The Secretary announces that President Obama has designated Rose Gottemoeller as the Acting Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security (T).  Acting Under Secretary Gottemoeller will remain in her role as Assistant Secretary for Arms Control, Verification and Compliance (AVC). As Acting Under Secretary, Gottemoeller will advise the Secretary on arms control, nonproliferation, and disarmament.

Ellen Tauscher is departing the T bureau.  She has agreed to serve part-time as the Secretary’s Special Envoy for Strategic Stability and Missile Defense.  Special Envoy Tauscher will work on strategic security issues in our relationship with the Russian Federation.
(end text)

ON-THE-RECORD BRIEFING

Ambassador Daniel Fried
On Recent Developments at Camp Ashraf

February 7, 2012
Via Teleconference

MR. TONER:  Thank you, and thanks to everyone for joining us on such relatively short notice.  Appreciate it.  Very happy to have here with us this morning Ambassador Dan Fried, who, as you know, has taken on the additional responsibility of being our special advisor on Camp Ashraf.  And he’s here today to update us on the status of the situation at Camp Ashraf as well as some details regarding the UN’s January 31st announcement that the facilities at former Camp Liberty now meet international humanitarian standards and are ready to receive the residents of Camp Ashraf.

Just a reminder before I hand the mike to Dan, this is an on-the-record call and Dan will say a few words, and then we’ll open it up to your questions.  So without further ado, Ambassador Fried.

AMBASSADOR FRIED:  Thanks, everyone, for joining.  The U.S. has – welcomed – the U.S. has and continues to welcome and support the peaceful temporary relocation and eventual permanent resettlement of the residents of Camp Ashraf in Iraq.  This was the heart of Secretary Clinton’s statement on December 25th last year.  Our purpose is humanitarian.  We welcomed the signing of the MOU last Christmas Day between the Iraqi Government and the UN.  This MOU charts a peaceful way forward.

Since the signing of that MOU, the Iraqi Government has worked to prepare a portion of former Camp Liberty, now called Camp Hurriya, to receive the first residents on a temporary basis, working in regular and close touch with the UN and the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad.  That work has made enough progress that the UN last week confirmed that the facilities and infrastructure at Hurriya are in accordance with international humanitarian standards.

The UN recommended that the Government of Iraq and the Ashraf residents discuss details of the first move to Hurriya.  Yesterday, an Iraqi representative met with the leadership of Camp Ashraf to discuss these details.  The UN was present as facilitator.  These discussions, according to all of our information, were businesslike and productive.

The United States welcomes this progress, and we look forward to the first residents moving from Camp Ashraf to Camp Hurriya in the immediate future.  In any move of this kind and in the early days, once people are settling into Hurriya, problems may arise, of course.  Patience, goodwill, and willingness to resolve logistical issues in a practical way will be critical.  The United States, through its Embassy in Baghdad and my office, will continue to support the reasonable, prompt resolution of issues that arise, cooperating with the UN and the Iraqi Government and in contact with the residents at former Camp Ashraf and, of course, Hurriya.

The residents of Camp Ashraf must make the decision to start this relocation process.  Camp Ashraf is no longer a viable home for them.  They have no secure future there.  On the other hand, the Government of Iraq has committed itself to the security of the people at Camp Hurriya and is aware that the United States expects it to fulfill its responsibilities.

The UN has committed itself to stationing monitors at Camp Hurriya on a round-the-clock basis.  In addition, as Secretary Clinton made clear in her statement, the U.S. will visit Hurriya on a regular and frequent basis.  Camp Hurriya is intended as a temporary transit facility to support the safe departure of former Camp Ashraf residents from Iraq.  In this regard, while the UN and the UNHCR are doing and will continue to do their part, governments in Europe and beyond and the United States must do our part as this process unfolds.

Once at Camp Hurriya, some people may decide to return to Iran, but on a voluntary basis only.  Several hundred already have in the past.  Others may have citizenship or valid residency status in third countries and should be able to return to their homes promptly.  Still others may qualify for refugee status under UNHCR’s mandate.  The residents who relocate to Camp Hurriya will need to be considered individually.  To make our own determination about any specific individual, the United States needs to know more about them, and such information can be obtained only after they move to Hurriya and participate in the UNHCR’s status determination process.

In short, it is time for the MEK to make the decision to start the move out of Camp Ashraf to Camp Liberty-Hurriya from where they can begin new lives outside of Iraq.  A peaceful solution, no matter what the circumstances, is the only acceptable solution, but it is time to move forward.

Now, with that, I’ll take your questions.  And – oh, I should add that the UN head of mission in Iraq Martin Kobler and I were in Europe late last week discussing all of these issues with the European Union, with European parliamentarians, and I met separately with the French Government to discuss the way ahead.  So this is an issue very much in motion.

So I’ll now take your questions.

MR. TONER:  Great.  Thanks, Dan.  And, Operator, you can go ahead and tee up the first question.

OPERATOR:  Yes, thank you.  If you would like to ask a question, press *1.  To withdraw your request, press *2.  One moment for the first question.

The first question comes from Matthew Lee of AP.  Your line is open.

QUESTION:  Hey, Dan.  Can I ask you what is prompting you to make this call today to tell the MEK that it’s now time?  Has there been some new development where they’ve indicated they’re stalling again?

AMBASSADOR FRIED:  I wouldn’t say that there’s a new development indicating stalling, but the reason I’m emphasizing this is because yesterday’s – last week’s determination by the UN that Camp Liberty was ready and yesterday’s practical discussions of the way ahead means that the time is now for the MEK to make its decision.  It’s got to move forward.  And it’s – all those who wish the residents of Ashraf a peaceful future outside of Iraq can help by encouraging the MEK to make the decision it needs to make.

QUESTION:  Okay.  But I thought – didn’t a limited number already move?

AMBASSADOR FRIED:  No.

QUESTION:  Or was that just an offer, that they said that some would –

AMBASSADOR FRIED:  That was an offer.

QUESTION:  It was an offer.

AMBASSADOR FRIED:  No one has moved from Camp Ashraf to Camp Liberty because Camp Liberty was not yet ready to receive.

QUESTION:  Oh, okay.

AMBASSADOR FRIED:  So this was not a case of stalling.  It was a case of the Iraqis having to get Camp Liberty up to speed.  It now is.  And that movement needs to start taking place.

QUESTION:  All right.  And who determined that it was okay, that it was habitable now?  The U.S.?

AMBASSADOR FRIED:  The UN.  Not –

QUESTION:  Not the envoy?

AMBASSADOR FRIED:  Now, the U.S. has looked at it also, but the determination was made by technical experts from the UNHCR.  The UN issued a statement last week, which is readily available, making clear that the infrastructure and facilities are now up to speed.

QUESTION:  Okay.  Thank you.

AMBASSADOR FRIED:  Sure.

MR. TONER:  Next question.

OPERATOR:  And I show no further questions at this time.

MR. TONER:  All right.  We’ll give it a couple of seconds, but – for you to weigh in if you’ve got any additional questions.

AMBASSADOR FRIED:  Well, I’ll take that as a sign that my presentation was comprehensive and answered all possible questions.

MR. TONER:  Very good.  Operator, last chance for our contestants.

OPERATOR:  We have a question from Ian Duncan*.  Go ahead.

MR. TONER:  Right.

QUESTION:  Hi, there.  I’m calling from the LA Times.  I just wondered to what extent the FTO designation hinders the U.S. role in the process and if there are any plans to change that designation.

AMBASSADOR FRIED:  My office is not part of the FTO designation process.  Obviously, I’m aware that that is a decision which the Secretary will make.  We are – our interest in a humanitarian solution for the people at Camp Ashraf is quite independent of that decision.  And we are able to move forward even now without that decision having been made.

QUESTION:  Okay.  Thanks very much.

OPERATOR:  Thank you.  Next question comes from Andrew Quinn with Reuters.  Go ahead.

QUESTION:  Hi.  I have a couple of quick questions.  One was:  I was wondering if there has been any agreement on the process of moving people.  I understand that there was some dispute over whether or not they’d be able to take their own vehicles, how they would get from Ashraf to Liberty.  Do you know if that has actually been resolved and how they would get from A to B?

And the second question is:  Earlier – last month, actually – and Mrs. Rajavi gave a speech in Paris where she said that the United States would hold full responsibility for all Ashraf members – for the safety of Ashraf members while they’re in Iraq.  Is that a responsibility that the United States is now willing to accept, given the status of Camp Liberty?  Thank you.

AMBASSADOR FRIED:  First, the issue of the organization of the convoys was, I understand, discussed yesterday in some detail between the Iraqi Government representative and the Camp Ashraf leadership.  I also understand that some good progress was made.  And that – we welcome that.  We welcome that.

With respect to the U.S. responsibility, Iraq is a sovereign country.  Iraq has the responsibility for the exercise of that sovereignty, and they know that a peaceful solution is the only acceptable one.  The U.S. is not the sovereign in Iraq.  We are doing our best, and we are committed to trying to support a peaceful relocation of the people at Ashraf over to Camp – old Camp Liberty, and then support the UNHR efforts to get them out of Camp Liberty and out of Iraq.  We’re going to try our best.

The responsibility for the next decision rests with the MEK.  They need – the Iraqi Government has done, so far, what it committed to do; that is, it’s got Camp Liberty up to speed.  The MEK and the residents of Ashraf, for their part, held a constructive set of discussions yesterday, and we welcome that.  And now the decision has to be theirs to start this process and to work with all of us so that the shared objective, shared by all the sides in this – the UN, the Iraqi Government, the people at Camp Ashraf – for a peaceful solution.  And the departure of these people from Iraq is up to them.  A peaceful solution is at hand, but they’ve got to take it.

MR. TONER:  Great.  Any more questions?

OPERATOR:  There are no further questions at this time.

MR. TONER:  Okay. Well, we’ll take that for a sign that you’re all fully briefed on this.  Anyway, thank you very much, all of you, for joining us today.  And thanks to Ambassador Fried for also taking time.

AMBASSADOR FRIED:  All right.  Well, thanks a lot, everybody.  And I’ll keep – I’ll – we can do this again when the news justifies it.

MR. TONER:  Great.  Thanks, all.

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson kicked off the conference with remarks at the Stanford Graduate School of Business.

By MacKenzie C. Babb
IIP Staff Writer
Washington,
06 February 2012

More than 400 global policymakers, development chiefs and technology leaders have gathered in California for a three-day conference to discuss using connection technologies, like the Web and mobile phones, to advance sustainable development in the fields of health, the environment, agriculture and economic growth.

The February 2–4 conference at Stanford University, “Rio+2.0: Bridging Connection Technologies and Sustainable Development,” was sponsored by the U.S. government in preparation for the upcoming United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

“As Rio+20, the 20th anniversary of the 1992 Earth Summit, approaches in June, we have a chance to learn lessons, build partnerships and put in place innovative strategies that can reshape the economic and environmental future of our entire planet,” Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson said February 3 during her conference keynote address. She added that the collaboration offers “the rarest of opportunities to truly change the world and make a difference that will benefit billions of people.”

Jackson called on participants at the conference to find creative ways to apply existing and cutting-edge technologies to advance sustainable development around the world.

She said communications technologies, such as the Internet, SMS and mobile phones, have proven effective in helping underserved communities around the world gain access to information, better jobs and an improved quality of life.

“In my travels as administrator, I have been to parts of the world where it seemed like everyone had access to a cellphone, but not everyone had access to clean water,” Jackson said. “The opportunities are there to use that technology to make a difference.”

She said connection technologies have the potential to bring together stakeholders from across the spectrum, helping governments, nongovernmental organizations, the private sector and individuals share information about sustainable development.

The administrator added that new technologies allow laws, regulations and compliance assistance to be made available on the Internet and on mobile phones and also simplify the process of reporting environmental violations and corrupt practices.

“Through broad public and private collaboration, made possible through new technology, we can show the world how to build 21st-century urban communities where the environment, health, social inclusion and economic prosperity all go hand in hand,” Jackson said.

She was joined at the conference by several State Department leaders, including Under Secretary of State for Economic Growth, Energy, and the Environment Robert Hormats; Assistant Secretary for Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs Kerri-Ann Jones; and Senior Advisor for Innovation Alec Ross.

Other U.S. government participants included Deputy Under Secretary of Agriculture for Research, Education and Economics Ann Bartuska; the U.S. Agency for International Development’s Senior Counselor and Chief Innovation Officer Maura O’Neill; and Chair of the White House Council on Environmental Quality Nancy Sutley.
(end text)

U.S. Department of State
Remarks by Michael H. Posner
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor
National Endowment for Democracy
Washington, DC
February 2, 2012

Thank you. It’s terrific to be invited by an organization I admire greatly, the National Endowment for Democracy, to speak about an issue that I care about deeply: Burma and its future.

I must say, though, that it’s a bit hard to come to the NED on the heels of the Secretary of State’s speech at the NDI annual dinner in December what I consider to be one of her finest speeches, on the future of democracy. If any of you missed that speech, I commend it to you.

I also want to thank the NED team that has played a leading role in promoting democracy and civil society in Burma for more than 20 years.

And I’d like to recognize the many other friends and colleagues here who have stood with the Burmese people for decades, both through their programs to promote democracy and their humanitarian work — the folks from the Open Society Institute, the Norwegian Burma Committee, DANIDA, the International Rescue Committee, and in fact every group here at the Burma Donor’s Forum and many, many more. I salute you all for your continued dedication to this important work.

Most of all, I want to honor the Burmese activists who have sacrificed so much to bring about the changes that we are here today to discuss.

Hindsight being 20-20, we can look back over the year 2011 and see that governments around the world have made choices that have profound effects on their people.

In Egypt, President Hosni Mubarak could not stand in the way of the winds of change that swept through Tahir Square, and the transition to democracy continues to move forward. And although we must expect many difficulties and even setbacks in every democratic transition, the Egyptian people are now charting their own future and seeking to build the kind of durable, inclusive democracy they deserve.

In Syria, Bashar al-Assad and his government made a different choice, attempting to cling to power. Since that decision more than 5,400 people, mostly peaceful demonstrators, have been killed by government security forces. This week we are continuing to work with the Arab League to shape an appropriate and effective international response at the UN Security Council, part of our effort to end this tragic chapter in Syrian history.

The news out of Burma has been much more hopeful, as the government has taken a series of actions to change course after years of isolation and human rights abuses. When I travelled there in December with Secretary Clinton, we saw the possibility of real democratic change that could eventually lead to a much brighter future for Burma.

The statements from Nawpidaw are certainly encouraging. At a dinner in Singapore on Monday night, President Thein Sein said, according to press reports, quote: “We want our people to take part in the democratic reform process and we want democracy to thrive in Myanmar. I wish to assure you that I shall endeavor to establish a healthy democracy in Myanmar.”

If the leaders continue on this path of democracy and openness, they will free all remaining political prisoners. They will hold fair elections on April 1, allow their people a genuine say in how they are to be governed, end restrictions on the media and the Internet, end the divisive ethnic conflicts, and begin to build a more integrated and peaceful society.

If they continue to pursue this path, they will end their international economic and political isolation, attract aid and investment, and be in a position to build a strong and inclusive economy that shares prosperity widely. Of course that won’t transform Burma overnight. But it will begin to build the kind of government Burma’s people deserve.

I come to speak with you today with great humility, because I am not a Burma expert, and I know that many of you have worked on Burma for years or decades.

I had not visited the country until last fall, when I went first with Special Envoy Derek Mitchell in November, and then again with Secretary Clinton in December. What I do bring to this discussion is experience with countries that are beginning down the long hard road towards democracy. And based on that experience I feel it is a rare privilege to be able to offer help to a country at such an important time.

But our engagement starts from a clear-eyed assessment of where there has been progress and what remains to be done. Let’s start with the progress. We have seen movement on at least three important fronts. First is the release of political prisoners. Since October, the government has released more than 500 political prisoners. That includes most of the highest-profile prisoners. Some of these people had spent decades in jail for nonviolent expression of their political views.

Min Ko Naing, for example, was an 88 Generation student leader who spent most of the last 15 years in jail. He was re-arrested for organizing peaceful walking demonstrations in Rangoon in 2007 and sentenced to 65 years. Sixty-five years. Last week he and four other freed 88 Generation leaders held a press conference in and promised to “support those who want to build justice, freedom and equality” in Myanmar.

There is U Kyaw Min, a Rohingya rights activist who was elected as a Minister of Parliament in 1990 but then sentenced to 47 years in 2005 after he met with an international delegation investigating forced labor in Burma. His wife, two daughters and son were also rounded up and sentenced to 17 years simply for being his family members. Today he is free. His wife and two daughters were also freed with him. His son, however, remains in jail.

And there is Hla Hla Win, a young journalist arrested while interviewing monks and community leaders on video. She was first charged with having an illegally imported motorcycle, then when she was discovered to be a journalist she was sentenced to an additional 20 years for violating the Electronics Act, which prohibits uploading or downloading data deemed damaging to security. She also was released last month.

President Obama applauded the releases of prisoners of conscience as “a crucial step in Burma’s democratic transformation and national reconciliation process.” These released prisoners—lawyers, journalists, bloggers, activists, ethnic and religious leaders—will be key in building Burma’s future.

A second area where the actions of the Burmese government are significant is the opening to greater debate and discussion of political issues. In the last year the government has engaged Aung San Suu Kyi in a substantive dialogue. It has amended electoral laws, allowing the National League for Democracy and other opposition parties to register as political parties and begin preparing for the April by-elections. It has begun to ease some restrictions on media and civil society, and is beginning to allow humanitarian access for the United Nations and NGOs to conflict areas.

A third, related area where the government has undertaken reforms is in building a stronger democratic foundation. Last year the government passed a new labor law that expands the rights of workers and will allow unions to become legal again for the first time since the 1970s. In December, the Parliament passed new legislation protecting the right of assembly.

We have heard reports that work on a revised press freedoms law is underway. And the government established a new Human Rights Commission.

But much remains to be done. Hundreds of political prisoners are still being held, and a number of the laws used to arrest and detain them remain on the books. Censorship has been relaxed—but the censorship board remains in place. NGOs are allowed to operate—but many have not been allowed to legally register.

Probably the most important and most difficult remaining challenge is the need to end violence in ethnic minority areas and to advance an inclusive, meaningful dialogue leading towards genuine national reconciliation.

The government has struck preliminary ceasefire agreements with the Shan State army and with the Karen National Union, which has been involved in one of the longest-running civil wars anywhere in the world. At the same time violence in Kachin State has worsened, with reports of serious human rights abuses and violations of international humanitarian law.

Ultimately the ethnic violence is rooted in political causes, and it will require negotiated political solutions on both sides to address the underlying grievances.

In the coming months and years we must steel ourselves for challenges that will inevitably come with this transition. Over the years, it’s my observation that when ossified societies begin to loosen up, the process is neither smooth nor linear.

That is why this Administration is committed to a long-term engagement, one that both continues to push for reform and change, while at the same time offering encouragement and support.

As Secretary Clinton said, “The United States will meet action with action.” In response to the January 13 prisoner release, Secretary Clinton announced that we will exchange ambassadors. In a step-by-step fashion, we hope to build a relationship based on mutual respect and tangible progress on the issues that matter most to improving the daily lives of people.

Where Burma goes from here will depend on the political will of its leaders and the willingness of the government’s opponents to engage. And this political will needs to flow from two directions – from the top down, and from the bottom up.

The President and his advisors have created a kind of top-down reform process that has pushed through initiatives at a rapid pace. And this is to their credit. These changes have opened political space. But opening the political space doesn’t bring meaningful change unless people move into that space and start to use it.

It’s like an empty house. If the house is in bad shape, you may have to shore up the roof and hang some drywall before you can even move in. Then you need to bring in some furniture, move in, hang pictures that express your vision of what a home should look like, and invite a bunch of friends over for dinner, or plant a garden. Then that empty house starts to become a home.

To make Burma a home for all of its people requires broad, grassroots engagement by the widest possible range of politically active citizens. Ethnic leaders and bloggers. Lawyers defending clients. Lawmakers writing new media freedom laws. Factory workers forming unions and negotiating for better conditions and higher pay. Human rights advocates working with local powerbrokers to stop forced labor. NGOs working to bring child soldiers home.

All of these groups will need to push for structural changes from the bottom up, at the same time as the political leadership works to push reform from the top down.

I don’t know where those two forces meet. It’s not for us to say. It’s up to the Burmese to find the place where the two sides meet, to build trust on both sides, and to negotiate a space where they can coexist peacefully. That process is how durable, systemic change begins.

So the project of reforming the system from within is immense. It will require both political will from the top down and dynamism from the bottom up. Those who have profited from power in every country are often resistant to sharing it, and thus a backlash is always possible.

I’ve been accused of irrational optimism. But I do believe there is reason to be optimistic. That doesn’t mean that we assume everything is going to work or that we rush our engagement faster than reforms warrant. But it does mean that we reconsider long held assumptions; recognize the dynamic change that is occurring, and seize the opportunities to support the people, and especially politically active civil society, to pursue real, sustainable reforms from within.

And frankly there is another reason why my optimism isn’t irrational. Her name is Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. Her country is fortunate to have a leader of her principles and her caliber to inspire and guide it through these tumultuous times.

On my last visit, I was struck by the warmth and the welcome given the Secretary.

The crowds who lined the streets for miles to welcome her.

The beautiful hug she got from Daw Aung San Suu Kyi.

The man who took an American official’s hands at the airport and said with tears in his eyes, “Thank you for coming to our country.”

The desire, expressed to us by so many Burmese, to rejoin the world – and not just the international banking system, but the international community.

Change is never guaranteed, but there is an appetite for change. And I know that all of you continue to work extremely hard to be part of it.

So I will stop here and am happy to answer your questions. Thank you.

STATEMENT BY SECRETARY CLINTON
International Day of Zero Tolerance to Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting

(end text)

Syrians in neighboring Turkey protest against the Assad regime. The U.S. is concerned that the lack of a political process is increasing the chances of a brutal civil war.

By Stephen Kaufman
IIP Staff Writer
Washington,
February 2012

U.S. officials warned that in light of the United Nations Security Council’s failure to support a proposed political solution by the Arab League to end the violence in Syria, the country faces an increased risk of civil war.

Senior Obama administration officials added that the United States will continue to work with the international community outside the United Nations and use diplomatic and economic pressure in response to the Syrian government’s brutality against its people and in support of a peaceful political transition in the country.

Speaking in Bulgaria February 5, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said the United States and others in the Security Council who voted in support of the Arab League’s proposal had hoped it would start political engagement inside the country that would lead to a transition after nearly one year of protests in which at least 5,400 Syrian civilians have been killed by Bashar al-Assad’s regime.

Clinton said it should not be a surprise that many Syrians are moving to defend themselves against their government, and she said the U.N.’s failure to approve a political process will “increase the chances for a brutal civil war.”

The Arab League plan called for an end to the violence and the release of political prisoners. It also called for Assad to delegate power to the Syrian vice president and allow the creation of a national government of unity. However, in a 13–2 vote on February 4, China and Russia exercised their Security Council vetoes and prevented the measure from being adopted.

“Faced with a neutered Security Council, we have to redouble our efforts outside of the United Nations with those allies and partners who support the Syrian people’s right to have a better future,” Clinton said, by using diplomatic pressure as well as a full implementation of regional and national sanctions to “dry up the sources of funding and the arms shipments that are keeping the regime’s war machine going.”

“We will work to expose those who are still funding the regime and sending them weapons that are used against defenseless Syrians, including women and children. And we will work with the friends of a democratic Syria around the world to support the opposition’s peaceful political plans for change,” she said, as well as to try to provide humanitarian relief.

At the White House, press secretary Jay Carney told reporters February 6 that despite the U.S. disappointment over the U.N. vote, pressure on Assad and his regime is continuing to intensify.

“He has dwindling financial resources. He has dwindling access to what he needs to continue to govern. His regime has lost control of parts of the country. There are a number of indications of the desire to depart from the regime by senior Syrian government and military officials. These are telltale signs that Assad’s future is very limited at best,” he said.

Carney said that although U.S. officials “take no options off the table” in their response to the ongoing violence, “the right solution in Syria is a political solution. And there remains an opportunity for that to be achieved, for that transition to democracy to take place.”

U.S. SUSPENDS EMBASSY OPERATIONS IN DAMASCUS

State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland announced that, because of the Assad regime’s failure to adequately respond to U.S. security concerns over the safety of its diplomatic personnel, the United States had suspended its embassy’s operations in Damascus.

“Our concern is that the situation in and around Damascus is becoming increasingly violent, reflecting the fact that the regime is increasingly losing control of the situation because it itself has resorted to violence rather than dialogue with its own people,” she said February 6.

Nuland said Robert Ford has left Damascus and will be returning to Washington, but that he remains the U.S. ambassador to Syria.

She said Ford and other U.S. officials will maintain their contacts with the Syrian people and especially with the Syrian opposition “so that we can make sure that the Syrian people know that we stand with them and their desire for a democratic future.”

MORE COVERAGE

Statement by Victoria Nuland, Spokesperson
February 6, 2012 

The United States has suspended operations of our Embassy in Damascus as of February 6.  Ambassador Ford and all American personnel have now departed the country.

The recent surge in violence, including bombings in Damascus on December 23 and January 6, has raised serious concerns that our Embassy is not sufficiently protected from armed attack.  We, along with several other diplomatic missions, conveyed our security concerns to the Syrian government but the regime failed to respond adequately.

Ambassador Ford has left Damascus but he remains the United States Ambassador to Syria and its people.  As the President’s representative, he will continue his work and engagement with the Syrian people as head of our Syria team in Washington.  Together with other senior U.S. officials, Ambassador Ford will maintain contacts with the Syrian opposition and continue our efforts to support the peaceful political transition which the Syrian people have so bravely sought.

As the Secretary told the Security Council on January 31, we continue to be gravely concerned by the escalation of violence in Syria caused by the regime’s blatant defiance of its commitments to the action plan it agreed to with the Arab League.  The deteriorating security situation that led to the suspension of our diplomatic operations makes clear once more the dangerous path Assad has chosen and the regime’s inability to fully control Syria.  It also underscores the urgent need for the international community to act without delay to support the Arab League’s transition plan before the regime’s escalating violence puts a political solution out of reach and further jeopardizes regional peace and security.

###

“The basic objective of the trade mission is to make significant progress on increasing U.S. private-sector investment in power infrastructure projects that have the potential to increase overall development in these countries by significantly reducing the cost of doing business,” Jim Wilson, senior coordinator for trade promotion and commercial policy in the department’s Bureau of African Affairs, said in a recent interview.

The trade mission specifically hopes to determine “if U.S. power developers would be able to invest in generating facilities and fuel supply that help address the needs in Africa for reliable, affordable electricity,” Wilson said.

The February 6–17 trade mission is being led by Assistant Secretary of State Johnnie Carson. The trip will include a brief stop in Kenya. The Corporate Council on Africa is co-sponsoring the mission.

Wilson said that a trade mission of this type is important because of the huge “constraints that the lack of reliable electricity place on African development. It’s almost like a tax that is paid where companies in Nigeria or Mozambique either can’t get reliable power or have to pay a very high price with backup generators and expensive diesel fuel to be able to have security of supply.”

If African businesses could have access to power as companies in the United States and Britain do, they could produce products that would be more affordable for local markets and for export abroad, he said.

Each country selected for this trade mission presents significant opportunities for investment in electric power. The four governments have all been taking measures to make the regulatory and legal environments in their nations more attractive to private investors, Wilson said.

“It’s not easy for a private company to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in a project that is going to have a 20-year-plus life cycle,” Wilson said. “And there are political sensitivities everywhere to prices for basic public services like electricity, for example.”

Past impediments to energy-infrastructure development by the private sector in Africa have included uncertain legal and regulatory regimes, inconsistent support of production costs that was reflected in mandated electricity prices, and the insufficient availability of long-term financing from U.S. banks.

This trade mission aims to bring companies “to take a look again at the changing environment in Africa, see the improvements, see what’s now possible to do that might not have been possible to do two years ago or five years ago,” Wilson said.

Wilson said the State Department established specific criteria for participation by potential private investors: “The companies needed to be in a position to move forward with investments in energy infrastructure in Africa, whether they be investments in the power-generation sector, which most of the companies are, or fuel supply, which is another important requirement for meeting the challenge of providing reliable, affordable electricity for Africa.”

Wilson added that there are several other African nations that the delegation would like to have included on this mission, but there is insufficient time.

Joining Carson in the U.S. delegation are representatives of Anadarko Petroleum, Caterpillar, Chevron, Energy International, General Electric, Pike Enterprises, Strategic Urban Development Alliance LLC, Symbion and Zanbato Group.

In addition, Wanda Felton, vice chair of the U.S. Export-Import Bank, and representatives from the U.S. Trade and Development Agency and the State Department’s Bureau of Energy Resources will participate in the mission.

(end text)

Secretary Clinton Adressing the UN Security Council Special Session on Syria (click on the photo to watch the video)

Remarks