: It’s okay. The head of the Iranian army said that he’s not going to repeat his warning to the American ships not to return to the strait. Do you take this seriously? I mean, obviously, it’s implying that they mean it, that they don’t want them to come back. Do you take his threats seriously?
MS. NULAND: We take seriously the role that the United States military and, particularly, our Navy plays around the world in ensuring freedom of navigation through essential routes.
Please.
QUESTION: Victoria, but do you expect this increased task force – naval task – U.S. naval presence in the Gulf along with the exercises to lead to some sort of incident, international incident? Or do you expect things to be business as usual?
MS. NULAND: We want to see Iran come back into compliance with its international obligations, to do so peacefully. We are not seeking a confrontation, but we will make sure that the role that we play in ensuring global freedom of navigation is continued.
QUESTION: So you don’t expect this heightened rhetoric to lead into any kind of confrontation?
MS. NULAND: You’re taking me into hypotheticals here, Said.
Okay. Illhan.
QUESTION: Has any of your allies ask a waiver to be exempted from sanctions so far, on especially energy sector or oil sector?
MS. NULAND: You’re talking about how we will implement the new legislation?
QUESTION: Has any of your allies ask for a waiver so far?
MS. NULAND: You’re talking about the waiver provisions under the new legislation put forward by Congress?
QUESTION: Sanctions. Yes.
MS. NULAND: We are not at that stage. The stage that we are at now is consulting with allies and partners around the world about the implications of this legislation and working with our allies and partners together to tighten sanctions that already exist on Iran and to encourage countries around the world to decrease their dependence on Iranian oil.
Please.
QUESTION: It looks like their – the latest sanction – it really hurt them. According to report, their currency fell 10 percent yesterday, but they’ve – they keep testing missile. If they do continue, do you have anything in terms of unilateral sanction still on the – against Iran?
MS. NULAND: Well, as you know, we have the toughest sanctions in the world on Iran. We continue to look at what more we can do. We are also working, as I said, with allies and partners around the world. It’s less a matter of having more sanctions on the books and more a matter of ensuring that those sanctions that we already have are fully implemented by all countries within their national competencies and national authorities. But I also, as you note – as you said, take note of the fact that there seems to have been a significant drop in the Iranian currency, and that’s among the measures of how these sanctions are biting on the country.
Please.
QUESTION: President Zardari last week said – hinted that they will go ahead with the gas pipeline agreement with Iran, despite U.S. reservations. Do you have some concerns on this agreement that Pakistan has? And if they do, will it affect the U.S. aid given to Pakistan and different (inaudible), considering the sanctions that you have for Iran?
MS. NULAND: Well, as you say, we’ve made absolutely clear over many months now our concerns about this deal, and we will continue to talk to Pakistan about it. Were it to go forward, how it might be impacted – again, this is the kind of conversation that we have to have with Pakistan and that we’re starting to have now.
QUESTION: Speaking of – staying on Pakistan for a second?
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: Just very briefly, are you following – are you at all following the situation with former Ambassador Haqqani and the investigation into this – the investigation the supreme court has ordered into this alleged memo incident?
MS. NULAND: Well, obviously we have followed it, but it’s an internal Pakistani matter.
QUESTION: You have no concerns at all about this?
MS. NULAND: It’s – we consider it an internal Pakistani matter.
QUESTION: So whatever happens to him you have no – you consider it an internal matter?
MS. NULAND: Well, we’ve said regularly with regard to this case, with regard to other judicial proceedings in Pakistan, that we want to see judicial proceedings go forward in accordance with the Pakistani constitution, including the protections on citizens’ rights and in accordance with international law, so --
QUESTION: As of this moment, you don’t have any problems with it? You just want it to --
MS. NULAND: As I said, we want to see --
QUESTION: You don’t have any concerns, though, at the moment?
MS. NULAND: I don't have any statement to make on that case from this podium, no.
QUESTION: Syria.
QUESTION: Also on Pakistan?
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: Is there any word on whether there is compensation going to the families of those soldiers who were killed on November 26^th?
MS. NULAND: I think the Pentagon spoke to its intentions at some length, just before Christmas and afterwards. I would refer you to them for the details on what they plan to do.
QUESTION: That’s funny, because they referred us to you today, saying that they didn’t know what the status was --
MS. NULAND: With regard to compensation payments?
QUESTION: Yes. Yes.
MS. NULAND: Okay. Let – Ros, let me take it, but my understanding was that was an issue for them.
QUESTION: And then also on Pakistan, in terms of other efforts to rehabilitate the relationship between Washington and Islamabad, is there any progress on border crossings, on training, on perhaps a return to Shamsi airbase, other issues?
MS. NULAND: Well, we’re continuing to talk to the Pakistani Government at all levels following the New Year holiday. Our Ambassador Cameron Munter’s been back in touch with the Pakistanis. We want to get back to normal and get into a full counterterrorism relationship again. We think that’s important, not only for U.S. security but for Pakistani security and for the security of the entire region. So those conversations will continue.
QUESTION: The foreign office spokesman in Pakistan said over the weekend that Pakistan has not received anything from the coalition support, for instance June 2010, and only $400 million from the Kerry-Lugar-Berman bill were received during 2011. So do you agree that the figures are correct and if the state of the relationship is a reason for this delay?
MS. NULAND: Well, I don't have the figures in terms of disbursements at my fingertips here. You do know that some of the money on the military-to-military side – it was difficult to spend because some of those programs had been suspended and because of the state of the relationship in counterterrorism cooperation. We’ve talked about that at length. We can get you some separate information if you’d like with regard to civilian funding.
QUESTION: Yes, please. That’d be nice.
MS. NULAND: Still on Pakistan, anybody else? In the back. Thanks.
QUESTION: President Obama has signed a defense bill which also contains provisions to withhold a big amount of military aid for Pakistan. How are you interpreting this, and how should Islamabad see this in the context of relationship between the two countries going forward?
MS. NULAND: Well, again, these are certification requirements in the bill, so obviously we’re going to have to certify that cooperation is going well in order to release money. So it’s essentially a continuation of some of the issues that we’d had before.

Said.
QUESTION: (Off mike.)
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: Yes, ma’am. How do you assess the conduct of the Arab League monitors thus far? Are you disappointed, or have they done a good job? How do you keep track of what they are doing?
MS. NULAND: Well, let me start by saying that the Arab League has about 100 monitors in country now. I think you’ve seen over recent days that in places where there have been groups of monitors, the Syrian opposition has taken advantage of this to come out into the streets and to try to send a clear message, when they have felt safe in the presence of monitors, to their own government that they want change. And some of those demonstrations have been quite significant.
That said, more broadly, our concern is that the Syrian regime has not lived up to the full spectrum of commitments that it made to the Arab League when it accepted its proposal some nine weeks ago. For example, the violence hasn’t stopped; far from it. We’ve had reports from independent observers of some 49 new deaths in Syria since the 31^st of December. The vast majority of this – these deaths have been at the hands of government troops, snipers, government armored personnel, et cetera. We’ve even seen reports that in places, the military is donning police uniforms in order to hide what they’re up to.
So we’ve also seen some limited political prisoner arrests, but nothing like what the Syrian Government promised to the Arab League, which was a full prisoner release, including a release of the most high-level political prisoners. We have concerns about specific important political prisoners like Najati Tayara from Homs, Yahia Shorbaji from Daraya, these kinds of folks who we have reports have been tortured, et cetera.
So our concern is that the Arab League monitors, although they are providing some ability for some demonstrators to express their views in some places, they have not led to the full implementation of the commitments that the Assad regime took on, and that the violence continues, that it continues very severely, people remain locked up, and that in some cases, the regime is actually putting out its own false reports that monitors are on the way, demonstrators come into the streets, and then they fire on them. So we have serious concerns.
QUESTION: One --
QUESTION: Quick follow-up, just a quick follow-up, Ros. The head of the Arab Parliamentarian – he called the Arab monitoring regime a sham, ineffective, it has failed, and he called on the Syrian situation to be presented at the Security Council. Do you agree with him?
MS. NULAND: Well, the Arab League itself, its monitors have not yet issued their own report. They consider that the mission is still going. I would note, though, that there is sufficient concern within the Arab League about how the mission is going, that they’ve called their own ministerial meeting for this Saturday to take stock. So we obviously will await that meeting. We support their efforts to ensure that this mission is credible, is effective if it’s going to continue to go forward. And we will – we are in close touch with them. You should know that the Secretary has dispatched Assistant Secretary Jeff Feltman. He’s on his way to Cairo – I think it’s this evening – so that he can consult with the Arab League as well on Syria and on other issues in advance of their meeting this weekend.
QUESTION: Just a follow-up on that: You seem to place most of the blame on the Syrian regime. I’m curious whether you’ve placed any blame on the mission itself for not being able to be more present or be able to stop any of the violence. There’s been some criticism from some of your allies and from certain quarters of the job they’re doing.
MS. NULAND: Well, obviously, they have – they are trying to get into different parts of Syria. They have been blocked in places. It’s a question of whether their numbers are sufficient, whether they’ve been – had all of their demands and requirements met, including their demands to see some of these political prisoners, which we also understand have been denied. So again, we are not going to pass judgment on the Arab League mission in advance of the Arab League itself meeting and taking stock. We would simply note that the Assad regime is far from meeting the standards that it agreed to in these other categories, and that the violence continues. And most of the violence is at the hands of the regime.
QUESTION: What else is the U.S. Government doing in this interim period? We’re now talking another five days before another meeting. In the meantime, Ambassador Ford has hosted another commentary on the Embassy’s Facebook page. What else is he doing? What else are staff inside Damascus doing to try to help those who are trying to deal with the Assad government?
MS. NULAND: Well, obviously, our Embassy and Ambassador Ford continue to meet with and talk to a broad cross-section of members of the opposition, trying to help them to take maximum advantage of those monitors where they are. We see the opposition trying to do that. We’re also continuing our message to the opposition that they need to come forward with a unified platform of transition to help their countrymen see that there’s a better future after the Assad regime and to help galvanize their movement. We are also continuing to work with allies and partners around the world about tightening their own sanctions on this regime and about what comes next if, in fact, the conclusion is that, despite the best efforts of the monitors so far, the violence is not ending.
QUESTION: Is Ambassador Ford still encountering limits on his travel, on his ability to meet with people?
MS. NULAND: Well, my understanding is that all of his requests to travel outside the city have been denied. I don’t know if he’s even trying anymore, given the pattern that the Syrian Government has put forward, but I can get you some more information about that. And obviously, we have concerns about surveillance of his contacts, et cetera.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) the last time all his requests were turned down, he just went out anyway. You said he’s not going to do that now? The situation is not --
MS. NULAND: I’m not going to speak to what his future plans may or may not be. I think the main issue here is continuing to be able to talk to the opposition.
QUESTION: Is it able to meet within the city with opposition figures?
MS. NULAND: He is able to have meetings. He’s able to work with folks through other mediums, on the phone, through new media, et cetera.
QUESTION: The French foreign minister earlier today called for a reassessment of the role of the Arab League mission of monitors. Would you agree with such a move?
MS. NULAND: Well, again, the Arab League itself is going to take stock on Saturday. We are consulting with the Arab League, sending Assistant Secretary Feltman to talk to them. So I think we want to get their assessment face to face, in person, and have them assess the mission themselves when they get together on Saturday.
QUESTION: Are you saying that Feltman’s going there specifically to talk to them ahead of this meeting?
MS. NULAND: Yes.
QUESTION: It was my understanding he was planning to go last week.
MS. NULAND: His main focus now is to talk to them about this.
QUESTION: Now. So why was he originally going there?
MS. NULAND: Well, he had --
QUESTION: Before the weekend, before this meeting for Saturday got called, he was going to go.
MS. NULAND: Well, he was going to go to Egypt anyway --
QUESTION: Right. Is he going someplace --
MS. NULAND: -- to do some bilateral work in Egypt, and he had always planned to have meetings on Syria with the Arab League.
QUESTION: Right.
MS. NULAND: It takes on a particular saliency now that he will be --
QUESTION: No, I understand. But I mean it wasn’t that the Secretary saw what was happening and said all of the sudden, “Jeff, go to Egypt.” I mean, he was going already. So --
MS. NULAND: He was going anyway for a bilateral visit. However, she has instructed him to take stock with them.
QUESTION: Is he going some – anywhere else?
MS. NULAND: I believe he’s going to Riyadh as well. I think we put out a notice on that a couple days ago.
QUESTION: There was this controversy over the map at the U.S. State Department website.
MS. NULAND: Are we – first, are we finished with Syria?
QUESTION: A quick follow-up on Syria.
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: This – the Syrian opposition accuses the head of the monitors, Mohammed al-Dabi, a Sudanese, of some terrible crimes in Darfur and so on. Are you satisfied that he is someone that can credibly lead this team of monitoring?
MS. NULAND: Well, Said, I missed you on Thursday when we spoke to this issue.
QUESTION: Right. Yeah. Sorry about that.
MS. NULAND: We did speak to this issue on Thursday. We’re going to judge this monitoring mission by the results. I’m not going to get into parsing personalities.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MS. NULAND: Please. Still Syria?
QUESTION: A different topic.
MS. NULAND: Let me let Lalit do it.
QUESTION: Still Syria.
MS. NULAND: Still Syria?
QUESTION: Syria.
MS. NULAND: Please.
QUESTION: Any reaction to the threat from the Free Syrian Army to carry out attacks in a couple days against the regime if the mission does not succeed – of the Arab League?
MS. NULAND: From the attack on the oil pipeline and the --
QUESTION: No. The Free Syrian Army threatened today to attack the regime spectacularly in a few days if the Arab League mission does not succeed in ending the violence.
MS. NULAND: Well, our consistent view throughout this has been the view shared by the vast majority of Syrians in opposition, which is that further militarization of Syria, further violence in Syria, is not the answer, is not the right move for the Syrian people; that the opposition is far stronger when it exercises its right to peaceful protests and makes its views clear, taking the moral authority of not resorting to the same tactics that the regime has used. That’s exactly what the regime wants, is to make this – make Syria more violent, and have an excuse to retaliate itself.
Please.
QUESTION: In the controversy over the map, now the State Department has posted the new map, which shows line of control (inaudible) and Kashmir with a dotted line, thereby indicating that it is a disputed territory. So is that the official position of State Department, that it is a disputed territory?
MS. NULAND: Well, first of all, I think the map that you saw has been up straight through. We have not yet replaced the maps that we had to take down that were incorrect. And when we do, we’ll let you know and we’ll walk you through the whole thing. But I think the one that you’re referring to is not a new map on the website.
QUESTION: Do you have any reaction to reports that the Taliban is going to open an office in Qatar? There was announcement today they were going to do so.
MS. NULAND: Well, let me start by saying that, as we’ve said all along, we are prepared to support an Afghan-led process of reconciliation. As the Secretary keeps saying, you don’t negotiate with your friends. But this process will only be successful if those Taliban are prepared to renounce violence, break ties with al-Qaida, support the Afghan constitution in all of its elements, including human rights for all citizens, and particularly for women.
We’ve seen these reports of some kind of a preliminary agreement with regard to an office for Taliban political activity. I would note that on December 27^th, Afghan President Karzai expressed his own support for an Afghan Taliban political office, which provided an address that the traditional Loya Jirga of Afghanistan had demanded and the High Peace Council had demanded as a place where they can talk to the Taliban, a necessary site for negotiations in order to move the peace process forward.
So we are not aware of any formal decision, we’re not aware of any formal announcement, but we are prepared to support a process that the Afghans support. And with regard to any office, it would be a question for the host country, the Afghans, and the Afghan Taliban to agree on.
QUESTION: Why in Qatar?
QUESTION: Vice President Biden said that the Taliban is not an enemy of the United States, but the way you describe them, I’m not quite sure if you agree with that.
MS. NULAND: Nadia, we’ve been over this a thousand times, and I also spoke to Vice President Biden’s comments, so I’m not going to speak to that again.
QUESTION: Are you able to say any more about reports that if an office were set up, that the U.S. would release five people being held at Guantanamo as part of this setup of this office and to help move the negotiation process along?
MS. NULAND: I’m not going to speak to any of those kinds of reported details.
Please.
QUESTION: I wonder if you can step out and look at the bigger picture on this. What would the actual objective of these talks, these potential talks, be from the U.S. perspective? What is the goal? Does it have to do with ending the war in Afghanistan and ending the U.S. presence?
MS. NULAND: Well, in the most macro sense, the question is whether you have a combatant suing for peace, whether you’re ready for negotiations to end a protracted conflict. In the tactical sense, in the strategic sense, are there individual fighters of strategic significance who are prepared to come off the battlefield and join the political process within the framework that the Afghans have discussed and that we have supported, namely that they are now ready to denounce violence, to cut ties with al-Qaida, and to work within the Afghan constitution? So, in any negotiated settlement at the end of a conflict, there has to be a negotiation, right? So the question is whether this office, were it to open, could play a positive role in that.
But as we have said, we have a policy here based on three principles: fight, talk, build. We will continue to fight along with the – beside the Afghans, those enemies of the Afghan Government and people who have taken up arms and are not prepared to renounce violence, at the same time that we are open to supporting talks led by the Afghans toward an ending of the conflict, towards reconciliation of individuals or the group as a whole. And we also have to build. We have to build a better neighborhood among the countries of the region, Afghanistan and Pakistan, and then more broadly through the New Silk Road Initiative.
QUESTION: Can I just follow that up quickly?
MS. NULAND: Please.
QUESTION: It is – I think that it feels like there’s been statements, more recently than you referenced from Karzai, that indicate that this current group of interlocutors who are in the news right now are not really influential Taliban players. Is that --
MS. NULAND: Again, I’m not --
QUESTION: -- a view shared by the State Department, or is there a sense that there’s this illegitimacy to the whole thing that’s breaking right now?
MS. NULAND: Again, I’m not prepared to speak one way or the other to individuals whose names have been in the news one way or the other. What we’ve said is that we support an Afghan-led process. So the Afghans have to be in the lead. This is their country. We will support a process that leads to reconciliation along the lines that we’ve discussed. So it’s really the Afghans’ call to make here what is legitimate.
QUESTION: Does your support of the Afghan-led process include support for the Taliban opening an office in Qatar?
MS. NULAND: Again, this is a discussion that has to be had by the host --
QUESTION: Yeah, I’m sure it is, and I’m sure that the U.S. has absolutely no say in it. What you think doesn’t matter at all to this process, right? Is that what you’re trying to tell me?
MS. NULAND: We --
QUESTION: I’m asking a very simple question. Does your support of the Afghan-led process include support for the Taliban opening an office in Qatar?
MS. NULAND: If this is part of an Afghan-led, Afghan-supported process and the Afghan Government itself believes it can play a constructive role, and it is also supported by the host country, then we will play a role in that as well.
QUESTION: Well --
MS. NULAND: I think I’ve answered the question.
QUESTION: -- you’ll play a role. Will you – do you support it?
MS. NULAND: Again, it has to be under the right conditions --
QUESTION: Well, I know. Okay.
MS. NULAND: -- namely that it supports Afghan-led reconciliation.
QUESTION: When you refer to the host country, you mean to Qatar?
MS. NULAND: Well, Qatar is the country that’s reported to be considering hosting.
QUESTION: And – but you’re saying that you don’t have any independent knowledge that it’s Qatar?
MS. NULAND: I’m saying that there’s been no formal announcement. We’ve seen the same --
QUESTION: And you don’t know of any negotiations going on for it to be in Qatar at all?
MS. NULAND: I’m – I am --
QUESTION: Come on. We’re dancing around. This is ridiculous. You guys are integral to the entire thing. You know you’ve known for months that this is the idea that’s been going on. And I’m trying to – why do you not – why can’t you come out and say yes, we think it would be a good – or we can support – as long as the Afghans are supportive of it and as long as the Qataris are willing to host it, we can support an office being there?
MS. NULAND: Because, again, this is not our negotiation to lead. This is a situation that the Afghan Government has to be comfortable with. The Afghans have to make their own decisions, and they have to work this through.
QUESTION: Yeah, but the --
MS. NULAND: If it is deemed by the Afghan Government to be supportive of Afghan-led reconciliation, then we have already said that we are open to it.
QUESTION: Okay. You say – and you say again that it’s an Afghan-led process, but there are certain redlines, right?
MS. NULAND: Certain redlines in terms of overall reconciliation --
QUESTION: Right. Exactly. So it’s not entirely an Afghan-led process because if all of the sudden Karzai decides that he doesn’t want – that he doesn’t think it’s important for the Taliban to respect the rights of women, are you guys going to go along with that?
MS. NULAND: Well, at the current moment, our redlines are the same redlines that the Afghan Government has. So if that changes, we’ll obviously have to talk about it in that context.
QUESTION: All right.
QUESTION: What if an office in Qatar gives the Taliban exposure and access and diplomatic legitimacy and so on? And these are the people that the United States went to war against back in 2001.
MS. NULAND: Again, the Secretary said it a hundred times; you don’t negotiate a peace deal at the end of a war with your friends. We’ve seen in many other conflict situations that you have to have a political address if you’re going to begin a political conversation. The Afghans themselves have said that they are frustrated that the Taliban do not have a political address. That’s what the Loya Jirga called for. That’s also what President Karzai said that he would support in these statements on the 27^th of December. But it’s obviously up to them to work it out.
Please.
QUESTION: So should this effort be perceived as an effort to negotiate the end of the war?
MS. NULAND: Again, we – let’s start with trying to reconcile the key fighters and get them off the battlefield, and let’s go from there.
Please.
QUESTION: New topic?
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: Victoria, one more thing on the Taliban office.
MS. NULAND: On this one? Yeah.
QUESTION: Why Qatar will be hosting this office?
MS. NULAND: I think that’s a question for Qatar, not for us.
Please.
QUESTION: New topic?
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: Can you say anything about the State Department role in catching this arson guy in Los Angeles over the weekend, or yesterday, I guess, alleged – excuse me --
MS. NULAND: The accused?
QUESTION: The accused – I don't know if he’s been charged yet. I think he’s still the alleged.
MS. NULAND: I can give you a little bit more, Kirit. I think you know that the Los Angeles Police Department had a press conference – I think it was yesterday or earlier this morning – in which they thanked federal authorities for cooperating. We are proud that we were one of those cooperating federal authorities in this case.
Just for those of you who don’t have the background, starting on Friday, December 30^th and continuing into the early hours of Monday, January 2^nd, there were a series of over 50 arson fires in and around Los Angeles, primarily in West Hollywood and Hollywood. And the LAPD set up an interagency arson task force to follow the fires. Over the New Year’s Eve weekend, that task force put out video showing a person of interest exiting a parking lot and asked for the public’s help. This led to agents in our Diplomatic Security field office in Los Angeles being able to make contact with the task force and giving them certain information based on a separate ongoing investigation about a German national that we’ve been having with the LAPD, which ultimately helped lead to the arrest of the arsonist. And we cooperated throughout the weekend with the task force until it was stood down.
QUESTION: And what exactly was that – I mean, was this – it’s been reported that it was part of a deportation case involving the alleged person’s mother. Can you confirm that?
MS. NULAND: I don't want to speak about the precise other individual, except to say that our LA office was working – of Diplomatic Security – was working with LAPD on a provisional arrest warrant for the Germans on an individual who was connected to this case. And so it was on the basis of that that they recognized Burkhart himself and were able to provide information, and then we were able to share the information we had developed with the Germans on the case with LAPD, which was helpful to them in making the arrest.
QUESTION: So it was just one person who --
QUESTION: (Off mike.)
QUESTION: Sorry, just to connect the dots, just --
QUESTION: Sure.
QUESTION: -- it’s – it was one person who just happened to see the picture and happened to connect the dots themselves and then recognized him, right? It was nothing beyond that, right?
MS. NULAND: Yeah. It was a member of Diplomatic Security who was working a separate case and saw this and then began cooperating. And then our cooperation, including information from the investigation that we were conducting, was helpful further on in the case. We shared a whole bunch of our information, which helped LAPD.
QUESTION: You said that there was a warrant out for this person?
MS. NULAND: There was a provisional German arrest warrant, and we were working on that case with the Germans.
QUESTION: Just a follow-up --
QUESTION: Still on this?
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: Did either of these two Germans get a visa, or did they enter this country without a visa under the Visa Waiver Program?
MS. NULAND: Well, I’m going to first give our usual disclaimer and then I’m going to tell you what I can, Matt, and you’re going to shake your head before we even start. But first let me tell you that visa confidentiality laws prohibit us from commenting on individual visa cases. That said, I can tell you that at this point we have not been able to locate a visa record on either of these individuals, either the original relative or the suspect who was arrested. I will tell you, as you know --
QUESTION: Which would imply?
MS. NULAND: What I’d like to tell you, though, is that German nationals who meet the standards of the U.S. Visa Waiver Program are not required to have visas --
QUESTION: So --
MS. NULAND: -- it’s conceivable that they came under the Visa Waiver Program.
QUESTION: -- the fact that you have not been able to locate – right, which was I thought all I asked in my question – would imply that they had come into the country under the Visa Waiver Program, correct?
MS. NULAND: Again, I’m going to send you to Customs and Border Protection to finish going through the records. They have the --
QUESTION: No. I just want to you to – I’m just trying to get you to complete the sentence. Because you have not been able to locate a visa record for either of this people, that would imply – no, not definitely confirm, but it would imply – that they entered the country without a visa, which would mean that they had come in legally, but under the Visa Waiver Program, correct?
MS. NULAND: I’m going to say to you that it is possible. I don't want to make any implications because it’s up to Customs and Border to make an exhaustive search of the visa records.
QUESTION: And the Privacy Act applies – does it continue to apply until someone’s convicted of a crime, or do they only have to be accused of setting half of Los Angeles on fire before the U.S. Government is ready to talk about – ready to waive that?
MS. NULAND: I think that was a facetious question.
QUESTION: No, no. I want to know. Does it require a conviction, or do you just – or – because the LAPD didn’t have any problem into giving this guy’s name, date of birth, nationality?
MS. NULAND: No. I don't have any problem talking about Harry Burkhart. It’s the other individual that I think it’s up to LAPD to speak about.
Please.
QUESTION: Last question on Libya. There’s been renewed fighting this morning between different militias, Mr. Abd al-Jalil already warning of civil war. How do you assess the process of disarming militias in Tripoli in particularly? And do you believe that the country’s descend into a civil war?
MS. NULAND: Well, we have long supported the plans of the central authorities in Tripoli to create a central security force, a central Libyan army, in which all these militias who wanted to integrate could find a place and otherwise they could have an opportunity to disband. So we obviously support the government’s efforts to continue to do that. And we have said all along that if there are specific requests that the Libyan Government has of the United States, of NATO, et cetera, on how this process could go forward, we’re prepared to support them. We are already giving them some advice. So obviously there’s been some continued fighting. We are concerned about that, but we want to see these issues resolved peacefully and resolved in a way that gives all Libyans confidence that they’ll have a place in the future democratic Libya.
QUESTION: Logistically speaking, do you have any military – U.S. military advisors that advise them of how to get the different militias together or to form them into a central army?
MS. NULAND: We do not have U.S. military advisors in Libya at the moment. We’ve said that we are open to helping support the government-led process, and we are looking for concrete ideas from them of how we can be helpful.
QUESTION: Can we go to Iraq?
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: Could you tell us if Ambassador Jeffrey or anyone is involved in the ongoing reconciliation talks or reconciliation (inaudible)?
MS. NULAND: Well, Ambassador Jeffrey has been in and out of Iraq throughout this period. As you know, he’s been talking to all of the major Iraqi leaders. The Vice President as well made some key phone calls in the days before and after Christmas, trying to encourage Iraqis to come together and have a conversation about the issues that divide them, and we remain closely monitoring that situation. But there do seem to be a great number more important voices inside Iraq making the same points, that they need to find a forum, sit down together, and work it through.
QUESTION: Okay. There’s been a – Mr. Maliki’s bloc in parliament are accusing now the Iraqi President Talabani of being a terrorist himself and harboring his vice president, who is also a wanted terrorist. Do you have any comment on that?
MS. NULAND: Well, we don’t think name-calling is the right solution here.
QUESTION: Right.
MS. NULAND: We think sitting down, having a dialogue, working through how all sides can support and uphold the key tenets of the Iraq conversation and – constitution and working within it is the way to go.
QUESTION: But seeing how he --
MS. NULAND: Are we still on Iraq?
QUESTION: Egypt?
MS. NULAND: Yeah. Anything else on Iraq? No. Okay. Egypt. Please.
QUESTION: Do you have anything to say about the latest developments, especially after your announcement and what came out of the Pentagon regarding the – if there is promises to stop these raids on the human rights organizations or nonprofit organization or nongovernmental organization? Because it seems that there is a difference, I mean, of explanation. I mean, here it is explained as a political issue. Over there, the official narrative is saying that it’s a legal issue and why it’s those fuss about if they are legal or not legal, so – and that’s – I’m trying to figure out, and there was no any comment from your side as it was reported in New York Times or Washington Post regarding this issue.
MS. NULAND: Well, obviously, we made strong statements on Thursday and on Friday before the long weekend, statements of concern with regard to the raids on NGO offices. We had been assured by leaders in the Egyptian Government that this issue would be resolved, that harassment would end, that NGOs would be allowed to go back to business as usual and that their property would be returned. It is, frankly, unacceptable to us that that situation has not been returned to normal.
We are concerned not only about international NGOs and the NGOs that the United States Government supports, but we’re also concerned about Egyptian NGOs. And nongovernmental organizations, particularly those that support democracy and a free election process, are a key part of what the transition to democracy is about. These are organizations that train election monitors. These are organizations that train the press in how to cover an election so that it’s free and fair. These are organizations that train candidates in how to run clean, open campaigns. So we are concerned. We remain in touch with key Egyptian authorities to try to resolve this issue.
From our perspective, those NGOs that we are involved with have been completely cooperative with Egyptian judicial authorities and have been cooperating for many months to open their books and try to explain what they do. So we do not think that the harassment is warranted. They’re prepared to continue to be transparent and cooperative within the Egyptian system, so --
QUESTION: Do you still believe that it’s wrong, what was done is wrong, and it’s still going on?
MS. NULAND: Absolutely. Absolutely.
QUESTION: And there is another question regarding this. You are in touch – I mean, we – it was reported that the Ambassador Patterson was in touch with this investigation process going on. Is this part of the Feltman, John^[1] Feltman, visit discussions or other things are going on?
MS. NULAND: I have no doubt that Assistant Secretary Feltman will be taking up these issues with Egyptian leaders when he is there, if the issues haven’t been resolved before then. But we hope that they will be resolved before then, because, as I said, we believe that the free operation of these kinds of NGOs, whether they’re international or whether they’re Egyptian, is a key aspect and a key underpinning of the democratic process.
QUESTION: Do you know who --
QUESTION: Toria --
QUESTION: -- exactly made the pledge to Ambassador Patterson that these raids would stop and that the harassment would stop? Secretary Panetta in his phone call with a Field Marshal Tantawi referenced this and said he thanked the – or he expressed his appreciation for this pledge, which now seems to have been just a tissue of lies. Who was it that made this pledge? Was it someone who – I’ll just leave it at that. Who was it that made the pledge to the ambassador?
MS. NULAND: I mean, my understanding and the conversations that we had before New Year’s Eve was that we had had these pledges on all sides, from the head of the SCAF, from the head of the civilian government, the prime minister, from the foreign minister. So that’s why it is concerning, not only that the issue hasn’t been resolved, but that we also seem to have some Mubarak holdovers in the government who don’t seem to understand how these organizations operate in a democratic society –
QUESTION: Well, do you think –
MS. NULAND: -- and are putting out lots of disinformation about them.
QUESTION: So do you think they understand how to tell the truth? Do you think you were just lied to? Or do you think there’s some kind of – there’s not a miscommunication on the Egyptian side between whoever made the pledge and the people who were actually conducting and going out – I mean, what explains this? Or if you don’t have an answer to that, can you trust the interim authorities in Egypt right now?
MS. NULAND: Well, our hope is that the Egyptian authorities are trying to work this through and that they are having the kinds of conversations with their own judicial authorities about what’s appropriate and what isn’t appropriate. But frankly, it’s taking an awfully long time.
QUESTION: Right. So you’re not yet convinced that this is just complete duplicity?
MS. NULAND: Our conversations with the Egyptian authorities are continuing, and we want to see it resolved.
Please, Samir.
QUESTION: Did you hear from Ambassador Hale about the results of the meeting in Jordan today?
MS. NULAND: Let me just see. Anything else on Egypt?
QUESTION: You mentioned that you are in touch with – and the conversation is going on regarding the legal issue, but it seems that official – semi-official pro-government, pro-system, pro-regime media is trying to give other stories, which is analysis or criticizing United States of interference in, which is politicized the issue now. Is there any talk going on about that, or it’s just leave it to them to do what they want to do?
MS. NULAND: We completely reject any of these –
QUESTION: Accusation.
MS. NULAND: -- accusations. We have said to the Egyptian Government from the beginning – this conversation went back months and months and months ago – as our NGOs and, frankly, as Egyptian NGOs tried to stand up, tried to increase their presence as a way of helping the Egyptian people understand whether their own elections were free and fair, that this was important, that this was something that we do around the world, that the organizations that we work with are prepared to be completely transparent about their activities, that they welcomed appropriate oversight, that they’d even be willing to register if that was going to help in the Egyptian system. But it seems that there are some holdovers in the system who don’t understand the vital role that these kinds of organizations, whether they’re Egyptian or whether they’re international – and frankly, we’re concerned about Egyptian NGOs, too – the role that civil society plays in a democracy, and there’s clearly a very aggressive propaganda effort –
QUESTION: The reason I am asking –
MS. NULAND: -- to scare the Egyptian people, so --
QUESTION: The reason I am asking is because you are talking about the NGOs and the organizations, but the NGO people already saying they are mad at us not because of the legal or political issue; it’s a matter of because they are criticizing the presence of the military rule – rulers and the emergency and all these violations and all these what happened in the last three or four weeks, and they are trying to figure out at the end when there is this kind of – we call it pressure or we call it conversation, whatever you are talking about – is there going to be a – like a common language between them or it’s just like going – ongoing process?
MS. NULAND: Well, again, we can’t speak to the motivations on the Egyptian side, and I would guess that there are different motivations. I can only speak to the American position, which is that we believe NGOs that support democratic development, support an election process, are vital to the health and well-being of any new, vibrant, or even ongoing democratic system. We have hundreds of them in the United States as well, and the U.S. Government doesn’t always like what they have to say, but it’s part of the democratic process. So we think it’s – they provide an important set of protections and eyes and ears for the Egyptian people to ensure that what the Egyptian people fought for, which is a clean, fair, transparent election and a transition to a democratic system and civilian rule, is realized. So --
QUESTION: (Inaudible.) You mentioned several – twice, at least, these holdovers to the Mubarak administration. Your information is that it is people from the Mubarak era who are ensconced in these ministries who are behind this, or is it – or are they new people? Are they people who have come in since then that’s behind this?
MS. NULAND: I would simply say, without naming names, that we are concerned that some of the most strident statements, particularly in recent days, made by Egyptian authorities seem to be made by old Mubarak holdover types who clearly are not on the new page with the Egyptian people.
Samir.
QUESTION: The talks in Jordan today hosted by Jordan for the Quartet and the Israeli and Palestinians, did you hear from Ambassador Hale an update on what happened?
MS. NULAND: Well, first to say, as we – as the Secretary said, I think it was just before the New Year holiday, we are very grateful to Jordan and particularly to Foreign Minister Judeh for bringing these – bringing the parties together not only to meet with the Quartet envoys as they have been doing, but also to meet with each other in a face-to-face meeting. We’ve had some preliminary readouts here, but we also have an agreement among the parties that Foreign Minister Judeh of Jordan will lead in giving a press readout on how the last 24 hours have gone in Jordan, and my understanding is that he is going to do that in the next couple of hours. So I don’t want to get ahead of him.
I would say, though, that in addition to participating in this round of meetings, our special envoy David Hale also had his own bilateral meeting with President Abbas, a meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu, and with Israeli and Palestinian negotiators and with Foreign Minister Judeh. But we’ll have more for you on our perspective on all of that tomorrow.
Please.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) your expectations to mean? What would you like to see come out of it?
MS. NULAND: I think I’m going to –
QUESTION: And your realistic expectations of what you think could actually happen in this?
MS. NULAND: I think, again, we are gratified that this meeting is happening. We’re gratified, among other things, that the parties agreed to meet face to face. We’ve wanted that for some time, as you know. It’s an important part of the roadmap that the Quartet put forward in September. So again, let’s see what the report is from the ground, and then we’ll go from there.
QUESTION: And going in, you have no expectations about what will actually come out of it?
MS. NULAND: Kirit, again, you’re asking me to get into details ahead of the reporting on the ground.
QUESTION: Is the meeting not over?
MS. NULAND: I think the meeting is ending now. I don’t – there may be a dinner ongoing. I think Foreign Minister Judeh was going to close this set of meetings.
QUESTION: Okay. And then he is supposed to – what’s your understanding – he’s supposed to come out and say something public, put a statement out, or –
MS. NULAND: He’s going to give a press conference.
QUESTION: And will it be alone, or do you expect the two sides to be there?
MS. NULAND: I can’t speak to what the format of the presser will be.
QUESTION: Okay. And then there seems to be some disagreement, which is not unusual since they disagree over everything else, about the Quartet deadlines between the Israeli and the Palestinian – the ones – or maybe not deadlines, but the timeline – the timeframe that was laid out on September 26th in New York. According to a – what one might consider just a standard reading of that, the four-month deadline after – timeframe for them –
MS. NULAND: 30 days, 90 days.
QUESTION: Right. But there was – which is 120 days, which is four months, correct?
MS. NULAND: Good (inaudible).
QUESTION: Thank you. So that four months would expire on January 26th, which – and that was for the two sides to have presented security and border – proposals on security and borders. Is that the U.S. position, that it ends on the – that that – that January 26th is the date by which the two sides are supposed to have gotten those things submitted?
MS. NULAND: Well, again, the dates in the proposal are the dates in the proposal. One of the issues that was to be discussed in this round of meetings, both with the Quartet envoys and between the parties face to face is where we are in the roadmap now. So I think we need to get the feedback from Amman and then speak to this a little bit more detailed tomorrow.
QUESTION: Well, wait, wait. The –
MS. NULAND: One of the –
QUESTION: You’re bringing the roadmap from 2002 into this?
MS. NULAND: I’m sorry. The proposal of the –
QUESTION: There are so many of these. You want to say political horizon? Maybe you can get that one in there, too. Does the –
MS. NULAND: I shouldn’t use the R-word because it takes you back to (inaudible).
QUESTION: Does –
MS. NULAND: The September 26th proposal of the –
QUESTION: Yeah, but is it your understanding that the Quartet still wants those two submissions by January 26th?
MS. NULAND: Again, what is in that proposal stands. We are seeking –
QUESTION: So – okay. So yes? January 26th is the deadline, according to the United States?
MS. NULAND: We were seeking to have them meet face to face, and we were encouraging them to make concrete proposals to each other. I can’t speak standing here today to where we are in that after these Amman meetings until we hear from Amman.
QUESTION: Well, going into the meeting, January 26th is the deadline, is the time by which the two sides are supposed to have submitted these things, correct?
MS. NULAND: The 30 days plus the 90 days under the proposal –
QUESTION: I’m not trying to trick you. There’s not a trick question.
MS. NULAND: I get it, Matt.
QUESTION: I just want to know if the U.S. wants –
MS. NULAND: I get it.
QUESTION: -- if the U.S. still thinks that January 26th is the deadline for this. Is that –
MS. NULAND: What we want to see is where the parties came out after this round. That’s what we want to see.
QUESTION: So in other words, it might not be? In other words, you might – you’re willing to some –
MS. NULAND: We want to be –
QUESTION: You’re open to some interpretation of what the deadline – of what that deadline might be?
MS. NULAND: What’s most important is that these parties are talking. We want to see what the results are before we get ourselves too formalistic here.
Go ahead.
QUESTION: Toria, the Israeli authorities bid farewell to the last year with taking some line in Jerusalem. And then they created a new one yesterday by taking an area (inaudible) in Jerusalem that really renders any future Palestinian capital in Jerusalem almost not there. Do you have any comment on that?
MS. NULAND: You know where we’ve been on settlement activity. You know where we’ve been on housing activity in Jerusalem. None of this is helpful. None of it contributes to peace. That said, the best way to end up with borders that are agreed and understood is for these parties to talk to each other and to come up with a settlement together.
QUESTION: A quick follow-up to Matt’s question on the 26th.
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: The Palestinians are gearing up to submit some sort of an effort at the United Nations or other organization to call the Israeli Government as an apartheid state right after the 26th. Would you support such an effort?
MS. NULAND: You know where we are on these issues, Said –
QUESTION: Where are you on this?
MS. NULAND: -- which is that the only way to settle these issues is face to face between the parties. We do not think that UN action is helpful.
QUESTION: Victoria, I know you are getting very tired, but –
MS. NULAND: I’m doing great. Let’s go for another round.
QUESTION: -- (inaudible) ask you a couple of questions on Korea.
MS. NULAND: I just had a long vacation. Go ahead.
QUESTION: I – first, I’m wondering if there is any sign of additional talks between the United States and North Korea. Is there any indication?
MS. NULAND: I don’t think there’s any substantive change from where we were just before the new year, which is that we’re waiting to hear from the North Korean side.
QUESTION: As you know, North Korea said last week that it will not deal with South Korea anymore. But the United States has been calling for North Korea to improve its relations with South Korea. So do you think North Korea’s tough stance toward South Korea will affect the U.S. decision for further talks with North Korea?
MS. NULAND: Well, I think you know that there have been two criteria that we are looking for in particular in terms of getting back to Six-Party Talks. One of them is the continued improvement of DPRK-ROK relations. The other is a commitment and demonstrated willingness by the DPRK to come back into compliance with its international obligations and its commitments from 2005, so both of those are still on the table from our perspective, so our position certainly hasn’t changed.
QUESTION: So what do you think about North Korea’s latest statement against South Korea, which has said it is not going to deal with South Korea anymore? What do you think about that statement?
MS. NULAND: Well, that’s not going to be conducive to getting us back to the table.
QUESTION: Staying in Asia?
MS. NULAND: Yeah, I --
QUESTION: Do you have any – there seems to be some major disappointment in this round of pardons that were announced by the Burmese that don’t include any significant political prisoners. It’s only a couple dozen people. What’s your response to – what’s your reaction, first, to the pardons? And secondly, is this the kind of thing that you had understood was going to happen after the Secretary’s visit, or were you expecting more?
MS. NULAND: Well, you know that our view is that even one political prisoner is one political prisoner too many. The Secretary was very clear about that when she was in Nay Pyi Taw and in Rangoon. We have seen this clemency order which has reduced some prison sentences. We understand up to 10 prisoners or so have now been released because, under the reduced sentencing, their sentences are completed. But we remain concerned about the more than a thousand political prisoners that remain in custody. So we will continue to make the case to the government in Nay Pyi Taw that it is a full political prisoner release that the international community wants to see.
QUESTION: So this falls short of what --
MS. NULAND: It does, yes.
QUESTION: -- of what the Secretary and what – not just what you were looking for, but what you expected after her meetings?
MS. NULAND: Look, we wanted to see this as soon as possible. We didn’t set any timeline on it, but we made clear that it was one of the vital steps before which it would be difficult for us to make significantly more steps towards normalization on our own side.
QUESTION: Right.
MS. NULAND: So from the perspective of --
QUESTION: But this isn’t even a full step then.
MS. NULAND: Exactly. So from that perspective, it’s not a step that – of the magnitude that we would be interested in matching.
Please, in the back.
QUESTION: Yes. I wanted to go to Latin America for a second and Ahmadinejad’s upcoming trip on Thursday. You said that you expect the countries to increase pressure on Iran. I was wondering if you had any specific conversations with any of these countries, or are you talking about possible measures in case they increase their business with Iran?
MS. NULAND: I think all of those countries know very, very well where the United States stands on Iran. They also know very well that we are trying to strengthen the international sanctions regime against Iran, so I don’t think there’s any doubt about where we stand on these issues.
Anything else?
QUESTION: I got one last one.
MS. NULAND: One last one.
QUESTION: Yep.
MS. NULAND: Matt’s going to close it out.
QUESTION: Keystone.
MS. NULAND: Keystone. You almost forgot till you went through your list there, didn’t you?
QUESTION: Yeah. So presumably by now, you have an idea of what it was that the President signed, and I’d like to know, how do you proceed with the whole Keystone application process now that you have that full understanding of what he put his name to?
MS. NULAND: Well, as you say, the Keystone provisions are included in the Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act which the President signed into law on December 23^rd. That law gives the Secretary of State 60 days from December 23^rd to either grant a permit for the proposed Keystone XL pipeline or to justify why a permit is not being granted. So we are using our 60 days and we are analyzing the Keystone provisions, and we will make an appropriate decision consistent with relevant law. And you can do your excellent math on the calendar that (inaudible).
QUESTION: Right. Well, when we get to the 60 days, can the State Department come back and say, “Well, the reason we haven’t given the – granted the permit is because the environmental review is still underway”?
MS. NULAND: Again --
QUESTION: Is that a legitimate --
MS. NULAND: -- we are analyzing --
QUESTION: No, I understand, but --
MS. NULAND: -- where we are.
QUESTION: -- according to your lawyers, can you come back and say that we haven’t – and in your justification for not granting the permit, say that, basically, the due diligence hasn’t been finished yet and we need until whenever you said in your last timeline – we need until the end of the year or something to do that? Is that a legitimate justification, by your interpretation, of what you can do under the law?
MS. NULAND: How do you think our lawyers would feel if I gave you their interpretation before they’ve made their interpretation?
QUESTION: Well, because I don’t think that they – I think they have made their interpretation, and I think you guys have come to the decision that you can actually string this out – or maybe not “string it out” is the right word, but you can justify not granting the permit by saying that we’re still studying it. Is that – am I incorrect?
MS. NULAND: When we have something to announce, you’ll be among the first, Matt, if not the first to know.
Thanks, everybody.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MS. NULAND: Great to be back.
(The briefing was concluded at 1:52 p.m.)