Special Press Briefing on Upcoming Secretary of State Travel to Africa
Media representatives may attend this event upon presentation of one of the following: (1) A U.S. Government-issued identification card (Department of State, White House, Congress, Department of Defense or Foreign Press Center), (2) a media-issued photo identification card, or (3) a letter from their employer on letterhead verifying their employment as a journalist, accompanied by an official photo identification card (driver's license, passport). Press should allow adequate time to process through security and to be in the briefing room 10 minutes prior to the briefing.
Attendees who do not have a State Department building pass should enter through the 23rd Street lobby before 11:45 a.m.
PRN: 2009/789
Message: 2
From: U.S. Department of State <usstatebpa@subscriptions.fcg.gov>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 16:08:19 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Africa: Briefing on Secretary Clinton's Upcoming Trip to Africa
Africa: Briefing on Secretary Clinton's Upcoming Trip to Africa
Thu, 30 Jul 2009 15:56:53 -0500
AMBASSADOR CARSON: Robert, thank you very much. A pleasure to be here with you this afternoon to talk to you a little bit about Secretary Clinton’s forthcoming trip to Africa. Secretary of State Clinton will travel to Kenya, South Africa, Angola, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Nigeria, Liberia, and Cape Verde, starting on August 4 and returning to the United States on August 14. The trip will start at the U.S.-Sub-Saharan Africa Trade and Economic Cooperation Forum, known mostly as the AGOA Forum, in Nairobi, Kenya, where she will deliver a speech at the ministerial opening ceremony of the forum on August the 5th.
The Secretary’s trip comes just three weeks after President Obama’s successful trip to Accra, Ghana, and will highlight and underscore the Obama Administration’s commitment to making Africa a priority in U.S. foreign policy. This is the earliest trip by the Secretary of State and the President to Africa of any previous administration.
The Secretary will underline America’s commitment to partner with governments, the private sector, nongovernmental organizations and private citizens to build societies where each individual can realize their full potential. The Secretary’s trip follows the themes laid out by President Obama during his visit to Ghana: supporting strong and sustainable democratic governments; promoting sustainable economic development; strengthening public health and education; assisting in the prevention, litigation, and resolution of conflicts around Africa.
The United States wants to partner with African leaders to advance the President’s vision which is also a vision shared by many African leaders as well.
Secretary Clinton will stress also the importance of facilitating social and economic entrepreneurship, encouraging a new generation of young African scientists, small business leaders, entrepreneurs, and civic leaders who are trying to seek real solutions to Africa’s challenging problems. The Secretary will also discuss ways to foster good, regional governance, partnering with regional leaders to ban together to prevent conflict and violence, including gender-based violence, democratic erosions, and transnational threats that challenge Africa. The Secretary will also meet with President Sheikh Sharif Ahmed, the President of Somalia’s Transitional Federal Government. That meeting will occur in Nairobi, Kenya.
Let me say briefly a little bit about the seven countries and the Secretary’s schedule in those countries. In Kenya, as I mentioned, she will be attending the AGOA Forum, speaking at the ministerial opening ceremony. She also intends while she is in Kenya to meet with President Kibaki, Prime Minister Raila Odinga. She will encourage both of those leaders to move forward with their efforts to rewrite the country’s constitution and to prevent a return to the kind of violence that erupted in that country in January and February of 2007 following the very difficult and flawed presidential elections there.
From Kenya, the Secretary will move on to South Africa, where she will have an opportunity to meet the leadership of South Africa’s new government. She will meet with President Jacob Zuma, and she will also meet with South Africa’s new foreign minister, Ambassador Mashabane. This will give us an opportunity to talk with South African leaders about issues such as Zimbabwe and HIV/AIDS. The United States and South Africa have much in common. The Secretary will use this to strengthen an important relationship in South Africa with a country which is the engine of that region’s growth.
From South Africa, the Secretary will move on to Angola. Angola is one of the largest energy producers in Sub-Saharan Africa and is a major supplier of both petroleum and LNG to the U.S. market. The Secretary will meet with President Dos Santos, and she will also renew her acquaintance with the Angolan foreign minister with whom she met here in Washington approximately a month ago. It is the desire to strengthen that relationship with one of Southern Africa’s emerging countries, a country which has enormous economic potential.
From Angola, the Secretary will move on to the Democratic Republic of the Congo. In the Congo, she will have two stops. She will go to Kinshasa first and then will proceed the next day to Goma in the eastern region. She intends to meet with President Kabila and the Congolese foreign minister. During that stop, the Secretary wants to put a great deal of focus on the issue of sexual- and gender-based violence which is occurring in the eastern Congo.
As many of you know, the eastern Congo has been torn by civil strife, a great deal of conflict since 1994, 1995, largely as a result of the movement of ex-genocidaires from Rwanda into the eastern Congo. The Secretary is deeply concerned about the gender-based violence, which is occurring in the eastern Congo, will underscore America’s commitment to try to end this gender-based violence, and will meet with some of the victims who have suffered from it.
We will also – the Secretary also intends to encourage and push the Congolese Government as well as MONUC, the UN peacekeeping force there, to take a much more aggressive stance against gender-based violence. The Secretary will also encourage the Congolese Government to continue its democratic progress, and will also encourage the government to take action against corruption and to improve its economic and fiscal management so that it can – its country’s resources can be used for development.
From the Congo, the Secretary will fly to Abuja, Nigeria. Nigeria is probably the most important country in Sub-Saharan Africa: 140 million people, 75 million of whom are Muslims. It is also a major source of petroleum imports for the United States. It provides approximately 8 percent of America’s petroleum and the largest supply of our (inaudible) sweet crude. Nigeria has also been a major contributor to stability and peacekeeping in West Africa.
The Secretary will discuss with the Nigerian Government a range of issues, including West African security, the need to continue to move forward in strengthening its democracy, dealing with corruption, and also promoting stronger economic development.
From Nigeria, the Secretary will move on to Liberia. Liberia is one of our historically most important relationships in Africa. The Secretary wants to reaffirm U.S. support for President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, the only female African president. Liberia, before Johnson Sirleaf became president, had faced 20 years of intermittent and often very violent conflict. The Secretary wants to use this visit to show and demonstrate U.S. support for the democratic progress that has occurred in Liberia, support and reaffirm U.S. commitment to helping in the development assistance area, and in security sector reform.
And the final stop on the President’s trip will be in Cape Verde.
QUESTION: The President’s trip?
AMBASSADOR CARSON: Sorry, the Secretary’s trip.
QUESTION: Almost.
QUESTION: Almost. (Laughter.)
AMBASSADOR CARSON: That may have been a Freudian slip. But the Secretary’s trip, she will end it in Cape Verde. Cape Verde is an African success story. It is a country which is democratically run, well managed, and a country which has used the economic assistance that it has received from the United States, including a large Millennium Challenge Account Grant, extraordinarily well. It will reaffirm our friendship with Cape Verde.
I’ll stop right there, no Freudian slips, and take a few questions.
QUESTION: Okay. Matt Lee with the Associated Press. I want to ask about the meeting with the Somali president in Nairobi and what the Administration’s thinking is right now as to how to deal with this. Ambassador Rice was on the Hill yesterday, had some very strong words for Eritrea and is warning Eritrea about, you know, the role that it’s playing in Somalia. But I’m just wondering what the thinking is right now on how to deal with this. Are you considering sending more ammunition and military supplies and providing more training to the Somalis?
AMBASSADOR CARSON: The United States strongly supports the Djibouti process, the Transitional Federal Government, and the government of Sheikh Sharif. We think that this government, which has the support of IGAD, which is a regional organization, as well as the AU, offers the best possible chance for restoring stability to southern Somalia, which has been troubled over the last 20 years by enormous violence and civil conflict.
We think that the problems in southern Somalia have started to bleed regionally and internationally. We see in neighboring Kenya to the south some 270,000 refugees in the Dadaab refugee camp, five to six thousand Somali refugees flowing across the border each month into Kenya, putting enormous stress on that country’s infrastructure and also a burden for the UN.
Largely, in the international arena, we’ve seen the emergence of piracy as a major issue, in large measure because of the continuing instability in Somalia. We think that the support for Sheikh Sharif and his government offers an opportunity to be able to restore some stability, fight against the Somali Islamic extremists of al-Shabaab and Hizbul Islam, the two groups that are working against them.
Yes, we are prepared to provide additional assistance to the TFG government. Yes, we are prepared to continue to support AMISOM, which has Ugandan and Burundian troops on the ground. And yes, we are prepared to work with the IGAD states and the AU in finding solutions to the problem of Somalia. And yes, we believe that the Eritrean Government has not played a positive role in helping to resolve the problem. Somalia is a place where they have been spoilers. We would hope that they would cease and desist their support for al-Shabaab, that they would not allow their country to be used as a safe haven or a conduit or vehicle for moving people, munitions, or money into the hands of extremists in Somalia.
They have an opportunity to play a positive role in the region. We would hope that they would do so. I think Ambassador Rice made our position quite clear. Time is running out on Eritrea. This is not just an opinion of the United States, this is an opinion of IGAD, this is an opinion of the African Union.
QUESTION: In terms of specifics and aid, do you expect anything new to be announced in terms of –
AMBASSADOR CARSON: I do not think so. This meeting between the Secretary and Sheikh Sharif will give the Secretary her first opportunity to meet with President Sharif, and we’ll – hopefully, we will get an opportunity to hear from him how he sees the situation on the ground.
QUESTION: Sue Pleming from Reuters. You said that part of the reasoning behind the Secretary and the President going so soon to Africa was to show Africa as a – you know, a key foreign policy priority. How are you going to be able to do that when the Obama Administration has so many other foreign policy priorities; for example, it’s dealing with Iraq, Afghanistan, you know, Middle East, Iran, and North Korea? What do you plan to do to make it a foreign policy priority? Are you going to look more to investment? The African continent as a whole is quite cynical in many ways about, you know, the U.S. making promises and not coming through with them.
AMBASSADOR CARSON: The Administration is committed to Africa. The Administration is capable of handling multiple foreign policy issues at one time. I think that you will see it demonstrated not only in the presence of senior U.S. officials who visit the continent, I think you will see it unfold in terms of support for old initiatives that remain valid, but also new initiatives that the Administration is committed to pushing forward. One of these initiatives which is starting to take place is in the area of food security. The Administration has made that a high priority. The Secretary has made it a high priority. She will talk about it a great deal in Africa, in Kenya, and a number of the other stops. The President has spoken about the need to help Africa deal with its agricultural crisis and concerns. It was a focus of the President’s main initiative at the G-20 meeting in L’Aquila approximately three weeks ago. And we all know that agriculture remains a centerpiece in Africa’s economic fabric. Some 70 percent of all African households depend either primarily or secondarily on agriculture as a source of their livelihood. It is an issue that deserves attention, especially in light of the fact that the green revolution, which has helped to transform much of Asia and Latin America over the last 20 or 30 years, has not yet reached Africa.
This initiative is aimed at helping Africa meet its food crisis and challenges, as well as helping to stimulate greater agriculture productivity and agro business. The Administration can handle multiple foreign policy issues, and is determined to do so. Six months into the new Administration, it has gotten off to a faster start than any previous administration with respect to its focus and interest on Africa, dealing with the challenges, and hoping to work with African states to open up the opportunities for greater economic progress and development.
MR. WOOD: Folks, we have time – we only have time for one more question. We have to get Assistant Secretary Carson to another meeting. Just a quick one.
AMBASSADOR CARSON: Okay, go – one, please.
QUESTION: You talked for 20 minutes. We got to – there’s a lot – there’s seven countries.
QUESTION: There’s so many countries.
QUESTION: Oh yeah, it’s an 11-day trip and seven countries. I don’t think we can --
MR. WOOD: We’ll have plenty of time to talk about that.
AMBASSADOR CARSON: And I hope that many of you will be joining the Secretary on her trip. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Can I ask about the --
AMBASSADOR CARSON: That’s perfectly, perfectly all right. I have nothing against the press, just don’t like to be quoted by it.
(Laughter.)
AMBASSADOR CARSON: Yes. Yes, sir.
QUESTION: Just – I’ll keep it brief. Sean Tannen with AFP. I was wondering if, on Zimbabwe, how much that’ll factor into the trip, the (inaudible) talks with the South Africans and with other nations. Could the trip be a moment to actually have any sort of new initiative on Zimbabwe, either – the Obama Administration has reached out in many parts of the world, say, Cuba, Iran. Could this be a time to reach out and try something new, or could this be a continuation of policies trying to further isolate the Mugabe government?
AMBASSADOR CARSON: The Secretary certainly intends to talk about Zimbabwe with the leadership in South Africa. We’ll seek their views on how they see the situation evolving, encourage the South Africa as a primary leader in SADC to continue to press the government of Robert Mugabe to fully implement the global political agreement that he signed with Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai. And we will also seek to work with South Africa and the regional states to ensure that the GPA is fully implemented, and that that country is able to return to democratic rule and its people allowed to have some opportunity for economic progress.
We have tried to reach out to the Zimbabwean Government. In the past three weeks, I myself have met with the vice president of Zimbabwe. I’ve also met with President Robert Mugabe – I think the first time that a senior U.S. official has done so in many years – again trying to encourage reform, progress, commitment to the GPA, improved human rights. And we will continue to do so. My meeting was a little bit difficult, but we continue to try to make progress.
QUESTION: Sorry, just --
AMBASSADOR CARSON: Yeah.
QUESTION: Janine Zacharia with Bloomberg. Just really quickly on the oil countries that you’re going to, can you be a little bit more specific about what she’ll be looking for in Nigeria and Angola besides reforms? I mean, obviously, Nigeria’s election was a disaster. I mean, what specifically does she want from those energy-producing countries? And if you could address the China – potential rivalry there in those countries as well, if that’s spurring her to go there?
AMBASSADOR CARSON: No. The Secretary is going there because we have serious political, economic and hydrocarbon interest in those countries. In Nigeria, U.S. oil companies play a significant role, both in investment and production. U.S. investment in Nigeria in the oil production and service industry is well in excess of $15 billion. We are one of the leading purchasers of South African – sorry, of Nigerian oil. And we think that it’s important to discuss with Nigeria a range of issues. We are concerned about having a good energy relationship with them. We’re interested in seeing them continue to play a positive regional role, including providing peacekeepers to key conflict areas. We also believe it is also important for them to deal with some of their domestic issues. We’d like to see greater improvement in their electoral performance and strengthen – which will help to strengthen their democracy.
We’d also like them to address issues of corruption and transparency. When there is an absence of transparency and when there is a great deal of corruption, it makes the business environment extremely difficult. I think it was a point that the President made in his speech to the parliament in Accra, Ghana. If in fact you have democratic governance, respect rule of law, it is easier to draw in investment and business opportunities because people are certain and assured that they will be treated fairly. These are all issues – the range of issues were there.
The Secretary is going because we have interest in working with Angola and Nigeria in strengthening our relationship with two major countries, oil-producing countries on the continent, working with them on issues in the global environment and the community that are important to them as well as us. Our presence there has nothing to do with anyone else’s operations on the continent. The mention of our colleagues from Asia is a Cold War paradigm, not a reflection of where we are today.
QUESTION: The Chinese are not putting as much pressure on those countries in terms of governance. They are not being – not lecturing the Africans as much as, say, – or that’s the view of some people – as the U.S. is. So –
AMBASSADOR CARSON: I hope the United State is not lecturing anyone, but in effect, having diplomatic discussions and dialogues, respectful and those that are mutually beneficial and important for the United States and the countries that we deal with. I think it’s important to respect African governments and leaders, to work with them to resolve problems and challenges that they have, and to engage and be able to engage on these issues. We have and should encourage countries, wherever they are, to do the same thing. If countries are not paying attention to human rights issues of child soldiers, bad governance, mismanagement, we need to talk to those governments about encouraging them to do the right thing, which is not only right for them, but also the countries that they deal with.
MR. WOOD: Okay. Thank you all very much.
PRN: 2009/803
Message: 3
From: U.S. Department of State <usstatebpa@subscriptions.fcg.gov>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 11:35:15 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Africa: Kenya and the U.S. Meeting the Growing Challenge in East Africa
Africa: Kenya and the U.S. Meeting the Growing Challenge in East Africa
Fri, 31 Jul 2009 11:24:43 -0500
President Gershman, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for this opportunity to be here today. As some of you know, I approach the subject of Kenya with a degree of passion. The four years I spent in Kenya were among some of the very best in my Foreign Service career. It is hard not [to] love Kenya. Kenya has a lot going for it. The country’s natural beauty is almost unmatched in Africa. The snow capped ridges of Mt. Kenya, the open savannah of the Masai Mara, the calm waters of Lake Victoria and the country’s stunning Indian Ocean beaches make it a paradise for those who love nature and the out doors. But even richer than the beauty of the land is the character and quality of Kenya’s people. Kenyans are justly proud of their many accomplishments -- Nobel Peace Prize winner Wangari Muthai, dozens of Olympic Medal holders, one of the highest literacy rates in Africa, over a dozen public and private universities, and the largest non-oil, non-mineral economy in Africa.
Kenyans have accomplished a great deal over the course of the more than six decades since Jomo Kenyatta, the country’s first president, published Facing Mount Kenya. Kenyatta and his generation were pioneers in the anti-colonialism struggle that led to the era of majority rule, greater economic opportunity for Africans and the promise of a better future for all of the country’s citizens. Kenya also established a high standard for post colonial race relations by welcoming the continued presence of whites and Asians -- much as South Africa has done today.
As every person in this room knows well, Kenya has not always adhered to the democratic ideals and practical experience that guided its birth. And the current situation in Kenya highlights the country’s ongoing challenges to deepen its democracy and to make it meaningful to all of its citizens.
Seven years ago, while serving as Ambassador to Kenya, I witnessed the euphoria of the 2002 elections in that country, when current President Kibaki brought together a strong coalition of opposition parties to defeat the Kenya African National Union, which had ruled Kenya since independence, first as a one-party state, and later in a multiparty system. Many people thought President Moi would never leave, that KANU was invincible and that the opposition would never gain power in a peaceful and democratic election.
President Kibaki’s overwhelming victory proved otherwise. It was a time of great promise and excitement with high hopes that Kenya had entered a new political and economic era.
Yet, five years later, in the last election, the progress that was achieved by the advocates and supporters of democracy was seriously derailed and nearly destroyed. With great dismay and disappointment, Kenya’s friends around the world watched as the Kenyan Election Commission lost control of the electoral process and the December 2007 elections turned into a bitter political brawl and another deeply flawed African election. The post election violence that erupted in January and February of 2008 remains etched in the minds of many people. 1500 Kenyans were killed and over 300,000 people were displaced from their homes.
Many people had hoped that Kenya’s 2007 presidential elections would cement Kenya’s democratic progress and would provide a solid foundation for the country to break out of its economic doldrums and begin to achieve some of its enormous economic potential.
Instead, the 2007 elections brought trade and commerce to a halt, polarized the country along regional and ethnic lines and for a brief moment nearly brought the country to the edge of civil war.
The Kenya situation underscores the fact that while democracy has made significant gains around Africa, it remains fragile and subject to easy reversal even in relatively strong states like Kenya.
Kenya’s democratic health and stability, as well as its economic vitality and success are important to the United States. Kenya continues to be our most significant strategic partner in East Africa. We have real security, economic, and political reasons for wanting Kenya and the rest of East African region to succeed and flourish.
Kenya has the region’s largest economy and is the engine for growth in the East African Community. It is an important transportation hub for all of its neighboring states, including most of the Eastern Congo, and it is a regional center for banking, industry, agriculture and telecommunications. Nairobi is also the headquarters of the largest UN regional headquarters in the southern hemisphere and also the home of the largest U.S. embassy south of the Sahara.
Kenya also faces some major security challenges. It has a five hundred mile border with Africa’s most volatile and unstable state --- Somalia. Somalia’s ongoing instability has sent close to 300,000 Somali refugees across the border into Kenya’s northern frontier district. What happens in Kenya has repercussions throughout the region.
The after effects of Kenya’s post election violence – combined with the global financial crisis and the country’s ongoing series of droughts – have had a negative impact on Kenya’s economy. Tourism revenue has decreased sharply over the past two years and demand for Kenya’s exports has dropped as a result of the global downturn. Kenya’s strong seven percent real GDP growth in 2007, the highest rate in 30 years, has declined to 1.7 percent in 2008 and in 2009, the outlook is not promising. Kenya’s relatively high population growth continues to outstrip and undermine its economic gains.
Former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan played a singularly important role in preventing Kenya from sliding over the brink into civil war and in ending the country’s Kenya’s post-election violence. The elaborate political agreement that Kofi Annan forged with the two competing parties resulted in the creation of a coalition government. Although Kenya’s new coalition government has been in office since April 2008, the pace of the political reforms proposed by Kofi Annan under Agenda Item Four has been slow and uncertain. Work by an expert committee to draft a new constitution is clearly underway but it remains to be seen whether the resulting draft will be accepted or rejected by Parliament or whether it will lead to another political crisis like the one that preceded the breakup of the first Kibaki coalition and which led to a highly contested constitutional referendum.
One area where the government has made some progress has been in the area of electoral reform. A new interim Election Commission has been established. It appears to be independent, well led and moving ahead in fulfilling its mandate. However, systemic electoral reform cannot be successfully completed until the country’s constitutional review process is passed through parliament.
Kenya also faces another big issue. It has to decide how it plans to deal with the individuals responsible for the violence that occurred after the 2007 presidential elections. Having identified the leading suspects, Kofi Annan gave the Kenyan Government two clear options. The Government could establish an independent court in Kenya to try the suspects or he would turn the names over to the ICC for investigation and prosecution. Although President Kibaki and Prime Minister Raila Odinga favor the establishment of a local tribunal, the parliament has rejected this idea once and may do so again. Kofi Annan has decided not to wait for a second parliamentary debate on this issue and has now turned over the names of the post-election violence perpetrators to the ICC. Kenya still has a chance to handle this issue internally, but much will depend on what the parliament decides to do. In principle, the United States believes that it is better to have a local tribunal to try people who committed crimes in the community in which they were committed, but we also believe such crimes should not go unpunished. In addition to the issues outlined by Kofi Annan, Kenya has four major impediments to putting its domestic house in order: --- Widespread corruption – which affects the country’s politics as well as its business life. --- A weak judiciary that undermines the rule of law; --- A partisan political gridlock that views politics as a zero sum game; and --- Growing lawlessness among the police. Corruption: Let me say more … corruption is killing Kenya. Over the past two decades, Kenya has endured two mega corruption scandals – the Goldenburg scandal of the early 1990’s in which nearly a billion dollars (one tenth of the country’s GDP at the time) was stolen and most recently in 2004 the Anglo Leasing scandal in which over a million dollars of government money was lost. During this same period, there have been dozens of lesser scams and scandals -- many involving senior government officials and politicians -- that have cost the Government of Kenya millions of dollars in taxpayer money. Under the watchful eye of Kenya’s long serving Attorney General – a man who has served loyally under President Kibaki and President Moi – not one, not one government official or serving politician has been successfully prosecuted for corruption in Kenya in two decades. Kenya’s six year old anti-corruption authority has demonstrated a similar success rate. Judiciary Kenya’s court system has also shown a willingness to play along with the Attorney General’s style of politics. On the rare occasions when corruption cases are presented to the courts, they are thrown out on procedural grounds or are allowed to die in a sea of judicial bureaucracy. In Kenya, there is a saying that sums up the public attitudes towards the nation’s courts: “Why hire a lawyer when you can buy a judge.” Partisan Political Gridlock The coalition government that was established following the post election violence has never really jelled or come together – despite the early good efforts of the country two top political leaders, President Kibaki and Prime Minister Raila Odinga. From the beginning, they worked hard and earnestly tried. And although political leaders from the two main parties have sat beside one another in parliament and in the cabinet, they have for the most part not set aside their bitterness, their personal rivalries and their regional interests. Many of the key political and constitutional issues - such as devolution of power, the structure of the executive branch, and the reduction of presidential powers – still divide the country’s key political blocs and leaders. Extrajudicial Killings The rise of extrajudicial killings has also put a damper on reform and the work of civil society groups in Kenya. It has also contributed to the unease that some Kenyans feel about the country’s political institutions and the prospects for additional democratic progress. Over the past two years various human rights groups and political leaders estimate that hundreds of extrajudicial killings have taken place in Kenya -- some of them carried out against civil society leaders investigating government corruption and police misconduct. Several leading politicians have accused elements inside the Kenyan police of being behind many of the killings and abductions. With parts of civil society intimidated and silenced, the number of Kenyans willing to speak out against corruption, judicial malfeasance, and partisan political gridlock diminishes. Kenya’s prospects for renewed growth and ultimate prosperity will depend a lot on the successful implementation of the long-term measures set out in the Kofi Annan mediated accord. Kenya’s leaders need to endorse constitutional reform that meaningfully addresses contentious issues, including executive power, judicial and police reform and land issues. We believe that police reform, from the top down, is crucial to restoring public confidence and combating systemic corruption, and that impunity for politically motivated violence and extrajudicial killings must be addressed seriously and swiftly. | ||
Kenya has failed to harness its full potential and runs the serious risk of falling backwards rather than surging forward. With a young and highly educated population facing greater unemployment and economic hardship, increasing inequality between rich and poor Kenyans, and growing demands on a shrinking supply of arable land, the social and economic demands on the country will undermine its stability and long term growth prospects. Regional insecurity emanating from its neighbor to the north will also add to the country’s political and economic burden.
To pull the vast majority of Kenyans out of poverty and fully realize the country’s vast economic potential, Kenya must develop strong democratic institutions, honest government, transparent and accountable leaders and a judicial system that works. In Accra, President Obama was clear, Africa does not need strong men, it needs strong institutions. Only with strengthened institutions will it have the chance to resume its role as the regional economic engine of the East African Community and promote itself and the region as a market for trade and investment. Kenyan leaders must see strengthening of internal institutions for democratic governance, not as something which the U. S. desires, but as a necessary foundation for long-term, stable growth, to provide better education, health services, and increased food production for Kenya’s citizens. Kenyan politicians must also abandon the notion that politics is a zero sum game — I win and you lose – and begin to make compromises and decisions that place the interest of the nation above their more narrow personal, partisan, and regional interests.
Secretary of State Clinton will visit Kenya on the occasion of the AGOA conference in early August. Although this is largely a trade and commercial event, she will use the occasion to reinforce the message that we view Kenya as an important and long standing regional partner. We value Kenya’s friendship and that we stand ready to help Kenya strengthen its democratic institutions, fight corruption, counter the rise in extrajudicial killings and to deal with some of its mounting socio-economic problems. As a friend, that’s what we should do, help. However, without improvement in these areas, Kenya’s ability to grow its economy and maintain its leadership in the front rank of African states will decline, and stability in the region will do so as well.
I will conclude where I began, with Kenya’s legacy in the struggle for independence and majority rule. Kenya’s struggle for majority rule was long and certainly often violent. Yet, at the end of the day, bold, courageous, political leadership by Kenyans brought about a national reconciliation that endured for decades. There is every reason to believe that once again, Kenyans can and will draw on this rich historical legacy of just reconciliation under the law and lead their country forward as an example, not only for Africa, but for the world. That is the objective of U.S. policy and we will be there to support Kenya with specific programs adapted to Kenya’s needs. Kenya is a magnificent country, a great friend of the United States, and its people deserve our support. Again, thank you for allowing me to address you today. I look forward to hearing any comments or answering any questions you may have.
Message: 4
From: U.S. Department of State <usstatebpa@subscriptions.fcg.gov>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 13:50:20 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Africa: Toward A Comprehensive Strategy For Sudan
Africa: Toward A Comprehensive Strategy For Sudan
Fri, 31 Jul 2009 13:40:15 -0500
Chairman Kerry, Ranking Member Lugar, Members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, thank you for the opportunity to be here today to discuss our strategic objectives in Sudan and to outline what we are doing to make them a reality.
Mr. Chairman, let me begin by acknowledging your leadership on these issues. We greatly appreciate your commitment to finding solutions to the many challenges confronting the people of Sudan. That commitment is widely shared by the members of this committee, including Senator Feingold, Chairman of the Africa Subcommittee, with whom I have recently met, and Senator Isakson, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee. We are especially grateful to you, Mr. Chairman, and Senators Corker and Isakson for participating in the State Department’s Forum for Supporters of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) which we held here in Washington last month. I will say more about those proceedings in a few moments, but I want to thank you now for your support.
The great human tragedies that have occurred in Darfur and the rest of Sudan are deeply embedded in our memories. Many people in Sudan suffer terribly from the pain and loss brought by conflict, , and it is these people who deserve our support.
We have made progress in recent months, but we have much work ahead. From my visits to Sudan, the region, and throughout the international community, I have found the challenges in Sudan to be complex and our timeline compressed. Because of the complicated nature and urgency of the tasks at hand, we have helped to craft a strategic approach that blends all elements on national power and a methodology that is integrated, comprehensive, and based on a policy of dialogue and engagement.
I want to take a moment to discuss our engagement. Engagement is not something we pursue for its own sake, and it is not about accommodating the status quo. Engagement does not mean the absence of pressure, or doling out incentives based on wishful thinking. On the contrary, it is about working to change conditions on the ground. Engagement means frank dialogue about what needs to be accomplished in the months ahead, how we can help make those accomplishments happen, how the bilateral relationship could improve if conditions on the ground transform, how the Government of Sudan could become even more isolated if it does not act now, and how we ensure that all parties are held accountable.
First let me tell you what we want to achieve. We want a country that is governed responsibly, justly, and democratically, a country that is at peace with itself and with its neighbors, that is economically viable, and a country that works together with the United States on common
interests. We want an inclusive and durable peace in Darfur. We want full implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement and a peaceful post-referendum period whether as a single, stable, and unified Sudan or a Sudan that divides peacefully and orderly into two separate states. We want only what is best for the Sudanese people.
This is our vision. Now let me tell you how we’re going to make it a reality. We are using diplomacy, defense, and development—all the elements of national power—to achieve our strategic objectives.
We are engaging directly with all of the relevant parties inside Sudan to bring peace and stability to the country. This includes the two main parties of the Government of National Unity (GNU)—the National Congress Party (NCP) and the Sudan Peoples’ Liberation Movement (SPLM), as well as other political parties and movements and civil society. We have traveled to the country three times since my appointment in March, and returned just a few days ago from our last trip. We were in Khartoum to facilitate trilateral talks to advance timely implementation of the CPA and in Darfur to review our progress on facilitating humanitarian assistance and to promote the Doha peace process. I visited several camps for internally displaced persons, met with camp leaders, and saw firsthand the day-to-day struggles these Darfuris must face. Ultimately, the Government of Sudan must be accountable to its people and bear responsibility for peace within Sudan’s borders.
To achieve our goals, we must also engage with Sudan’s neighbors and the international community. This is why we have traveled around the world to Chad, China, Egypt, France, Libya, Norway, Qatar, and the United Kingdom to meet with key leaders who share our common concern and want to work together toward shared objectives. This is why, at the end of June, we convened the Forum for Supporters of the CPA here in Washington to bring together representatives from over 30 countries and international organizations to renew the global commitment to seeing a peaceful and stable Sudan. We are confident that this multilateral group will work closely together to achieve a lasting peace in Sudan by keeping Sudanese parties positively engaged in implementing the peace agreement and preparing for the future, increasing the capacity of the Government of Southern Sudan, and helping to keep all Sudanese government institutions accountable to their people.
We are dedicated to carrying this vision to success. I have built a team of sharp and dedicated individuals who, along with our colleagues based in Sudan, are working tirelessly to achieve our objectives. My role is to guide our vision, and I will do all that is in my power to see this vision come to fruition. I report regularly to President Obama and Secretary Clinton about our progress and have visited Congress to exchange views with you and a number of your colleagues. I look forward to speaking with many more of you in the weeks ahead. We are committed to working together as a strong and united team to achieve our objectives of a politically stable, physically secure, economically viable, and peaceful Sudan.
Now let me tell you more about the four pillars required to support this vision of Sudan. Most urgently, we want a definitive end to conflict and gross human rights abuses in Darfur and justice for its many victims. We can never forget the lives needlessly lost in the last five years, and the millions who continue to be displaced. As I witnessed last week, families still crowd into makeshift housing in IDP camps, women continue to gather firewood in fear, and children grow up without hope for a better tomorrow.
To resolve this humanitarian tragedy, we believe only a negotiated political settlement between the government of Sudan and all parties to the conflict will bring sustainable peace to Darfur. Our goal is to conclude an agreement that will allow people to go back to their home villages or a place of their choosing to resume their lives in safety, stability, self-sufficiency, and security.
Past peace negotiations have faltered, and we have learned from these experiences. We are collaborating with the African Union and United Nations joint chief mediator, Djibrill Bassolé, to ensure that the peace process is inclusive and that it adequately addresses the grievances of the people of Darfur. We are engaging with the fragmented movements in Darfur to help them unite and to bring them to the peace table with one voice. We are working with Libya and Egypt to end the proxy war between Chad and Sudan that has ignited further conflict. We are supporting the full deployment of the African Union-United Nations Mission in Darfur (UNAMID) as a critical mechanism for protecting Darfuri civilians. We are determined to work toward a peaceful Darfur where displaced families can resettle and reestablish their homes. We must act without delay—innocent Darfuris have suffered for too long.
Our second pillar focuses on sustaining peace between the North and the South. In January 2005, the Government of Sudan and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement signed the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, ending a 22-year war. Four and a half years after the signing of the CPA, peace remains fragile. In just eight months, Sudan will hold national elections in April 2010 and referenda in Southern Sudan and the Abyei region beginning nine months later in January 2011. Our timeline is so very short; it is urgent that we act now to support the full implementation of the CPA.
This will not be easy. Just over a week ago, the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague announced its arbitration decision on the Abyei border delineation—a highly sensitive and emotional issue for both parties to the CPA. Before the boundary decision was handed down, we spent a significant amount of time with the parties, working to ensure the decision would be accepted and fully implemented. Tensions in Abyei remain high and the international community must continue to be vigilant. As we have seen before in that area, tensions between the Ngok Dinka and Misseriya can quickly erupt into violence, resulting in a conflict that could bring the SPLM and NCP into direct confrontation and threaten to derail the CPA.
We will also need to continue support for the UN Mission in Sudan, help the parties prepare for elections in April, and ensure legitimate popular consultations in Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile states. Collectively, we must assist the parties as they prepare for the January 2011 referenda and their consequences. These are just a few of the major challenges ahead as we help the parties implement the remaining milestones in the CPA.
It is critical that we work with the parties to begin the process of democratic transformation and decentralization, so that in January 2011, the voices of the people of Southern Sudan will be heard and we can witness a unified and peaceful Sudan or a Sudan that is on an orderly path toward becoming two separate and viable states at peace with each other. Resolving the issues of North and South is critical to tackling challenges in Darfur and other parts of the country. These twin challenges must be addressed with equal attention and vigor.
The third pillar calls for a functioning and stable Sudanese Government, and one that will either include a capable Government of Southern Sudan or coexist peacefully with an independent southern Sudan. Our strategy seeks to help the South improve its security capacity to defend against external and internal threats while striving to ensure a potentially independent Southern Sudan is politically and economically viable.
Our fourth and final pillar is to seek increased and enhanced cooperation with the Sudanese government to counter terrorism and to promote regional security, consistent with—and not at the expense of—our overall objectives of peace and security in Sudan. We also seek an end to Sudan’s efforts to weaken or marginalize opponents abroad or align with negative state and non-state actors.
Our whole-of-government approach is integrated and comprehensive. It is firmly founded in the belief that engagement with all of Sudan, the region, the international community, and civil society is essential if we are to secure our vision of a Sudan that is ruled more justly and democratically, is at peace with itself and with its neighbors, is economically viable, and works together with the United States on our shared interests. Further, our strategy is deeply rooted in a conviction that we must do all we can to end the human suffering in Sudan.
As you can see, we are aiming high, thinking big, and expecting much. We do so because we believe innovative concepts and ideas, coupled with detailed planning and sufficient resources, are the only way to achieve big results. Big results are exactly what we need in Sudan at this critical moment.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I would like to thank you for your leadership and support on efforts to end the suffering in Darfur and the rest of Sudan. Again, thank you for allowing me to be here today to discuss these issues that are so important to us all, and especially to the Sudanese people.
Message: 5
From: U.S. Department of State <usstatebpa@subscriptions.fcg.gov>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 17:20:26 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Africa: Daily Press Briefing - July 31
Africa: Daily Press Briefing - July 31
Fri, 31 Jul 2009 17:08:29 -0500
Daily Press Briefing
DEPARTMENT | |
| Secretary Meeting with Swiss Federal Councilor Calmy-Rey | |
| Secretary Meeting with Saudi Foreign Minister al-Faisal | |
| Secretary Meeting with President of the Philippines Macapagal-Arroyo | |
| SUDAN | |
| Ongoing Comprehensive Policy Review on Sudan | |
| Sudan is on State Sponsor of Terrorism List / Legal Process to Remove from List | |
| President Has Said That Genocide Has Taken Place in Darfur | |
| Focus is Not on Definitions, But the Dire Situation of the People of Darfur | |
| Future Hinges on Comprehensive Peace Agreement | |
| U.S. Reviewing All Issues Related to Sudan / Constantly Re-evaluating Terrorism List | |
| Special Envoy Gration Will Play a Critical Role in Policy Review | |
| President Has Not Yet Made Final Decisions | |
| NORTH KOREA | |
| Always Reviewing Countries of Concern / Currently Not on Terrorism List | |
| U.S. Willingness to Engage if North Korea Returns to Six-Party Process | |
| Not Sure Mainichi Report re: Invitation to Pyongyong is True | |
SWITZERLAND | |
| Details of UBS Settlement Still Being Negotiated / Refer to Department of Justice | |
| Useful for Ministers to Meet as Hearing Was Taking Place, Regardless of Outcome | |
| Secretary and Calmy-Rey Pleased a Settlement Was Reached, Awaiting Details | |
| Settlement Removes a Potential Complication in U.S.-Swiss Relations | |
| MIDDLE EAST | |
| Meshal's Terms Fall Short of Quartet Principles | |
| Meshal Can Take Other Actions as a Positive Step / Ceasefire / Gilad Shalit | |
| Mitchell Has Impressed on All Parties What They Have to Do | |
CHINA | |
| U.S. Raised Xinjiang Incident Among Other Human Rights Issues at S&ED | |
| Issue is Within Chinese Population, But China's Reaction is of Interest to U.S. | |
| U.S. Concerns about China's Willingness to Accept the Rights of its Citizens | |
| U.S. Does Not Hesitate to Tell China Our Concerns | |
| S&ED about Expanding Relationship / U.S. Reserves Right to Comment to China | |
SYRIA | |
| Mitchell's Trip to Damascus / Characterized Discussions as Constructive | |
| Existing Sanctions re: Commercial Activity in Syria / Exceptions Exist | |
NIGERIA | |
| Reports of Clashes in Northern Nigeria / Monitoring Situation Closely | |
| This Will Be a Subject of Secretary's Discussions During Upcoming Trip There | |
HONDURAS | |
| Arias' Mediation Efforts Continue / OAS Meeting in Washington Today | |
| Arias' Points Provide the Best Opportunity to Resolve the Situation | |
| U.S. Encourages Both Sides to Accept Terms | |
TRANSCRIPT:
1:22 p.m. EDT
MR. CROWLEY: A healthy crowd for a summer Friday afternoon. Welcome to your Department of State, home of diplomats and development experts who believe in summits, constructive dialogue, and both international and domestic beverages. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: (Inaudible) Italian espresso? (Laughter.)
MR. CROWLEY: Obviously, it is a busy day today for Secretary Clinton. As you saw, she met this morning with her counterpart from Switzerland, Federal Councilor Micheline Calmy-Rey. As you noted, they reflected on the tentative agreement that was reached in court this morning. But in their bilateral meeting, they talked about a number of issues – Iran, obviously. Switzerland is the protecting power for the United States in that country. They talked about the current dialogue between Turkey and Armenia, and they talked about the peace process. But the Secretary reflected on the great respect that we have for Switzerland and --
QUESTION: Which peace process?
MR. CROWLEY: The Mideast peace process. The Secretary reflected on the great respect that Americans have for Switzerland and the important role that it plays in a variety of mediation efforts around the world.
As we speak, the Secretary is meeting with Prince Saud al-Faisal, her counterpart from Saudi Arabia, and you’ll have the opportunity in about 45 minutes to ask questions of each of them. But I expect that during the meeting, obviously, the Middle East peace process will come up, I’m sure that Iran will come, and other issues in the bilateral relationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia.
And this evening, the Secretary will meet with President Arroyo of the Philippines, following up on a meeting that she had with President Obama yesterday. Clearly, the Philippines is one of the closest allies and partners that we have in the Asia Pacific region. But I’m sure that among the issues that will come up is various regional issues, counterterrorism, joint counterterrorism efforts. I wouldn't be surprised if Burma comes up in that meeting.
But what that, I’ll answer your questions.
QUESTION: Yesterday, on the Hill, the special envoy for Sudan said that there was no evidence to support the designation of Sudan as a state sponsor of terrorism, said that sanctions were hurting his ability to do his job and they weren’t effective. And I’m wondering, since the building didn’t have a reaction to this yesterday, I’m wondering what the reaction is today.
MR. CROWLEY: There is a comprehensive policy review that is going on regarding Sudan. Obviously, there are a number of issues attached to that. Obviously, the situation in Darfur is critically important, as is implementation of the Comprehensive North-South Peace Agreement, the resolution of which will fundamentally affect the future of Sudan. We have a number of bilateral issues with Sudan – obviously, terrorism being a crucial one. We have received improved counterterrorism cooperation with Sudan in recent years. So that process is ongoing, and I would expect it to be completed in the coming weeks.
QUESTION: Okay. Thinking back on your answer, I’m not sure you answered my question.
MR. CROWLEY: You made a detailed rundown of --
QUESTION: Well, here’s the – let me rephrase it then. Does the Administration agree with General Gration’s assessment?
MR. CROWLEY: Assessment?
QUESTION: Of – that the sanctions – that Sudan is not – that there’s no evidence that Sudan is a state sponsor of terrorism, as it is designated; that the sanctions are hurting his ability – his --
MR. CROWLEY: Okay. Well, on that issue, obviously, as we speak, Sudan is on the state sponsor of terrorism list. It was put on the state sponsor of terrorism list for a very good reason. There is a legal process that you have to go through, set legal criteria if there’s a decision to remove a country, any country, from a state sponsor of terrorism list. But I would just say that all issues attached to Sudan are part of this review, and this review is ongoing.
QUESTION: I’m still not getting the answer to my question. Does the Administration agree with what General Gration said yesterday on the Hill?
MR. CROWLEY: On what subject? I --
QUESTION: On what I just asked you about.
MR. CROWLEY: All right.
QUESTION: I mean --
MR. CROWLEY: This is harder than – let’s face it, this is --
QUESTION: He also said that it was a political decision to keep them on.
MR. CROWLEY: On the issue of whether Sudan is a state sponsor of terrorism, it’s on our list, it remains on our list. There’s a set process in law and – but where we have been with Sudan, where we are with Sudan, where we want to go with Sudan is all incorporated into this review. And it is ongoing, and we expect this review to be completed. At that point, I think the President, the Secretary will lay out where we’re going to go with Sudan going forward.
QUESTION: I’m sorry, I’m obviously dense because I don’t think you’re answering my question. I mean, I don’t see how you think that that’s an answer to the question.
MR. CROWLEY: Well --
QUESTION: Does the Administration agree with the remarks that General Gration made yesterday on the Hill?
MR. CROWLEY: Well, I mean, it was a detailed --
QUESTION: Or is he on his own?
MR. CROWLEY: I mean, what I’m having trouble with is, it was a very detailed testimony. It touched on a number of subjects in the relationship.
QUESTION: But I’m specifically asking you about the state sponsor of terrorism – him saying it’s a political decision to keep them on, him saying that there’s no evidence --
MR. CROWLEY: Well, all I can say is today, Sudan remains on the state sponsor of terrorism list. It was put there for very good reason. And there is a process that the government goes through if it – as it – I mean, we evaluate this all the time. We’re always evaluating a variety of countries in terms of the issue of terrorism.
QUESTION: I understand that. That’s fair.
MR. CROWLEY: And this is part of the ongoing review that is currently underway.
QUESTION: Well, what is part of the ongoing review?
QUESTION: Taking them off the list is part of the --
MR. CROWLEY: Yeah, we’re going – I mean, I can only repeat what I just said. There are a wide range of --
QUESTION: I am trying to get you to answer a specific question about whether General Gration is speaking for the Administration, or if he’s out on his own freelancing when he says things like that, as – particularly that it’s a political decision to keep them on the list, that there’s no evidence, and that the sanctions are hurting the ability – his ability to do his job.
MR. CROWLEY: Well, actually, there is a legal process that you have to go through.
QUESTION: I’m not interested in the process. I’m interested in you – the Administration’s response to his testimony.
MR. CROWLEY: I’m giving you the Administration’s response to his testimony, which is: Today, Sudan is on the state sponsor of terrorism list for a good reason, and today, there is no change to their --
QUESTION: So there’s a disagreement?
QUESTION: Where --
MR. CROWLEY: Go ahead.
QUESTION: Just to follow up, just to be specific, is this – is taking them off the state sponsors of terrorism list under part of the review? Is this what you’re looking at in great detail, number one? Number two, where do you stand on the genocide issue? Do you think genocide is taking place or not taking place?
MR. CROWLEY: On that second point, the President has said that genocide has taken place in Darfur. But as General Gration himself said yesterday, our focus is not on definitions. Our focus is right now on the dire situation that we see with the people of Darfur.
QUESTION: But why is your focus not on definitions? I mean, if genocide is taking place, that unleashes a whole gamut of responses. So what you’re saying is if the genocide has taken place – but you’re not sure whether it’s still taking place because you’re – this is all under review and you’re still thinking about it?
MR. CROWLEY: Well, what’s important here – I mean, in any kind of evaluation – and we’re going through an evaluation right now – we take stock of what has happened, we take stock of what is happening. And most important, we look forward – there are a number of critical relation – critical issues inherent in the relationship between the United States and Sudan.
The situation in Darfur is of critical importance and has been for some time. The future of the country hinges on implementation of the comprehensive peace agreement and the decision that will be made in the south in 2011 regarding its independence. This is – this relationship is not about any one thing. It’s about many, many things. Terrorism is a concern to us because of actions that Sudan has taken in the past, which is why – but as we are looking at our bilateral relationship and the other issues attached to that, we are reviewing all of these aspects, where Sudan stands in terms of combating terrorism. And our evaluation of that obviously can have an impact in future decisions.
QUESTION: So in other words, labeling what is happening as genocide would have an impact on how you move ahead with the North-South agreement, and that could jeopardize your chances of getting the government to really move ahead on the North-South agreement? Am I understanding this correctly? That’s why you have this linguistic problem?
MR. CROWLEY: As General Gration said yesterday, his focus is on the current situation in Sudan, the plight of the people of Sudan, which includes the plight of the people in Darfur, and what we can do – what the international community can do, and what the Government of Sudan must do to improve their situation.
QUESTION: But some people think that what you’re doing is you’re playing down the situation so that you can keep Khartoum happy so that you can get concessions from them in other areas, and that this is making the situation on the ground even worse, and that it’s – could be comparable, if this – to, you know, what happened, for example, in Rwanda-Burundi, for example, where the administration – the Clinton Administration took a very, very, very long time to label something as genocide and, in fact, didn’t act. So those kinds of accusations are going to, I would suspect, be thrown at you, as a top State --
MR. CROWLEY: Well, no. I would – again, let me go back and repeat what the President has said. The President has said that what occurred in Darfur – what has taken place in Darfur has been genocide, and we remain deeply concerned about that.
QUESTION: Let me just ask, again, the question: Is the Administration seriously looking at taking Sudan off the terrorism list as part of its review? I didn’t hear an answer to that.
MR. CROWLEY: It’s safe to say that we are currently reviewing all issues related to our relationship with Sudan and – as point one. Point two is that we are always looking at all countries in the world and making judgments on a continuing basis, based on intelligence, of what countries are – may be guilty of aiding and abetting acts of terrorism. And so on a continuing basis we’re not only evaluating countries that perhaps should be put on that list, we also on a continuing basis review countries that are on the list and where their performance has changed in any way. And Sudan is no different than what we do for all of the countries on that list on a continuing basis.
Yes.
QUESTION: Will you take the special envoy comments into consideration during this review?
MR. CROWLEY: I’m sorry. Try again?
QUESTION: Would you take the special envoy’s comments yesterday into consideration during this review?
MR. CROWLEY: Well, clearly, in a comprehensive, government-wide policy review, the special envoy for Sudan will play a critical role in that policy review. And then once the President makes specific decisions along with the Secretary of State, implementation of whatever policy is decided.
Yes.
QUESTION: Back to North Korea --
QUESTION: No, no, no. Can we – I need to stay on this. I’m sorry. I still am looking for an answer to my – is there any daylight between General Gration’s comments and the Administration’s thinking?
MR. CROWLEY: General Gration is the special envoy for Sudan.
QUESTION: Is he speaking for the Administration, or is he speaking on his own?
MR. CROWLEY: General Gration is a member in good standing with the Administration.
QUESTION: And he, in those comments yesterday, reflected the Administration’s current thinking on the situation in Sudan?
MR. CROWLEY: Well, again, and my caveat, Matt, is that there is a – General Gration spoke about issues that are a subject of the policy review, a review that is ongoing. So --
QUESTION: But the Administration’s current thinking is at odds with what he said.
MR. CROWLEY: Well, I would say that --
QUESTION: Is that correct?
MR. CROWLEY: -- it is safe to say on an issue as large and complex as Sudan, you may infer that different agencies, different individuals may agree broadly on many things, and may have differences of view on certain elements. In the Obama Administration, there is a very healthy interagency process. There are genuine debates that go on all the time within the Administration about very difficult and very challenging information.
The President has created an atmosphere that encourages debate. And in debate about complex issues, it is not unusual that different individuals and different agencies may come at an issue with different perspectives. That all is part of a valid and effective review process. Sudan is no different. I think you’ll have – you’ve reported similar issues when it comes to North Korea, Iran, other things.
There is a policy review going on. I’m sure within that policy review, certain elements of that are being debated, and it may well be that different individuals have different perspectives. But the policy review is ongoing. The President has not yet made final decisions on what we’re going to do with respect to Sudan. General Gration has been traveling extensively in the region, has had extensive consultations with the Government of Sudan and other governments that are focused on Sudan as well, and brings that perspective back to Washington, and that perspective informs what he says on the Hill and what he says to the President and what he says to the Secretary of State.
QUESTION: Okay. So in other words, what you’ve just said is that he is not speaking for the Administration. This is his own personal view.
MR. CROWLEY: Well, no, what I’m saying is General Gration is the special envoy for the Administration for Sudan, and he brings an important perspective to the ongoing debate about –
QUESTION: But he was talking about --
MR. CROWLEY: -- what we should do in the future with and about Sudan.
QUESTION: So his testimony then was his own perspective and not Administration policy?
MR. CROWLEY: I’ll try it again, which is there is an ongoing review. General Gration is part of that review. I think what you heard on the Hill was his current perspective on the current situation.
QUESTION: All right.
MR. CROWLEY: Whether that may or may not end up being exactly what the President and Secretary of State decide in terms of our policy approach to Sudan.
QUESTION: Okay.
QUESTION: What --
QUESTION: It’s crystal clear now. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: What about the North Korea? Does U.S. have any intention to list North Korea as a terrorist country again?
MR. CROWLEY: There is a – as I just said, there is a – we are always reviewing and evaluating countries of concern and their performance when it comes to terrorism. North Korea has been on the terrorism list in the past. It is currently not on the terrorism list, and there is a legal process that is required in statute whether you take a country off or when you put a country on. And as we’ve said, we continue to evaluate North Korea in light of its provocative acts.
QUESTION: Following on North Korea, P.J., can you give us any more clarity on whether the Administration would consider that invitation that the Japanese Mainichi Shimbun reported had been given to Bosworth and Sung Kim to come to Pyongyang to discuss the journalists?
MR. CROWLEY: I don’t know that I accept the premise of your question, but obviously, we have indicated a willingness to engage on North Korea if it comes back to the Six-Party process and ceases its provocative actions and --
QUESTION: No, this was different. Mainichi reported that – and I –you can tell us whether this is true or not. They reported that an invitation had specifically been issued by North Korea to those two gentlemen to come to Pyongyang specifically to discuss the journalists. Can you tell us if that invitation is true? And what was your reaction to the invitation, if it was?
MR. CROWLEY: I’m not sure that report is true.
Yes.
QUESTION: Can you talk – I’m Fawn Johnson from Dow Jones. I was just wondering if you could tell me about the meeting with the Swiss foreign minister this morning and any – elaborate in any detail about the forthcoming agreement between the Swiss and the United States on UBS.
MR. CROWLEY: Since the details of that potential settlement are still being negotiated, I think it would inappropriate for us to comment from here. But any other comment on that would come from the Department of Justice.
QUESTION: Was it mere coincidence that this settlement happened to be reached on the very morning that the Secretary and the Swiss foreign minister were meeting?
MR. CROWLEY: I think when the meeting was scheduled there was an understanding that it was scheduled proximate to a court hearing, and upon which a decision might be a go in one direction or the other. And clearly, whatever decision the parties reached would have an impact on the bilateral relationship between the United States and Switzerland, which meant that it was useful for the ministers to meet this morning as this court hearing was taking place so that they could compare notes regardless of what the outcome was.
QUESTION: And did they? Was this a large – a big topic of conversation? Or since the settlement has been announced already, was it just kind of something that was mentioned (inaudible)?
MR. CROWLEY: I think what the Secretary and the federal councilor said in private was largely what they said in public. They were pleased that a settlement had been reached and they reflected on the fact that details still need to be worked out, and then they quickly moved on to other subjects.
QUESTION: So it was not a major topic of conversation.
QUESTION: But is the Secretary confident that the agreement does eliminate the possibility of using Swiss Bank secrecy laws to evade U.S. taxes?
MR. CROWLEY: I’m not sure I understand the question. I’m sorry.
QUESTION: Based on the agreement so far, is the Secretary confident that the possibility of using Swiss banking laws to evade U.S. taxes has been eliminated?
MR. CROWLEY: Obviously, I think that she and the federal councilor were pleased that with the settlement and, perhaps, understandings about how to handle this issue in the future, that that would be a positive thing for both countries.
What we were facing was the prospect of a conflict between U.S. law, Swiss law, that that might in some way complicate a very strong bilateral relationship. And I think both the Secretary and the federal councilor were relieved that with this settlement it removes an issue that could have complicated our relations.
David.
QUESTION: The Hamas leader, Khaled Meshal, in Damascus had some seemingly conciliatory things to say about the United States and the peace process. And I’m wondering if that pleases the Administration.
MR. CROWLEY: I think we – the specific terms fall far short of the principles that have been outlined extensively and repeatedly by the Quartet. We will be focused on actions, not words. And the Quartet principles guide our approach to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process and anyone who wants to participate in that process. So if Mr. Meshal is prepared to renounce terror and violence, if he’s prepared to recognize Israel, if he’s prepared to accept previous agreements, including the Roadmap, then that would be a positive step.
In the intervening time, if he wants to actually take actions that can improve the situation in the Middle East, he can start by declaring a ceasefire and by releasing Gilad Shalit.
QUESTION: On another related issue, what would you say to the argument that the United States insistence on an absolute settlement freeze on the part of the Israelis has given Arab countries an excuse not to come up with the confidence-building measures that Mitchell has been seeking?
MR. CROWLEY: Well, I mean, it is fair to say that the issue of settlements has occupied the reporting on George Mitchell’s activity and our efforts to prepare the ground for resumption of negotiations. But in fact, George Mitchell, through his trip last week, which we detailed, has been impressing upon all of the parties in the Middle East what they have to do.
So is settlements a significant issue? Absolutely. Are there things that Palestinians have to do to create – to take on their responsibility to promote the peace process and return to negotiation? Absolutely.
The Secretary is currently meeting with her Saudi counterpart, and I’m sure that a message that she is passing on is the responsibility of other countries in the region to support a peace process. So there’s this perception that we’re leaning in one direction and not others. We’re leaning in all directions.
Yes.
QUESTION: Back on Tuesday --
QUESTION: Is that physically possible? (Laughter.) Some people say the Administration (inaudible).
MR. CROWLEY: We are applying equal pressure in all directions. Thank you, Matt.
Go ahead.
QUESTION: Yeah. Back on Tuesday, at the closing statements of the S&ED, the vice foreign minister of China said that in the process of the dialogue, the U.S. stated unequivocally that the Xinjiang incident was entirely a domestic Chinese issue. Can you substantiate that statement or --
MR. CROWLEY: As Secretary Clinton said in the press conference at the conclusion of the S&ED, we did raise this issue among a number of human rights concerns that we have, and that we encouraged China to resolve this issue in a transparent way and to do what it can to seek understanding and reconciliation while respecting differences within its population.
QUESTION: But did you specifically – did you specifically say what the vice foreign minister is saying, that it’s an internal Chinese issue, in addition to everything else the Secretary said?
MR. CROWLEY: Well, it is an issue within the population of China in that you have different – you have tensions within the Chinese population that has created conflict, and that conflict has led to significant deaths and injuries. But obviously, how China acts to resolve this tension is of interest to the United States and the rest of the international community.
QUESTION: But in the Chinese language and in their use of that word, “internal issue” in diplomacy, the way they use it at their podium at the foreign ministry, it has a very significant meaning. When the Chinese foreign ministry spokesman talks about this is an internal issue, he means it’s not for any other foreign country to stick their nose into and it’s for China to settle itself.
MR. CROWLEY: If that were a interpretation, I think we would disagree with that interpretation.
QUESTION: Just --
MR. CROWLEY: Yes.
QUESTION: -- on the same note, I mean, in those same comments, the minister said that he was pleased with the – I think his word was “moderate tone” that the United States has taken when commenting on this. You said that she expressed her concerns. Did she really press them on human rights in China?
MR. CROWLEY: Yes.
QUESTION: Or was – or maybe –
MR. CROWLEY: I mean --
QUESTION: Because, according to his tone, to hear his comments, she just mentioned it and then – and he was very pleased that she didn’t seem to press him on it.
MR. CROWLEY: Well, many details of what exactly happened and how this happened remain murky. That said, clearly there is continuing tension in Xinjiang in the Uighur population, Han population. We have genuine concern about the willingness of China to accept and encourage and protect the rights of all of its citizens, and that was, in that context, what the Secretary expressed to the Chinese during the meeting.
QUESTION: But she did say – or are you saying that she did not say this is an internal matter for the Chinese?
MR. CROWLEY: Well, I respect the fact that this – as the Secretary has said, we have concerns about China’s human rights performance. That has been part of our relationship going back a number of years. And we do not hesitate to tell China when we have – what we are concerned about and what we believe they need to do.
QUESTION: Right. But I guess the question is – you said the situation in Xinjiang remains murky. But what she told the vice foreign – the vice – whatever. What she told the Chinese should not be murky. And this use of the word, as Indira noted, I mean, the – this is a buzzword for the Chinese, an internal matter or an internal affair. And if she conceded – even if she only meant that obviously, this was taking place inside China, if she conceded that it was an internal affair, that means – that’s a huge step for the Chinese.
MR. CROWLEY: I wasn’t at the Chinese portion of the press conference, so I’m not in a position to parse what the vice premier[1] said. But from – all I can do is tell you, from a United States standpoint, we have – we reserve a right to comment to China. We respect China. The S&ED was about the expanding relationship, the overlapping interests that we have, the opportunities for cooperation that we have between the United States and China.
But it was a strategic and economic dialogue. In that strategic element, was human rights part of the discussion? It was an important part of the discussion. And we have and will continue to comment to China, our friends in China, when we believe that their actions are inconsistent with our values or international norms.
Yes.
QUESTION: Going back to her peace process, what kind of progress has Senator Mitchell achieved during his last trip to the Middle East? And what about the renewing of sanctions on Syria?
MR. CROWLEY: Well, obviously, the – Senator Mitchell visited Damascus on his last trip. His discussions with Damascus I think he characterized as constructive. I don’t have the precise language in front of me, but it touched on the peace process. It touched on bilateral issues. And there have been some reports – I think they might be a little bit too forward-leaning – in existing statute. There are sanctions in place with respect to commercial activity in Syria, but there are also opportunities for exceptions to those sanctions. And I can’t say the degree to which or if that was a part of the discussion.
QUESTION: There’s another event. Can we --
QUESTION: Yeah, I got one more question and then --
MR. CROWLEY: Yeah.
QUESTION: Do you have any comment on the situation in Nigeria, the detention and the ongoing violence, especially given the fact that Secretary Clinton will be there soon?
MR. CROWLEY: The Secretary will be there soon. Obviously, there have been reports of incidents, of clashes in northern Nigeria, and we are monitoring those – that situation closely. And I think what is happening in Nigeria will be a significant subject of her discussions with both the president and foreign minister of Nigeria while she’s there.
QUESTION: A quick question on Honduras?
MR. CROWLEY: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: You’re – are you concerned about the pace of the negotiations, particularly in light of Mr. Micheletti’s comments that under no circumstances will Zelaya be allowed to take possession of the government?
MR. CROWLEY: Well, the mediation efforts of President Arias continue. I would also say there are OAS meetings going on today here in Washington regarding the current situation in Honduras. We continue to believe that the agreement, or the points that President Arias have put forward provide the best opportunity to resolve the situation. We encourage both the de facto regime and President Zelaya to accept the terms that President Arias has laid out.
Ambassador Llorens saw President Zelaya yesterday in Nicaragua for an important meeting, but at this point, President Arias has put an effective plan on the table and we continue to encourage the two sides to accept it.
QUESTION: But do you oppose Micheletti’s flat comments like these, that under no circumstances will Zelaya be allowed to return?
MR. CROWLEY: Well, at various times in the last few days, you have heard conflicting reports. Our message to Micheletti and to Zelaya are clear: President Arias has put forward an effective resolution to the crisis, and we encourage both sides to accept it.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: Thank you.
(The briefing was concluded at 1:55 p.m.)
DPB # 128
# # #
Update your subscriptions, modify your password or e-mail address, or stop subscriptions at any time on your Subscriber Preferences Page. You will need to use your e-mail address to log in. If you have questions or problems with the subscription service, please contact support@govdelivery.com.
This service is provided to you at no charge by U.S. Department of State .
GovDelivery, Inc. sending on behalf of U.S. Department of State · 2210 C Street NW · Washington DC 20520 · 1-800-439-1420
No comments:
Post a Comment