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 4, 2012 (Full Text)

Victoria Nuland

Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC

January 4, 2012

Index for Today's Briefing

• ISRAEL/PALESTINIANS
  • Quartet Meetings
• INDIA
  • State Department Map
• QATAR/AFGHANISTAN
  • Taliban / Political Reconciliation
• YEMEN
  • President Saleh / Visa
• MISCELLANEOUS
  • U.S. Engagement with International Political Parties
• IRAN
  • Freedom of Navigation in International Waters
  • EU Sanctions
  • American Citizen Detained in Iran
  • Iranian Government treatment of U.S.-Iranian Dual Nationals
• SYRIA
  • Arab League Monitoring Mission / Violence / Opposition
  • Awaiting Arab League Report
  • Ambassador Feltman's Meetings
• EGYPT
  • NGO Raids
• DEPARTMENT
  • Establishment Bureau of Counterterrorism / Structure and Leadership
  • International Focus of Bureau of Counterterrorism
• ASIA
  • Assistant Secretary Campbell's Travel, Meetings in Seoul, Beijing

TRANSCRIPT:

1:02 p.m. EST
MS. NULAND: All right, everybody. I’m hoping we fed you so richly with that last meal that this one will be petite. I have nothing at the top, so why don’t we go to what’s on your minds?
QUESTION: Right. This will just be dessert?
MS. NULAND: This will be dessert. How’s that? I like that.
QUESTION: Absolutely.
MS. NULAND: Dessert in January. I thought there’s no dessert for anybody in January.
QUESTION: Right. No, for nobody, okay? So, good, that leads me into my first question about the Israeli and the Palestinian talks yesterday. They did have a meal. I guess they had no dessert since there wasn’t anything very exciting that Foreign Minister Judeh had to say afterwards. You promised us yesterday you would give us the American view of what happened, so what is it?
MS. NULAND: Well, first of all, again, to thank the Jordanians for this initiative that they took to get the parties together. From our perspective, the most important thing that’s happened so far and that’s continuing to happen is that these parties are talking directly.
As you know, that was something that the Quartet has called for for many, many months, but it was a key tenant of the proposal that was made in September that, really, the only way to get where we need to go, where they need to go, is for these parties to talk directly. So we consider that that first round of meetings was constructive, as were their interactions with the Quartet envoys. As you heard the Jordanian foreign minister say yesterday, we expect another round of these direct talks to pick up on January 6^th, and that is important that this dialogue is continuing. And we are, as Quartet parties, supportive of that, and we’ll see where it goes.
As I mentioned yesterday, the meetings also gave our envoy, David Hale, a chance to meet directly with President Abbas, with Prime Minister Netanyahu, with Foreign Minister Judeh. We continue to believe that the subject of the conversation needs to be focused on, first of all, territory and security, that both parties should be working towards making comprehensive proposals to each other that can become the basis of a negotiation. So that is what we’re looking to see as the next round moves forward, and that is the message that we are giving to the parties and that the Quartet as a whole is giving to the parties.
QUESTION: What – so do you know who is going to be meeting, at what level is this next meeting going to take place?
MS. NULAND: My understanding is that it is, again, the designated envoys for the two sides, Mr. Molho and Mr. Erekat.
QUESTION: My last one on this is that yesterday, I asked you what the U.S. believed was the Quartet deadline or timeframe for the two sides to present their proposals on security and borders. Is it January 26^th, as would be four months from the 26^th of September, which is what the Quartet outlined, or is there some wiggle room here?
MS. NULAND: Well, you are correct that when the Quartet put its proposal forward in September, the idea was 30 days for the first meeting and then 90 days thereafter for the parties to put forward their proposals. That remains the aspiration of the Quartet, that we see comprehensive proposals by the two parties by January 26.
But again, this is a live negotiation now. They are talking to each other. So what’s most important is that that conversation continue and that they work together on next steps that’ll increase confidence, that’ll increase trust, that’ll increase dialogue, that’ll bring us closer on the real issues. So --
QUESTION: So you don’t buy into the Israeli line that the deadline – that that four-month period or this second 90-day period only kicks in once direct talks are happening? In other words, it would be 90 days from yesterday?
MS. NULAND: Our --
QUESTION: Do you – you’re sticking with the January 26^th?
MS. NULAND: Our view remains that we would like to see real discussion based on real proposals begin within this month, which is why, though, we’re encouraged not only that they are talking directly, but that there is another direct meeting between them even this week, which can – we hope will give us some momentum, we hope will give us some grounds to increase the confidence, increase the trust, encourage the sides to really begin working this out themselves.
QUESTION: When you describe the talks as constructive, is it your understanding that in the discussions so far, they’ve gotten into any of the issues that you said you’d like them to bring up?
MS. NULAND: Our understanding is that they are talking about the real issues. One of the values of this session, in fact, was that we were not in the room for the direct session or for all of it. So it’s – they really need to talk to each other. That’s what’s going to settle these issues.
Said.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.) If you were not in the room, would you characterize your engagement as perhaps less engaged or more engaged or partially engaged? How do you shepherd, I mean, for the lack of better words, these talks? And would the next step be, let’s say, talks in Washington?
MS. NULAND: Well, let’s start with the next round at the end of the week in Amman, and see where we go from there. I think there’ll probably, thereafter, be some kind of a coordination session among the Quartet envoys to look at where we go later in January. But I think your word “shepherd” is a nice one. It’s a nice one for the season. Shepherd, support, encourage, provide a format, increase confidence – all of those things are goals and aspirations of the Quartet to stay with both parties, to help them work through their issues. As you know, the envoys met also separately with the parties, and as I said, our envoy met with leadership – both the Israeli leadership and the Palestinian leadership.
So our goal is to help listen closely, see if we can help them close the gaps, see if we can encourage them, and particularly encourage them in this area of talking directly to each other, because that’s the best path forward.
QUESTION: The Palestinians – yeah, sorry. The Palestinians feel that you’re becoming less and less enthusiastic about engaging yourself fully as you have been in the past. So should that word “shepherd” exacerbate their feelings at the present time that you are actually not as interested as, let’s say, in past years in seeing these talks through?
MS. NULAND: I think I would reject that characterization. I would say, though, that our view is that we cannot do this for the parties. They have to do this for themselves and they have to do it with each other. We can provide a supporting environment. We can listen to both sides and help them to hear each other. We can provide ideas, as we have done through the Quartet proposal. But at the end of the day, they have to make peace with each other.
QUESTION: And lastly, Victoria, the Palestinian Authority President Abbas said that, come the 26^th of January, he will make some really difficult decisions. Has he discussed any of that with you?
MS. NULAND: Again, I’m not going to get into our private diplomacy with President Abbas or with Prime Minister Netanyahu. Our view remains that we have some good momentum going now with the direct conversation. There’s going to be another round this week. We want to see real progress in January, without any kinds of brinksmanship or preconditions or any of that kind of thing. We want to preserve this good environment that’s been started in Amman.
QUESTION: Forgive me if I missed this by the way, but has the Secretary – when was the last time the Secretary herself had any direct conversations with her counterparts or others – Prime Minister Netanyahu, President Abbas – on these issues?
MS. NULAND: I would have to check the calendar, but my memory, Arshad, is that she spoke to both of them earlier in December but not since the new year, if that’s your question.
QUESTION: Well, my question – I’d be interested also to know how far back in December, whether it was December the 1^st, whether she had any conversations leading up to these meetings. Can you check that for us?
MS. NULAND: Yeah. We’ll have some more for you on that.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MS. NULAND: Yeah. But as her statement did make clear, she was in close contact with the Jordanians as they were midwifing this round of meetings, and our envoy was obviously in close touch with both sides to encourage and support it. In terms of her direct conversations with the parties, I’ll get that for you.
QUESTION: And did you say September or December?
MS. NULAND: December was what I said, but I didn’t have a date in my frontal lobe here, so – are we still on this subject? No?
QUESTION: Another subject. Do you have any updates on these controversial maps of the region – Southeast Asia, India especially?
MS. NULAND: I do. I’m thrilled and relieved to tell you that we have now put the revised maps up on our website. So please go and enjoy them. And what you will see when you look at these maps is that they reflect the fact that the United States takes no position on the dispute and urges all the parties to seek a peaceful resolution to resolving the claims. What you’ll see on the maps is consistent with what the U.S. geographic position has been consistently, that there is a dashed line representing the 1972 line of control, reflecting Kashmir’s unresolved status. We neglected to actually label that dotted line in the last round of maps. It has now been labeled.
What else do I have with regard to the maps? Oh, the maps also add our standard disclaimer with regard to Kashmir that says that names and boundary representations are not necessarily authoritative. As I said, that reflects the fact that this is in dispute and the U.S. takes no position on the dispute.
QUESTION: So what is the gist that we should take from this on the Kashmir policy?
MS. NULAND: That we made a goof and we fixed it, and we’re now back in compliance with our own cartographical policy.
What took so long, you’re going to ask me, Kirit; I do not know what took so long. We wanted to get it right so we don’t have to do this again.
QUESTION: But if you have no policy on this, I’m wondering why it took so long to change it.
MS. NULAND: To get the maps corrected --
QUESTION: It’s a Photoshop job.
MS. NULAND: I think until our fabulous colleagues in the third row pointed this out to us, it was not clear what had gone wrong, and we wanted to make sure --
QUESTION: Right. But that was, like, a month or two ago.
MS. NULAND: It was. We had Christmas, we had New Year’s.
QUESTION: But I thought there were two different – I thought there was – different maps going on here. Wasn’t there one that – where the problem was with the Chinese border and one would --
MS. NULAND: My understanding is --
QUESTION: In other words, when the question came up yesterday, you said that the questioner was talking about a different map.
MS. NULAND: No, no. What happened yesterday was that some folks in the room thought that we had put up a new map, when in fact, as of yesterday, we had one map that was correct and therefore was never taken down. What we did today was replace the other maps that had been wrong.
QUESTION: And it shows the line of control as a dotted line --
MS. NULAND: Correct.
QUESTION: -- suggesting that it’s in dispute. Well, that’s not going to please the Indians at all. I mean, that’s their entire point. That’s – was that – that’s the complaint is that it shouldn’t be – that it’s not disputed, according to them --
MS. NULAND: Well, again --
QUESTION: -- and that Kashmir is an integral part of India.
MS. NULAND: Well, again, it is consistent with longstanding U.S. policy.
QUESTION: Right. Okay. Okay. That’s fair enough. Now you said that the other thing is that the names and boundary lines are not what?
QUESTION: Necessarily authoritative?
MS. NULAND: Yeah. There is --
QUESTION: Well, then what the – I’m sorry. What’s the point of having a map if it’s not going to be authoritative?
MS. NULAND: There is an asterisk on this set of maps, which is also consistent with our standard policy when we are trying to make clear that there is a dispute here. And it says that the names and boundary representations are not necessarily authoritative, meaning that they are in dispute and we are not taking a position.
QUESTION: Can you just clarify that the – he was talking about the U.S. policy on Kashmir.
MS. NULAND: Correct.
QUESTION: Do you still believe that there should be an international intervention on that kind of thing? Or do you believe that it should continue with the bilateral talks?
MS. NULAND: The U.S. believes that this issue is best solved in bilateral channels. We’ve been very supportive of the work going on in bilateral channels, and we’d like to see it continue.
QUESTION: What is the Embassy entity that actually makes these determinations about the maps?
MS. NULAND: You have stumped me. I think it’s the U.S. Geological Service, but I’m not sure. Let us get that for you, Arshad.
QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.
MS. NULAND: Yeah. Please.
QUESTION: On a separate topic --
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- the U.S. seems to be moving toward official talks with the Taliban. I’m wondering if you have an update on that effort. And related to that, how would you characterize contacts between the U.S. and the Taliban up to this point so far? And there are concerns related to talk of possibly releasing detainees at Guantanamo Bay. How would you address concerns over that?
MS. NULAND: Well, first of all, Michael, we spoke to this extensively yesterday, so I would refer you to the conversation that we had yesterday. What we have here is a continuation of the policy that we’ve had straight through, which is that in addition to supporting and fighting alongside those Afghans who – alongside the Afghans to fight those Taliban who remain on the battlefield, we are also prepared to support Afghan-led reconciliation with those Taliban who are prepared to talk.
But the conditions for reconciliation held by the United States are the same held by the Afghan Government, namely that these – the Taliban have to be willing to renounce violence, break ties with al-Qaida, and support the Afghan constitution and all of its elements, particularly with regard to universal human rights, rights of women, rights of minorities. So what we said all along is with regard to this talk about potentially establishing a Taliban office, supporting an Afghan-led process, we are prepared to support those things on the understanding that what we seek, what the Afghans seek, is true reconciliation along the lines that I discussed, that they are ending the violence, we are supporting the democratic constitution of Afghanistan.
With regard to Guantanamo, simply to say that no decisions have been made with regard to any releases.
QUESTION: But can you also characterize contacts so far between the U.S. and the Taliban? How would you characterize?
MS. NULAND: We have made clear that in coordination with Afghans we have had some meetings. We also made clear when the Secretary was in Afghanistan and Pakistan that, at the request of the Pakistanis, we had one meeting with the Haqqani guys. Obviously, we’re going to do this in a way that supports an Afghan-led reconciliation process. This is not American-led, this has to be Afghan-led, and we will do it again in the context of trying to support a real reconciliation for those who are truly coming off the battlefield, truly ready to join a political process.
QUESTION: So Victoria, is it your --
QUESTION: Can I just follow up on that? Karzai released a statement referring to the U.S.-Taliban peace negotiations. Now how do you explain the discrepancy there and how he sees it and how you’re explaining it?
MS. NULAND: Well, I wouldn’t read too much into it. He also said on December 27^th that he supported the establishment of an address for the Taliban for this Afghan-led process. He makes reference in the statement that he made yesterday to the demands of the Afghan Loya Jirga, which he went to to say we want to continue this reconciliation process. The Afghan Loya Jirga said that it would be supportive of an Afghan-led process.
So I think what you see in Karzai’s statement is Karzai welcoming an American role in an Afghan-led process. He is, certainly, I don’t think asking us to do this independently of Afghanistan, nor are we interested in doing that.
Please.
QUESTION: Toria, you said that there are the militant Talibans that are waging war in Afghanistan, and then there are those that are pursuing peace. So are we to understand there are two Talibans in this?
MS. NULAND: Well, as in all such conflicts, there are folks who are not ready to come off the battlefield and there are some who are – who may be willing to consider doing so. So what we’ve said all along, and the Secretary said when she was in Afghanistan and Pakistan in October, that our policy would be to fight, to talk, and to build all at the same time. So you fight those who continue to insist on fighting and to fight the state of Afghanistan, and to support our Afghan partners as ISAF when those fighters are not prepared to lay down their arms.
But you also support an Afghan-led process of talking with those who are prepared to truly talk towards reconciliation. And then the last piece, of course, which we never forget, is building. And that means building a better neighborhood around Afghanistan. This goes to the Silk Road Initiative, where we’re trying to encourage better neighborly relations among Afghanistan and its neighbors, particularly Pakistan, but the states on all sides so that we can improve trade, improve cooperation, improve the lives of average people, and defeat the incentive for terrorism and for violence.
QUESTION: Can I change the subject?
MS. NULAND: Please. Cami.
QUESTION: Still one more.
MS. NULAND: Still on Afghanistan?
QUESTION: Have you received any formal requests from Afghanistan about releasing these prisoners from Gitmo? Any list they have sent it to you?
MS. NULAND: Well, first of all, we’re not today, we’re not in the future, going to get into the details of these Afghan-led discussions. That’s not productive to the process. What I’ve said to you is that we’ve not made any decisions with regard to releases. I don’t think I’m going to go beyond that.
Cami.
QUESTION: And secondly, previously this Administration had said that there’s no difference between a good Taliban and a bad Taliban; just Taliban is the Taliban. But now today it seems like you are differentiating between the Taliban who wants to talk and Taliban who is fighting. So how is it different between the previous argument and the new argument?
MS. NULAND: I don’t know what you’re referring to, but we’ve always made clear that
those-- we would support the Afghan people in defeating the enemies of the state. And in-- and we’ve been supporting them for 10 years on the battlefield against those who insist on waging war against the government. So I don’t think that there’s a change there.
Please.
QUESTION: Madam, where do you put the al-Qaida in this process as far as peace talks with the Taliban is concerned? And secondly, Talibans and Haqqani Network both have joined together that they will not attack anymore Pakistani civilians, but the attacks otherwise will continue.
MS. NULAND: Well, in your first question, we don’t see any place for al-Qaida in this process. With regard to Pakistani Taliban, I think that’s a better question addressed to them. I’ve – we’ve seen reports of a recent meeting – we’ve seen all kinds of different reports, but it’s a question addressed to them.
QUESTION: And secondly – if I may, one more. If I got back on this new bureau as far as Talibans are concerned. One, the timing of this bureau, and second, Talibans last week question also announced that they will open a new office in Qatar. So where do we stand as far as opening – are you going to allow for them to open a new office also in the U.S.?
MS. NULAND: I haven’t – I don’t think that that’s an issue even in the wind, Goyal. And again, with regard to the Qatar idea, it’s also not a formal proposal at this stage. And your previous – there was something before that, I think. I can’t remember (inaudible).
Okay. Kirit.
QUESTION: Two questions on Iran, if I may. I feel like we go through this every day when it – they ratchet up the rhetoric, but they’ve done it again and said that they – they’re going to require permission for any foreign warships to enter the Strait of Hormuz. That’s beyond where they’ve gone before. What do you have to say about that? Is the U.S. going to request any permission to enter?
MS. NULAND: Kirit, I think you know the answer to that question. We spoke to this from the Pentagon yesterday. We spoke to this from this podium yesterday. Jay Carney spoke to this from the White House. The U.S. --
QUESTION: Well, but they’ve gone (inaudible) beyond where they were yesterday, so --
MS. NULAND: They have, and this is the kind of bluster that indicates that they’re feeling pressure. But we believe that the United States needs to continue to play the global role that we have played for a long time in terms of ensuring and promoting freedom of navigation in international waters, and our policy will continue to reflect that.
QUESTION: And regarding their specific request for permission?
MS. NULAND: I think you know the answer to that. We consider this international territory.
QUESTION: Can I ask you about Yemen?
QUESTION: Well, hold on. I’ve got still – well, can I do --
QUESTION: Go ahead.
QUESTION: -- one more Iran question if you don’t mind? The EU has, in principle, agreed to impose some sanctions to ban the oil imports from Iran. Do you have anything to say about that?
MS. NULAND: Obviously, very good news and the result of lots of consultations among us, between the U.S. and EU countries, within the EU, very, very welcome and supportive of the intent of the Congress when it passed the new legislation at the end of the year. So these are the kinds of steps that we would like to see not just from our close allies and partners in places like Europe but from countries around the world, because we do believe that this is consistent with tightening the noose on Iran economically, and it also – we think that the place to get Iran’s attention is with regard to its oil sector.
QUESTION: May I ask you about Yemen, President Saleh?
QUESTION: May I follow up on this?
MS. NULAND: Let’s – Michel.
QUESTION: News stories coming from Iran have said today that Turkish foreign minister has delivered a letter from the United States to the Iranians regarding the situation in Strait of Hormuz. Can you confirm that?
MS. NULAND: I don’t think that is accurate, Michel. I think this is a bilateral visit to Turkey. I am not aware of any U.S. message delivered through Turkey, so --
QUESTION: On Yemen, this just was on the AP wires that a senior official from Yemen’s ruling party says President Saleh has decided not to come here for medical treatment or whatever his reasons were for coming here, and has decided to stay in Yemen. What is the U.S. position on that? Do you want him to stay there?
MS. NULAND: We’ve seen the same press reports you have. To date, we still have a visa application from President Saleh at our Embassy in Sana’a. It hasn’t been withdrawn. We also have not made a decision one way or another with regard to that visa. Our view is that President Saleh needs to step aside and allow the process to go forward as agreed and as he has signed up to, so we want to see the vice president and the opposition continue to work towards a democratic process in Yemen. So frankly, I’m not going to speak to his travel plans one way or the other. We --
QUESTION: I’m just wondering whether you think the process can go forward if he is still in Yemen.
MS. NULAND: Well, the process can go forward if there’s no interference with the process that’s been begun, yeah.
QUESTION: But would the United States help Ali Abdullah Saleh to go elsewhere, like in Europe or Canada or Australia for treatment?
MS. NULAND: Again, we’re not going to dictate his travel plans one way or the other.
QUESTION: On Syria, the Syrian foreign ministry has considered today your statement as a meddling in the Arab League work in Syria. Do you have any reaction to that?
MS. NULAND: What we have been saying here, both at the White House and from this podium, is that we want to see the Syrian regime live up to all the commitments it made to the Arab League – not some of them sometimes in some places – and that we remain concerned that despite promises, despite some sporadic improvements in some places, the violence continues in Syria, and it continues primarily at the hands of the regime. So we will judge the Assad regime by whether it lives up to all of its promises as the Arab League itself will judge the Syrian regime.
And as you’ve heard, there have been considerable questions within the Arab League about whether all of the conditions are being met. And just in recent days, we’ve had more deaths in Daraya, in Homs. We’ve had reports of security forces firing into peaceful demonstrations, et cetera, intimidating demonstrators from coming out into the streets, even when monitors may – might have been allowed to be present. So from our perspective, this is not about the Arab League mission. This is about the Syrian regime’s commitment to live up to all of its promises --
QUESTION: But you did --
MS. NULAND: -- which we consider lacking at the moment.
QUESTION: Yeah, but you did mention yesterday that, as we have noticed, whenever there are monitors present, people would come out and feel safer by demonstrating. So do you encourage the monitors to be there at every demonstration so people can feel safer?
MS. NULAND: Again, I think what you see is the Syrian people taking advantage of the presence of monitors to make their true views about their regime clear – where they feel safe, where there are enough monitors. In some instances, we are seeing large crowds, and we saw particularly large crowds over the weekend. I think, unfortunately, what we are also beginning to see now is the regime getting a little trickier and cannier about this because it isn’t happy with the large demonstrations that are coming out. And so in advance of its expectation of demonstrations, it’s beginning to intimidate people. It’s beginning to put folks in the square where demonstrations are expected. So that’s causing a deterrent effect, again, on crowds feeling safe even in the presence of monitors.
So again, this is not a regime that is behaving consistently with the commitments that it made to end the violence, end the attacks on its own people, release political prisoners, allow monitors from anywhere, allow journalists back in, and that’s the standard that the Syrian people are going to judge the regime by. It’s also the standard that the Arab League is going to judge the effectiveness of its own program by.
QUESTION: You also said that the Arab League mission should be allowed the benefit of time. They are coming up with their report on Saturday. So once they submit that report and that report is unsatisfactory, that the regime actually has not done anything to change the conduct of what it’s been doing in terms of pulling out forces, releasing prisoners, as you suggested, and you mentioned some names, would then – would that then cause you to take another step, perhaps go to the Security Council?
MS. NULAND: Well, we have also said that we want to wait for the Arab League to make its report. Our understanding now is that the Arab League ministerial will be not on Saturday but on Sunday, so we will await their own evaluation of their own mission.
We have, as you know, all along been looking at additional measures that we can take, that the international community can take, to continue to ratchet up the pressure on the Assad regime. We’ve made clear for many weeks now that we think its time for a strong UN Security Council resolution. We are continuing to consult in New York. New York is back to work today on what might be in that resolution. But I think we’ll also be guided in part by our consultations with the Arab League and how this monitoring mission concludes as it goes forward.
Please.
QUESTION: A question on – excuse me – a question on Egypt. The head of the IRI --
QUESTION: Before we go to Egypt, can we --
MS. NULAND: Anything else on Syria? Yeah.
QUESTION: Sorry about that.
MS. NULAND: Sorry.
QUESTION: The Turkish newspapers said that the Turks have deployed a – missile batteries, Hawk missile batteries along their border to counter, apparently, the deployment of Syrian missiles batteries. Are you concerned that this situation may deteriorate and we may actually have some sort of heightened tension or even conflagration along the – Syria’s northern border with Turkey?
MS. NULAND: I haven’t seen the reports that you’re citing on Turkish deployments. Obviously, it’s the sovereign right of Turkey to protect its own territory. We’ve been concerned all along with regard to the potential for – we’ve had significant refugee outflows, potential for even larger refugee outflows. The Turks have been enormously generous hosts in supporting those Syrians who have sought refuge there. And again, this is all part and parcel of the fact – of – that we’ve got to see the violence end in Syria. We’ve got to hold the regime – all of us – to the commitments that it’s made to end the violence.
Please.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MS. NULAND: Still Syria?
QUESTION: Well, it’s semi-Syria. It’s Feltman’s talks in Cairo with the Arab League. What’s – is that – the information the meeting is going to come on Sunday, not Saturday, is that from him?
MS. NULAND: Well, he’s --
QUESTION: And how did those talks go, if they haven’t --
MS. NULAND: Yeah. He --
QUESTION: -- if they’ve happened already?
MS. NULAND: He got on a plane last night. I don’t know whether he was starting his conversations this afternoon or whether they start tomorrow. We’ll see if we can get some preliminary information about his bilateral conversations and his Arab League conversations. They were designed to take place in advance of the meetings on Sunday, but I think he’s just beginning his consultations in Cairo.
QUESTION: Okay. And you don’t know if he’s met the Egyptians either, to read them the riot act or whatever?
MS. NULAND: Right. He was planning to do both while in Cairo, so I don’t have that.
Please.
QUESTION: A question on Egypt. The head of the IRI, International Republican Institute, said today that an Egyptian citizen and a U.S. citizen from his staff were called in today for questions from prosecutors, Egyptian prosecutors, and were accused of things they hadn’t done. I was curious if you have any reaction to that and if there was any update on contacts between the Embassy and Egyptian authorities since we last spoke on this yesterday.
MS. NULAND: Well, as you may know, some of the heads of the U.S.-based NGOs are now in Cairo talking to their own staff, working with our Embassy, meeting with Egyptian officials, so we are supportive of their efforts and continuing our own efforts to try to resolve these issues immediately. I had not heard this report of the IRI staffer. Obviously, we have called for many days now for the harassment to end, for property to be returned.
Our understanding is that all of these NGOs are willing to cooperate with appropriate judicial requests for transparency, for openness, et cetera, and they have been cooperating with Egyptian judicial authorities all the way through. So we want to see this handled appropriately within rule of law and within democratic standards.
QUESTION: Do you still see this as remnants of Mubarak holdovers as being part of the problem here?
MS. NULAND: We spoke to this yesterday, that we’ve had ongoing issues trying to explain to folks the role of NGOs, whether they’re international NGOs or whether they’re domestic NGOs, in a democratic society. And that’s part of the transition that Egypt needs to go through.
QUESTION: Can I ask you about the Mubarak holdover comments you had from yesterday? Isn’t the entire Egyptian Government, interim government, a Mubarak holdover? I mean, who’s new in that entire government?
MS. NULAND: Well, I’m not going to get into a who’s who of the Egyptian Government. There are faces in and out. I think the concern was simply that some of the rhetoric we heard was redolent of a different time and was not compatible with some of the – with even the electoral process that’s underway, and underway quite vibrantly now, in Egypt.
QUESTION: Well, you seemed to lay the blame at some individuals. You didn’t want to name them yesterday, but I mean, I’m just curious. I mean, when you say holdovers, I mean, it’s – they’re all holdovers, right?
MS. NULAND: Yeah. I think I’m not going to go further than I did yesterday on this one.
Said.
QUESTION: Victoria, there was a lengthy article today, a report in The New York Times, saying that your overtures toward the Islamists constitutes a historic shift in foreign policy held by successive American administrations. Are we on the cusp of an historic shift towards the Islamists? And if that is the case, how would you view their – their rhetoric is moderate as far as governing, but let’s say things regarding women, women’s rights, and so on?
MS. NULAND: Said, we’ve talked about this many times. It’s a different day in these countries as their citizens are allowed to go to the polls, as parties from across the political spectrum are allowed to register, are allowed to participate. So what we’ve said, whether we’re talking about Morocco or Tunisia or Libya or Egypt, is that we are going to judge these parties not by the names on their doors, the t-shirts they wear, but on their commitment to upholding universal democratic standards, universal standards of human rights, including the rights of participation of all their citizens, minorities, tolerance, and the rights of women. So those are the standards that we’re going to judge them by.
As you say, some of these parties have had quite moderate rhetoric, and we appreciate that in – and – but that rhetoric now has to be matched in the way they proceed. And frankly, we feel that the people in these countries are probably also going to judge them by whether they are bringing greater democracy, greater prosperity, greater enfranchisement, greater participation to the broadest possible collection of citizens rather than being exclusionary or intolerant.
QUESTION: When was the last time you saw a foreign policy analysis on the front page of The New York Times that didn’t refer to a historic or seismic shift or sea change?
MS. NULAND: Was that a crack at The New York Times or was that – (laughter).
QUESTION: I don’t know. I’m just wondering when the last time it was.
MS. NULAND: Steve has to defend himself. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: It seems to me that stories like that don’t get on the front page unless they’re referring to things like that.
Anyway, can I ask – go back to Iran for a second?
MS. NULAND: Yes.
QUESTION: Just – I wanted to know if there’s any update on your – the Swiss getting consular access to the American – the dual American citizen, and what – if there’s any change, what your understanding is about his case right now, where it stands.
MS. NULAND: Unfortunately, there is no change. Just to repeat where we’ve been, we had asked three times over the Swiss protecting power – in October, in November, in December – for access to him. The Swiss protecting power has asked at least twice, if not more, of the Iranians that they have access to him. All of those consular access requests have been refused.
I do want to say, though, Matt, that this is not, unfortunately, unusual in Iran when you’re dealing with a dual national. And this individual, Amir Hemati, is a dual U.S.-Iranian national, and the Iranian Government has historically not recognized our rights to access. That doesn’t change the fact that we will keep asking for it.
QUESTION: Does your current travel advice or travel warning for Iran include warnings to Iranian – to people who hold dual Iranian-American nationality that this is, in fact, a problem?
MS. NULAND: I don’t know the answer to that, but it’s available on our website. You can check.
QUESTION: A clarification on this Bureau of Counterterrorism. In the fact sheet that you’ve sent there are two things. One is strengthening counterterrorism diplomacy and building the capacity for foreign partners. And can you provide us with a list of countries that are partners now? And also, I suppose India was not – has it joined this bureau and this partnership?
MS. NULAND: Well, first of all, there is a difference between our global counterterrorism initiative that was launched in New York with a limited group of countries and the counterterrorism cooperation that the United States has bilaterally with some 100 countries around the world, if not more. And we do cooperate with India in counterterrorism. This can take the form of intelligence sharing, it can take the form of joint training, it can take the form of shared diplomatic initiatives, it can take the form of joint work to strengthen borders.
So if you’d like a list of the countries around the world that we cooperate in counterterrorism, we will ask our new bureau to provide that to you. But you shouldn’t confuse these initiatives. The U.S. has a robust counterterrorism relationship with, as I said, at least a hundred countries.
QUESTION: On this, and I’m sorry I wasn’t here for the briefing, but I don’t know if this was addressed – is my understanding correct that Coordinator Benjamin will now become an assistant secretary of State and that all of his minions – not meaning that to be a pejorative word – but all of his staff will then become --
MS. NULAND: All of his deputies, and his office directors --
QUESTION: -- deputy DASs and PDASs?
MS. NULAND: With regard to the assistant secretary status of Coordinator Benjamin/Ambassador Benjamin, as you may know, the Congress puts a limit on the number of Assistant secretaryships available in this building. We are short one for this new bureau. We have requested an additional slot for an assistant secretary from the Congress for Ambassador Benjamin. Assuming it is granted, he would then become an assistant secretary, so he is --
QUESTION: And they would then become deputy assistant secretaries and --
MS. NULAND: Correct.
QUESTION: Well, okay, because – and what is the corresponding increase in terms of money, in terms of salaries?
MS. NULAND: He did speak to that. There is no budgetary impact one way or the other --
QUESTION: Well, I’m curious about --
MS. NULAND: -- either on programs or on personnel.
QUESTION: You’re absolutely sure of that? When you (inaudible) --
MS. NULAND: You mean does he personally get a salary?
QUESTION: I’m not suggesting that it’s – he’s doing it for the money – but I just – but I believe that when you are moving from a coordinator to a Senate-confirmed position, there is an increase in salary, and that when one moves --
MS. NULAND: Would that it were true. I’m not sure it’s true, but we will confirm for you, Matt. He was asked a direct question with regard to budgetary impact and --
QUESTION: Overall budget impact. Not his --
MS. NULAND: Yeah. Yeah.
QUESTION: Yeah, but I think it’s (inaudible) – talking about programming.
MS. NULAND: Yeah. So I will ask him whether he’s expecting a salary increase with this.
QUESTION: Madam, my question was a clarification that as far as global war on terrorism is concerned, hundreds of thousands or maybe millions of people were killed around the globe by Taliban and also thousands in Pakistan, innocent Pakistanis. My question is the timing of this new bureau.
MS. NULAND: We’ve had an Office of Counterterrorism in this building for many, many years. When the Secretary came in and launched her Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, patterned after the Pentagon’s similar four-year review, among the questions that she asked were: Is this building correctly aligned in terms of its offices and bureaus for its 21^st century responsibilities? And one of the overwhelming recommendations of the first QDDR was that we needed to upgrade this office, it’s no longer a coordinative office, it operates much more like a bureau, like many other functional bureaus that we have – Office of Oceans and Environment, Office of Counternarcotics, et cetera – and so it should be appropriately named and appropriately managed.
So that recommendation came forward with the QDDR early in, I think it was, January-February. We then, along with all of the other elements of the QDDR, had to consult closely inside this building, inside the interagency, with the White House, but especially with the Congress on the establishment of these elements in line with the recommendations. So that’s taken some time, and as we get these hatched, we are announcing them. So I wouldn’t read too much into the establishment of the bureau as compared to the news of today. But more broadly, it’s designed to help the Department better meet its strategic priorities.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MS. NULAND: Please.
QUESTION: Regarding these comments of President Chavez one week ago when President Cristina Kirchner was informed by his press secretary that she had a cancer problem, today she was intervened. I want to know if there’s going to be any official contact to Argentina to follow her state of health from the United States.
MS. NULAND: We are in close contact with her. The Secretary has a close relationship with her, obviously concerned for her, for her health, and – but I don’t have anything particular to announce today.
QUESTION: Just a question about that: There are reports apparently about – of a U.S. teenage girl from the Dallas area that was deported to Columbia recently, and local media in Dallas are saying that there’s a possibility of some mistake with ICE. And I was wondering, have you heard any of these reports or know anything about this case?
MS. NULAND: I don’t. It sounds like it’s a question for ICE, probably. Yeah.
Please.
QUESTION: Do you have any readout of Assistant Secretary Kurt Campbell’s travel to China, Japan, and Korea, especially his talking points on Burma with these countries?
MS. NULAND: Well, he’s completed his stop in Beijing; I think he’s either in Seoul or on his way to Seoul for the second stop. He did give some press remarks in Beijing which I would call your attention to. Just in terms of what he did in Beijing, he met with Executive Vice Foreign Minister Zhang Zhijun, Vice Foreign Minister Cui Tiankai. The meetings were obviously about the bilateral relationship; they were also about regional issues focusing heavily on close coordination with regard to North Korea at this important moment; Burma, outcomes of the Secretary’s visit, staying coordinated on how we can encourage reform in Burma; and they also talked about Iran, you won’t be surprised. And now he’s off to Seoul for consultations on the full range there.
QUESTION: And secondly, on Pakistan again: The former Pakistani ambassador to the U.S., Husain Haqqani, in an interview today said he feels he has threat to his life by the forces in the establishment. Are you concerned about his statement coming out?
MS. NULAND: Again, we spoke to this yesterday, that we want to see procedures in Pakistan go forward in a manner that’s consistent with the Pakistani constitution, consistent with international legal standards.
Please.
QUESTION: On L.A. arsons, are you able to flesh out the State Department’s role in identifying the suspect? I believe it was State Department agents – officials who identified him in the video.
MS. NULAND: We talked about this yesterday, so I would refer you back to that. And if you need more, we can put you in contact with the fabulous members of Diplomatic Security who were involved.
The last one in the back and then we’re going to – go ahead, Lach.
QUESTION: Will the State Department’s Bureau of Counterterrorism also be looking at U.S. extremist groups, or only foreign terrorist organizations? That’s the first part.
MS. NULAND: You mean American citizens extremists?
QUESTION: In other words will they also have – be coordinating operations against Army of God-type American extremist groups?
MS. NULAND: No.
QUESTION: No? Only foreign terrorist threats?
MS. NULAND: We are the State Department. We do international relations --
QUESTION: Oh, I know.
MS. NULAND: -- diplomacy, et cetera.
QUESTION: Yeah. I was just wondering if this would also – because the FBI, of course --
MS. NULAND: We obviously coordinate closely to the degree that any of these groups might have foreign contacts, et cetera. But U.S. domestic law enforcement is the responsibility of U.S. domestic law enforcement agencies.
QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.
MS. NULAND: Thank you all.
(The briefing was concluded at 1:50 p.m.)

State of the Union Address - U.S. President Barack Obama Full Transcript Jan. 27

U.S. Capitol

9:11 P.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT: Madam Speaker, Vice President Biden, members of Congress, distinguished guests, and fellow Americans:

Our Constitution declares that from time to time, the President shall give to Congress information about the state of our union. For 220 years, our leaders have fulfilled this duty. They've done so during periods of prosperity and tranquility. And they've done so in the midst of war and depression; at moments of great strife and great struggle.

It's tempting to look back on these moments and assume that our progress was inevitable -– that America was always destined to succeed. But when the Union was turned back at Bull Run, and the Allies first landed at Omaha Beach, victory was very much in doubt. When the market crashed on Black Tuesday, and civil rights marchers were beaten on Bloody Sunday, the future was anything but certain. These were the times that tested the courage of our convictions, and the strength of our union. And despite all our divisions and disagreements, our hesitations and our fears, America prevailed because we chose to move forward as one nation, as one people.

Again, we are tested. And again, we must answer history's call.

One year ago, I took office amid two wars, an economy rocked by a severe recession, a financial system on the verge of collapse, and a government deeply in debt. Experts from across the political spectrum warned that if we did not act, we might face a second depression. So we acted -– immediately and aggressively. And one year later, the worst of the storm has passed.

But the devastation remains. One in 10 Americans still cannot find work. Many businesses have shuttered. Home values have declined. Small towns and rural communities have been hit especially hard. And for those who'd already known poverty, life has become that much harder.

This recession has also compounded the burdens that America's families have been dealing with for decades –- the burden of working harder and longer for less; of being unable to save enough to retire or help kids with college.

So I know the anxieties that are out there right now. They're not new. These struggles are the reason I ran for President. These struggles are what I've witnessed for years in places like Elkhart, Indiana; Galesburg, Illinois. I hear about them in the letters that I read each night. The toughest to read are those written by children -– asking why they have to move from their home, asking when their mom or dad will be able to go back to work.

For these Americans and so many others, change has not come fast enough. Some are frustrated; some are angry. They don't understand why it seems like bad behavior on Wall Street is rewarded, but hard work on Main Street isn't; or why Washington has been unable or unwilling to solve any of our problems. They're tired of the partisanship and the shouting and the pettiness. They know we can't afford it. Not now.

So we face big and difficult challenges. And what the American people hope -– what they deserve -– is for all of us, Democrats and Republicans, to work through our differences; to overcome the numbing weight of our politics. For while the people who sent us here have different backgrounds, different stories, different beliefs, the anxieties they face are the same. The aspirations they hold are shared: a job that pays the bills; a chance to get ahead; most of all, the ability to give their children a better life.

You know what else they share? They share a stubborn resilience in the face of adversity. After one of the most difficult years in our history, they remain busy building cars and teaching kids, starting businesses and going back to school. They're coaching Little League and helping their neighbors. One woman wrote to me and said, "We are strained but hopeful, struggling but encouraged."

It's because of this spirit -– this great decency and great strength -– that I have never been more hopeful about America's future than I am tonight. (Applause.) Despite our hardships, our union is strong. We do not give up. We do not quit. We do not allow fear or division to break our spirit. In this new decade, it's time the American people get a government that matches their decency; that embodies their strength. (Applause.)
And tonight, tonight I'd like to talk about how together we can deliver on that promise.

It begins with our economy.

Our most urgent task upon taking office was to shore up the same banks that helped cause this crisis. It was not easy to do. And if there's one thing that has unified Democrats and Republicans, and everybody in between, it's that we all hated the bank bailout. I hated it -- (applause.) I hated it. You hated it. It was about as popular as a root canal. (Laughter.)

But when I ran for President, I promised I wouldn't just do what was popular -– I would do what was necessary. And if we had allowed the meltdown of the financial system, unemployment might be double what it is today. More businesses would certainly have closed. More homes would have surely been lost.

So I supported the last administration's efforts to create the financial rescue program. And when we took that program over, we made it more transparent and more accountable. And as a result, the markets are now stabilized, and we've recovered most of the money we spent on the banks. (Applause.) Most but not all.

To recover the rest, I've proposed a fee on the biggest banks. (Applause.) Now, I know Wall Street isn't keen on this idea. But if these firms can afford to hand out big bonuses again, they can afford a modest fee to pay back the taxpayers who rescued them in their time of need. (Applause.)

Now, as we stabilized the financial system, we also took steps to get our economy growing again, save as many jobs as possible, and help Americans who had become unemployed.

That's why we extended or increased unemployment benefits for more than 18 million Americans; made health insurance 65 percent cheaper for families who get their coverage through COBRA; and passed 25 different tax cuts.

Now, let me repeat: We cut taxes. We cut taxes for 95 percent of working families. (Applause.) We cut taxes for small businesses. We cut taxes for first-time homebuyers. We cut taxes for parents trying to care for their children. We cut taxes for 8 million Americans paying for college. (Applause.)

I thought I'd get some applause on that one. (Laughter and applause.)

As a result, millions of Americans had more to spend on gas and food and other necessities, all of which helped businesses keep more workers. And we haven't raised income taxes by a single dime on a single person. Not a single dime. (Applause.)

Because of the steps we took, there are about two million Americans working right now who would otherwise be unemployed. (Applause.) Two hundred thousand work in construction and clean energy; 300,000 are teachers and other education workers. Tens of thousands are cops, firefighters, correctional officers, first responders. (Applause.) And we're on track to add another one and a half million jobs to this total by the end of the year.

The plan that has made all of this possible, from the tax cuts to the jobs, is the Recovery Act. (Applause.) That's right -– the Recovery Act, also known as the stimulus bill. (Applause.) Economists on the left and the right say this bill has helped save jobs and avert disaster. But you don't have to take their word for it. Talk to the small business in Phoenix that will triple its workforce because of the Recovery Act. Talk to the window manufacturer in Philadelphia who said he used to be skeptical about the Recovery Act, until he had to add two more work shifts just because of the business it created. Talk to the single teacher raising two kids who was told by her principal in the last week of school that because of the Recovery Act, she wouldn't be laid off after all.

There are stories like this all across America. And after two years of recession, the economy is growing again. Retirement funds have started to gain back some of their value. Businesses are beginning to invest again, and slowly some are starting to hire again.

But I realize that for every success story, there are other stories, of men and women who wake up with the anguish of not knowing where their next paycheck will come from; who send out resumes week after week and hear nothing in response. That is why jobs must be our number-one focus in 2010, and that's why I'm calling for a new jobs bill tonight. (Applause.)

Now, the true engine of job creation in this country will always be America's businesses. (Applause.) But government can create the conditions necessary for businesses to expand and hire more workers.

We should start where most new jobs do –- in small businesses, companies that begin when -- (applause) -- companies that begin when an entrepreneur -- when an entrepreneur takes a chance on a dream, or a worker decides it's time she became her own boss. Through sheer grit and determination, these companies have weathered the recession and they're ready to grow. But when you talk to small businessowners in places like Allentown, Pennsylvania, or Elyria, Ohio, you find out that even though banks on Wall Street are lending again, they're mostly lending to bigger companies. Financing remains difficult for small businessowners across the country, even those that are making a profit.

So tonight, I'm proposing that we take $30 billion of the money Wall Street banks have repaid and use it to help community banks give small businesses the credit they need to stay afloat. (Applause.) I'm also proposing a new small business tax credit
-– one that will go to over one million small businesses who hire new workers or raise wages. (Applause.) While we're at it, let's also eliminate all capital gains taxes on small business investment, and provide a tax incentive for all large businesses and all small businesses to invest in new plants and equipment. (Applause.)

Next, we can put Americans to work today building the infrastructure of tomorrow. (Applause.) From the first railroads to the Interstate Highway System, our nation has always been built to compete. There's no reason Europe or China should have the fastest trains, or the new factories that manufacture clean energy products.

Tomorrow, I'll visit Tampa, Florida, where workers will soon break ground on a new high-speed railroad funded by the Recovery Act. (Applause.) There are projects like that all across this country that will create jobs and help move our nation's goods, services, and information. (Applause.)

We should put more Americans to work building clean energy facilities -- (applause) -- and give rebates to Americans who make their homes more energy-efficient, which supports clean energy jobs. (Applause.) And to encourage these and other businesses to stay within our borders, it is time to finally slash the tax breaks for companies that ship our jobs overseas, and give those tax breaks to companies that create jobs right here in the United States of America. (Applause.)

Now, the House has passed a jobs bill that includes some of these steps. (Applause.) As the first order of business this year, I urge the Senate to do the same, and I know they will. (Applause.) They will. (Applause.) People are out of work. They're hurting. They need our help. And I want a jobs bill on my desk without delay. (Applause.)

But the truth is, these steps won't make up for the seven million jobs that we've lost over the last two years. The only way to move to full employment is to lay a new foundation for long-term economic growth, and finally address the problems that America's families have confronted for years.

We can't afford another so-called economic "expansion" like the one from the last decade –- what some call the "lost decade" -– where jobs grew more slowly than during any prior expansion; where the income of the average American household declined while the cost of health care and tuition reached record highs; where prosperity was built on a housing bubble and financial speculation.

From the day I took office, I've been told that addressing our larger challenges is too ambitious; such an effort would be too contentious. I've been told that our political system is too gridlocked, and that we should just put things on hold for a while.

For those who make these claims, I have one simple question: How long should we wait? How long should America put its future on hold? (Applause.)

You see, Washington has been telling us to wait for decades, even as the problems have grown worse. Meanwhile, China is not waiting to revamp its economy. Germany is not waiting. India is not waiting. These nations -- they're not standing still. These nations aren't playing for second place. They're putting more emphasis on math and science. They're rebuilding their infrastructure. They're making serious investments in clean energy because they want those jobs. Well, I do not accept second place for the United States of America. (Applause.)

As hard as it may be, as uncomfortable and contentious as the debates may become, it's time to get serious about fixing the problems that are hampering our growth.

Now, one place to start is serious financial reform. Look, I am not interested in punishing banks. I'm interested in protecting our economy. A strong, healthy financial market makes it possible for businesses to access credit and create new jobs. It channels the savings of families into investments that raise incomes. But that can only happen if we guard against the same recklessness that nearly brought down our entire economy.

We need to make sure consumers and middle-class families have the information they need to make financial decisions. (Applause.) We can't allow financial institutions, including those that take your deposits, to take risks that threaten the whole economy.

Now, the House has already passed financial reform with many of these changes. (Applause.) And the lobbyists are trying to kill it. But we cannot let them win this fight. (Applause.) And if the bill that ends up on my desk does not meet the test of real reform, I will send it back until we get it right. We've got to get it right. (Applause.)

Next, we need to encourage American innovation. Last year, we made the largest investment in basic research funding in history -– (applause) -- an investment that could lead to the world's cheapest solar cells or treatment that kills cancer cells but leaves healthy ones untouched. And no area is more ripe for such innovation than energy. You can see the results of last year's investments in clean energy -– in the North Carolina company that will create 1,200 jobs nationwide helping to make advanced batteries; or in the California business that will put a thousand people to work making solar panels.

But to create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives. And that means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country. (Applause.) It means making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development. (Applause.) It means continued investment in advanced biofuels and clean coal technologies. (Applause.) And, yes, it means passing a comprehensive energy and climate bill with incentives that will finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy in America. (Applause.)

I am grateful to the House for passing such a bill last year. (Applause.) And this year I'm eager to help advance the bipartisan effort in the Senate. (Applause.)

I know there have been questions about whether we can afford such changes in a tough economy. I know that there are those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change. But here's the thing -- even if you doubt the evidence, providing incentives for energy-efficiency and clean energy are the right thing to do for our future -– because the nation that leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy. And America must be that nation. (Applause.)

Third, we need to export more of our goods. (Applause.) Because the more products we make and sell to other countries, the more jobs we support right here in America. (Applause.) So tonight, we set a new goal: We will double our exports over the next five years, an increase that will support two million jobs in America. (Applause.) To help meet this goal, we're launching a National Export Initiative that will help farmers and small businesses increase their exports, and reform export controls consistent with national security. (Applause.)

We have to seek new markets aggressively, just as our competitors are. If America sits on the sidelines while other nations sign trade deals, we will lose the chance to create jobs on our shores. (Applause.) But realizing those benefits also means enforcing those agreements so our trading partners play by the rules. (Applause.) And that's why we'll continue to shape a Doha trade agreement that opens global markets, and why we will strengthen our trade relations in Asia and with key partners like South Korea and Panama and Colombia. (Applause.)

Fourth, we need to invest in the skills and education of our people. (Applause.)

Now, this year, we've broken through the stalemate between left and right by launching a national competition to improve our schools. And the idea here is simple: Instead of rewarding failure, we only reward success. Instead of funding the status quo, we only invest in reform -- reform that raises student achievement; inspires students to excel in math and science; and turns around failing schools that steal the future of too many young Americans, from rural communities to the inner city. In the 21st century, the best anti-poverty program around is a world-class education. (Applause.) And in this country, the success of our children cannot depend more on where they live than on their potential.

When we renew the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, we will work with Congress to expand these reforms to all 50 states. Still, in this economy, a high school diploma no longer guarantees a good job. That's why I urge the Senate to follow the House and pass a bill that will revitalize our community colleges, which are a career pathway to the children of so many working families. (Applause.)

To make college more affordable, this bill will finally end the unwarranted taxpayer subsidies that go to banks for student loans. (Applause.) Instead, let's take that money and give families a $10,000 tax credit for four years of college and increase Pell Grants. (Applause.) And let's tell another one million students that when they graduate, they will be required to pay only 10 percent of their income on student loans, and all of their debt will be forgiven after 20 years –- and forgiven after 10 years if they choose a career in public service, because in the United States of America, no one should go broke because they chose to go to college. (Applause.)

And by the way, it's time for colleges and universities to get serious about cutting their own costs -– (applause) -- because they, too, have a responsibility to help solve this problem.

Now, the price of college tuition is just one of the burdens facing the middle class. That's why last year I asked Vice President Biden to chair a task force on middle-class families. That's why we're nearly doubling the child care tax credit, and making it easier to save for retirement by giving access to every worker a retirement account and expanding the tax credit for those who start a nest egg. That's why we're working to lift the value of a family's single largest investment –- their home. The steps we took last year to shore up the housing market have allowed millions of Americans to take out new loans and save an average of $1,500 on mortgage payments.

This year, we will step up refinancing so that homeowners can move into more affordable mortgages. (Applause.) And it is precisely to relieve the burden on middle-class families that we still need health insurance reform. (Applause.) Yes, we do. (Applause.)

Now, let's clear a few things up. (Laughter.) I didn't choose to tackle this issue to get some legislative victory under my belt. And by now it should be fairly obvious that I didn't take on health care because it was good politics. (Laughter.) I took on health care because of the stories I've heard from Americans with preexisting conditions whose lives depend on getting coverage; patients who've been denied coverage; families –- even those with insurance -– who are just one illness away from financial ruin.

After nearly a century of trying -- Democratic administrations, Republican administrations -- we are closer than ever to bringing more security to the lives of so many Americans. The approach we've taken would protect every American from the worst practices of the insurance industry. It would give small businesses and uninsured Americans a chance to choose an affordable health care plan in a competitive market. It would require every insurance plan to cover preventive care.

And by the way, I want to acknowledge our First Lady, Michelle Obama, who this year is creating a national movement to tackle the epidemic of childhood obesity and make kids healthier. (Applause.) Thank you. She gets embarrassed. (Laughter.)

Our approach would preserve the right of Americans who have insurance to keep their doctor and their plan. It would reduce costs and premiums for millions of families and businesses. And according to the Congressional Budget Office -– the independent organization that both parties have cited as the official scorekeeper for Congress –- our approach would bring down the deficit by as much as $1 trillion over the next two decades. (Applause.)

Still, this is a complex issue, and the longer it was debated, the more skeptical people became. I take my share of the blame for not explaining it more clearly to the American people. And I know that with all the lobbying and horse-trading, the process left most Americans wondering, "What's in it for me?"

But I also know this problem is not going away. By the time I'm finished speaking tonight, more Americans will have lost their health insurance. Millions will lose it this year. Our deficit will grow. Premiums will go up. Patients will be denied the care they need. Small business owners will continue to drop coverage altogether. I will not walk away from these Americans, and neither should the people in this chamber. (Applause.)

So, as temperatures cool, I want everyone to take another look at the plan we've proposed. There's a reason why many doctors, nurses, and health care experts who know our system best consider this approach a vast improvement over the status quo. But if anyone from either party has a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors, and stop insurance company abuses, let me know. (Applause.) Let me know. Let me know. (Applause.) I'm eager to see it.

Here's what I ask Congress, though: Don't walk away from reform. Not now. Not when we are so close. Let us find a way to come together and finish the job for the American people. (Applause.) Let's get it done. Let's get it done. (Applause.)

Now, even as health care reform would reduce our deficit, it's not enough to dig us out of a massive fiscal hole in which we find ourselves. It's a challenge that makes all others that much harder to solve, and one that's been subject to a lot of political posturing. So let me start the discussion of government spending by setting the record straight.

At the beginning of the last decade, the year 2000, America had a budget surplus of over $200 billion. (Applause.) By the time I took office, we had a one-year deficit of over $1 trillion and projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade. Most of this was the result of not paying for two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program. On top of that, the effects of the recession put a $3 trillion hole in our budget. All this was before I walked in the door. (Laughter and applause.)

Now -- just stating the facts. Now, if we had taken office in ordinary times, I would have liked nothing more than to start bringing down the deficit. But we took office amid a crisis. And our efforts to prevent a second depression have added another $1 trillion to our national debt. That, too, is a fact.

I'm absolutely convinced that was the right thing to do. But families across the country are tightening their belts and making tough decisions. The federal government should do the same. (Applause.) So tonight, I'm proposing specific steps to pay for the trillion dollars that it took to rescue the economy last year.

Starting in 2011, we are prepared to freeze government spending for three years. (Applause.) Spending related to our national security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will not be affected. But all other discretionary government programs will. Like any cash-strapped family, we will work within a budget to invest in what we need and sacrifice what we don't. And if I have to enforce this discipline by veto, I will. (Applause.)

We will continue to go through the budget, line by line, page by page, to eliminate programs that we can't afford and don't work. We've already identified $20 billion in savings for next year. To help working families, we'll extend our middle-class tax cuts. But at a time of record deficits, we will not continue tax cuts for oil companies, for investment fund managers, and for those making over $250,000 a year. We just can't afford it. (Applause.)

Now, even after paying for what we spent on my watch, we'll still face the massive deficit we had when I took office. More importantly, the cost of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will continue to skyrocket. That's why I've called for a bipartisan fiscal commission, modeled on a proposal by Republican Judd Gregg and Democrat Kent Conrad. (Applause.) This can't be one of those Washington gimmicks that lets us pretend we solved a problem. The commission will have to provide a specific set of solutions by a certain deadline.

Now, yesterday, the Senate blocked a bill that would have created this commission. So I'll issue an executive order that will allow us to go forward, because I refuse to pass this problem on to another generation of Americans. (Applause.) And when the vote comes tomorrow, the Senate should restore the pay-as-you-go law that was a big reason for why we had record surpluses in the 1990s. (Applause.)

Now, I know that some in my own party will argue that we can't address the deficit or freeze government spending when so many are still hurting. And I agree -- which is why this freeze won't take effect until next year -- (laughter) -- when the economy is stronger. That's how budgeting works. (Laughter and applause.) But understand –- understand if we don't take meaningful steps to rein in our debt, it could damage our markets, increase the cost of borrowing, and jeopardize our recovery -– all of which would have an even worse effect on our job growth and family incomes.

From some on the right, I expect we'll hear a different argument -– that if we just make fewer investments in our people, extend tax cuts including those for the wealthier Americans, eliminate more regulations, maintain the status quo on health care, our deficits will go away. The problem is that's what we did for eight years. (Applause.) That's what helped us into this crisis. It's what helped lead to these deficits. We can't do it again.

Rather than fight the same tired battles that have dominated Washington for decades, it's time to try something new. Let's invest in our people without leaving them a mountain of debt. Let's meet our responsibility to the citizens who sent us here. Let's try common sense. (Laughter.) A novel concept.

To do that, we have to recognize that we face more than a deficit of dollars right now. We face a deficit of trust -– deep and corrosive doubts about how Washington works that have been growing for years. To close that credibility gap we have to take action on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue -- to end the outsized influence of lobbyists; to do our work openly; to give our people the government they deserve. (Applause.)

That's what I came to Washington to do. That's why -– for the first time in history –- my administration posts on our White House visitors online. That's why we've excluded lobbyists from policymaking jobs, or seats on federal boards and commissions.

But we can't stop there. It's time to require lobbyists to disclose each contact they make on behalf of a client with my administration or with Congress. It's time to put strict limits on the contributions that lobbyists give to candidates for federal office.

With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests –- including foreign corporations –- to spend without limit in our elections. (Applause.) I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. (Applause.) They should be decided by the American people. And I'd urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems.

I'm also calling on Congress to continue down the path of earmark reform. Applause.) Democrats and Republicans. (Applause.) Democrats and Republicans. You've trimmed some of this spending, you've embraced some meaningful change. But restoring the public trust demands more. For example, some members of Congress post some earmark requests online. (Applause.) Tonight, I'm calling on Congress to publish all earmark requests on a single Web site before there's a vote, so that the American people can see how their money is being spent. (Applause.)

Of course, none of these reforms will even happen if we don't also reform how we work with one another. Now, I'm not naïve. I never thought that the mere fact of my election would usher in peace and harmony -- (laughter) -- and some post-partisan era. I knew that both parties have fed divisions that are deeply entrenched. And on some issues, there are simply philosophical differences that will always cause us to part ways. These disagreements, about the role of government in our lives, about our national priorities and our national security, they've been taking place for over 200 years. They're the very essence of our democracy.

But what frustrates the American people is a Washington where every day is Election Day. We can't wage a perpetual campaign where the only goal is to see who can get the most embarrassing headlines about the other side -– a belief that if you lose, I win. Neither party should delay or obstruct every single bill just because they can. The confirmation of -- (applause) -- I'm speaking to both parties now. The confirmation of well-qualified public servants shouldn't be held hostage to the pet projects or grudges of a few individual senators. (Applause.)

Washington may think that saying anything about the other side, no matter how false, no matter how malicious, is just part of the game. But it's precisely such politics that has stopped either party from helping the American people. Worse yet, it's sowing further division among our citizens, further distrust in our government.

So, no, I will not give up on trying to change the tone of our politics. I know it's an election year. And after last week, it's clear that campaign fever has come even earlier than usual. But we still need to govern.

To Democrats, I would remind you that we still have the largest majority in decades, and the people expect us to solve problems, not run for the hills. (Applause.) And if the Republican leadership is going to insist that 60 votes in the Senate are required to do any business at all in this town -- a supermajority -- then the responsibility to govern is now yours as well. (Applause.) Just saying no to everything may be good short-term politics, but it's not leadership. We were sent here to serve our citizens, not our ambitions. (Applause.) So let's show the American people that we can do it together. (Applause.)

This week, I'll be addressing a meeting of the House Republicans. I'd like to begin monthly meetings with both Democratic and Republican leadership. I know you can't wait. (Laughter.)

Throughout our history, no issue has united this country more than our security. Sadly, some of the unity we felt after 9/11 has dissipated. We can argue all we want about who's to blame for this, but I'm not interested in re-litigating the past. I know that all of us love this country. All of us are committed to its defense. So let's put aside the schoolyard taunts about who's tough. Let's reject the false choice between protecting our people and upholding our values. Let's leave behind the fear and division, and do what it takes to defend our nation and forge a more hopeful future -- for America and for the world. (Applause.)

That's the work we began last year. Since the day I took office, we've renewed our focus on the terrorists who threaten our nation. We've made substantial investments in our homeland security and disrupted plots that threatened to take American lives. We are filling unacceptable gaps revealed by the failed Christmas attack, with better airline security and swifter action on our intelligence. We've prohibited torture and strengthened partnerships from the Pacific to South Asia to the Arabian Peninsula. And in the last year, hundreds of al Qaeda's fighters and affiliates, including many senior leaders, have been captured or killed -- far more than in 2008.

And in Afghanistan, we're increasing our troops and training Afghan security forces so they can begin to take the lead in July of 2011, and our troops can begin to come home. (Applause.) We will reward good governance, work to reduce corruption, and support the rights of all Afghans -- men and women alike. (Applause.) We're joined by allies and partners who have increased their own commitments, and who will come together tomorrow in London to reaffirm our common purpose. There will be difficult days ahead. But I am absolutely confident we will succeed.

As we take the fight to al Qaeda, we are responsibly leaving Iraq to its people. As a candidate, I promised that I would end this war, and that is what I am doing as President. We will have all of our combat troops out of Iraq by the end of this August. (Applause.) We will support the Iraqi government -- we will support the Iraqi government as they hold elections, and we will continue to partner with the Iraqi people to promote regional peace and prosperity. But make no mistake: This war is ending, and all of our troops are coming home. (Applause.)

Tonight, all of our men and women in uniform -- in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and around the world –- they have to know that we -- that they have our respect, our gratitude, our full support. And just as they must have the resources they need in war, we all have a responsibility to support them when they come home. (Applause.) That's why we made the largest increase in investments for veterans in decades -- last year. (Applause.) That's why we're building a 21st century VA. And that's why Michelle has joined with Jill Biden to forge a national commitment to support military families. (Applause.)

Now, even as we prosecute two wars, we're also confronting perhaps the greatest danger to the American people -– the threat of nuclear weapons. I've embraced the vision of John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan through a strategy that reverses the spread of these weapons and seeks a world without them. To reduce our stockpiles and launchers, while ensuring our deterrent, the United States and Russia are completing negotiations on the farthest-reaching arms control treaty in nearly two decades. (Applause.) And at April's Nuclear Security Summit, we will bring 44 nations together here in Washington, D.C. behind a clear goal: securing all vulnerable nuclear materials around the world in four years, so that they never fall into the hands of terrorists. (Applause.)

Now, these diplomatic efforts have also strengthened our hand in dealing with those nations that insist on violating international agreements in pursuit of nuclear weapons. That's why North Korea now faces increased isolation, and stronger sanctions –- sanctions that are being vigorously enforced. That's why the international community is more united, and the Islamic Republic of Iran is more isolated. And as Iran's leaders continue to ignore their obligations, there should be no doubt: They, too, will face growing consequences. That is a promise. (Applause.)

That's the leadership that we are providing –- engagement that advances the common security and prosperity of all people. We're working through the G20 to sustain a lasting global recovery. We're working with Muslim communities around the world to promote science and education and innovation. We have gone from a bystander to a leader in the fight against climate change. We're helping developing countries to feed themselves, and continuing the fight against HIV/AIDS. And we are launching a new initiative that will give us the capacity to respond faster and more effectively to bioterrorism or an infectious disease -– a plan that will counter threats at home and strengthen public health abroad.

As we have for over 60 years, America takes these actions because our destiny is connected to those beyond our shores. But we also do it because it is right. That's why, as we meet here tonight, over 10,000 Americans are working with many nations to help the people of Haiti recover and rebuild. (Applause.) That's why we stand with the girl who yearns to go to school in Afghanistan; why we support the human rights of the women marching through the streets of Iran; why we advocate for the young man denied a job by corruption in Guinea. For America must always stand on the side of freedom and human dignity. (Applause.) Always. (Applause.)

Abroad, America's greatest source of strength has always been our ideals. The same is true at home. We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we're all created equal; that no matter who you are or what you look like, if you abide by the law you should be protected by it; if you adhere to our common values you should be treated no different than anyone else.

We must continually renew this promise. My administration has a Civil Rights Division that is once again prosecuting civil rights violations and employment discrimination. (Applause.) We finally strengthened our laws to protect against crimes driven by hate. (Applause.) This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are. (Applause.) It's the right thing to do. (Applause.)

We're going to crack down on violations of equal pay laws -– so that women get equal pay for an equal day's work. (Applause.) And we should continue the work of fixing our broken immigration system -– to secure our borders and enforce our laws, and ensure that everyone who plays by the rules can contribute to our economy and enrich our nation. (Applause.)

In the end, it's our ideals, our values that built America -- values that allowed us to forge a nation made up of immigrants from every corner of the globe; values that drive our citizens still. Every day, Americans meet their responsibilities to their families and their employers. Time and again, they lend a hand to their neighbors and give back to their country. They take pride in their labor, and are generous in spirit. These aren't Republican values or Democratic values that they're living by; business values or labor values. They're American values.

Unfortunately, too many of our citizens have lost faith that our biggest institutions -– our corporations, our media, and, yes, our government –- still reflect these same values. Each of these institutions are full of honorable men and women doing important work that helps our country prosper. But each time a CEO rewards himself for failure, or a banker puts the rest of us at risk for his own selfish gain, people's doubts grow. Each time lobbyists game the system or politicians tear each other down instead of lifting this country up, we lose faith. The more that TV pundits reduce serious debates to silly arguments, big issues into sound bites, our citizens turn away.

No wonder there's so much cynicism out there. No wonder there's so much disappointment.

I campaigned on the promise of change –- change we can believe in, the slogan went. And right now, I know there are many Americans who aren't sure if they still believe we can change –- or that I can deliver it.

But remember this –- I never suggested that change would be easy, or that I could do it alone. Democracy in a nation of 300 million people can be noisy and messy and complicated. And when you try to do big things and make big changes, it stirs passions and controversy. That's just how it is.

Those of us in public office can respond to this reality by playing it safe and avoid telling hard truths and pointing fingers. We can do what's necessary to keep our poll numbers high, and get through the next election instead of doing what's best for the next generation.

But I also know this: If people had made that decision 50 years ago, or 100 years ago, or 200 years ago, we wouldn't be here tonight. The only reason we are here is because generations of Americans were unafraid to do what was hard; to do what was needed even when success was uncertain; to do what it took to keep the dream of this nation alive for their children and their grandchildren.

Our administration has had some political setbacks this year, and some of them were deserved. But I wake up every day knowing that they are nothing compared to the setbacks that families all across this country have faced this year. And what keeps me going -– what keeps me fighting -– is that despite all these setbacks, that spirit of determination and optimism, that fundamental decency that has always been at the core of the American people, that lives on.

It lives on in the struggling small business owner who wrote to me of his company, "None of us," he said, "…are willing to consider, even slightly, that we might fail."

It lives on in the woman who said that even though she and her neighbors have felt the pain of recession, "We are strong. We are resilient. We are American."

It lives on in the 8-year-old boy in Louisiana, who just sent me his allowance and asked if I would give it to the people of Haiti.

And it lives on in all the Americans who've dropped everything to go someplace they've never been and pull people they've never known from the rubble, prompting chants of "U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A!" when another life was saved.

The spirit that has sustained this nation for more than two centuries lives on in you, its people. We have finished a difficult year. We have come through a difficult decade. But a new year has come. A new decade stretches before us. We don't quit. I don't quit. (Applause.) Let's seize this moment -- to start anew, to carry the dream forward, and to strengthen our union once more. (Applause.)

Thank you. God bless you. And God bless the United States of America. (Applause.)