Обама в ООН: “Идеята да се контролира потока от информация е остаряла”

идеята да се контролира потока от информация е остаряла

Президентът на САЩ Барак Обама изнесе реч пред Генералната асамблея на ООН в Ню Йорк:

“Когато всеки с мобилен телефон може да изпрати обидни мнения по целия свят с натискането на един бутон, идеята да се контролира потока от информация е остаряла”

“Аз приемам хората да казват ужасни неща за мен всеки ден и аз винаги ще защитавам правата им да го правят

“Все още има време за дипломатическо разрешаване на кризата с ядрената програма на Иран, но времето не е безгранично”

В Сирия бъдещето не трябва да принадлежи на диктатор, който избива своя народ”

“Ние трябва да говорим честно за по-дълбоките причини на тази криза, защото сме изправени пред избора между силите, които ни разделят и надеждите, които ни крепят като цяло. Днес трябва да потвърдим, че нашето бъдеще ще се определя от хора като Крис Стивънс (загиналият в Либия американски посланик, б.р.) и не от тези като неговите убийци.”

 “Задължение е на всички лидери да говорят срещу насилието и екстремизма”

25 септември 2012г. Президентът Барак Обама изнесе реч пред Генералната асамблея на ООН в Ню Йорк. Обръщението на Обама се състоя в Главната квартира на световната организация, където днес започна годишният Общ дебат в Общото събрание на ООН.

Това се случва само шест седмици преди президентските избори в САЩ. Очаква се Обама да не присъства постоянно на срещите в ООН, тъй като трябва да участва в сряда в предизборна кампания в Охайо.

Президентът на 67-та сесия на Общото събрание Вук Йеремич избра темата за тазгодишния дебат: “Уреждане или решаване на международни спорове или ситуации чрез мирни средства“, който ще продължи от 25 септември до 1 октомври 2012г.

Несигурността, несправедливостта и нетолерантността са главни заплахи за глобалния мир, предупреди генералният секретар на ООН Бан Ки-мун в реч, с която откри общополитическите дебати на 67-ата годишна сесия на Общото събрание на световната организация, предадоха световните агенции. “Хората искат реални действия и прогрес,” каза Ки-мун.

Президентът на Франция Франсоа Оланд призова ООН да защити „освободените зони” под контрола на сирийската опозиция и заяви, че Франция няма да приеме отхвърлянето на исканията на ООН към Иран. Оланд подчерта, че Сирия е основният международен спешен случай.

По-късно днес и българският президент Росен Плевнелиев направи изказване, в което осъди скорошните актове на насилие, извършени в името на религиозни убеждения, “натисна” Сирия и Иран, спомена конфликта Израел-Палестина и даде за пример традициите на толерантност и диалог между етническите и религиозните общности в българското общество. Президентът потвърди и подкрепата на България за кандидатурата на сънародничката ни Ирина Бокова за втори мандат като генерален директор на ЮНЕСКО. /Подробно четете за цялото изказване в друга статия: Президентът Плевнелиев в ООН потвърди Обама и даде България за пример, още за дипломатическата работа на американското правителство на 25 септември ще намерите в Коментари под тази статия/

В речта си пред ООН Президентът Барак Обама заяви,

че САЩ ще направят каквото е необходимо, за да се спре Иран да се сдобие с атомно оръжие.

Не се заблуждавайте: ядрен Иран не е предизвикателство, което може да бъде въздържано. То би застрашило премахването на Израел, сигурността на Персийските държави и стабилността на глобалната икономика. Това рискува да предизвика ядрена надпревара в региона, както и да не се спазва Договорът за неразпространение на ядреното оръжие. Ето защо коалиция от страни държи иранското правителство отговорно. САЩ ще направят това, което е нужно, за да попречат на Иран да се сдобие с ядрено оръжие“, заяви Обама.

Американският президент подчерта, че все още има време за дипломатическо разрешаване на кризата с ядрената програма на Иран, но„времето не е безгранично”.

Уважаваме правото на нациите да имат достъп до мирна ядрена енергетика, но една от целите на ООН да се види, че ние използваме тази енергия за мир“, допълни той.

В Иран виждаме къде води пътят на насилието и необяснимите идеологии. Иранският народ е изключителен, с антична история. Много иранци желаят мир и просперитет със съседите си. Но точно като ограничава правата на собствения си народ, иранското правителство подкрепя диктатурата в Дамаск и терористичните групировки в чужбина“, заяви Обама, допълвайки, че Иран не успя както преди, така и сега да докаже, че ядрената програма е мирна и да изпълни задълженията към ООН.

ПРИПОМНЯМЕ: Преди 12 дни на 13 септември 2012г. Ню Йорк Таймс публикува статия под заглавие “Обама отказа на Натаняху за “червената линия в Иран”. Преди един ден на 23 септември 2012г. в предаването “60 минути” на Си Би Ес Президентът на САЩ Барак Обама заяви пред журналиста Стийв Крофт, че възприема израелския натиск върху него да очертае червена линия за ядрените амбиции на Иран като шум, като заяви в пряк текст, че “ще блокира всеки шум от там” и че “чувства не натиск, а задължение да бъде в близки консултации с Израел, защото това дълбоко ги наранява” и те са едни от най-близките ни подръжници в региона.”. Израелският министър-председател Бенямин Нетаняху призова Вашингтон да постави червена линия за ядрената програма на Техеран, зад която САЩ ще бъдат принудени да предприемат действия. ИЗТОЧНИЦИ: Obama Rebuffs Netanyahu on Nuclear ‘Red Line’ for Iran -NYTimesObama Calls Red Line for Iran ‘Noise’ to ‘Block Out’ on CBS 60Campaign 2012: Obama vs. Romney – CBS News

Обама ясно изрази позицията си за съществуването на двете държави във вечен конфликт Палестина и Израел (създ.1948г.), като заяви, че “Пътят е труден, но крайната цел е ясна – сигурна еврейска държава Израел и независима, просперираща Палестина “, заяви Обама.

Мнението на американския президент бе подкрепено и в изказването на Ген. секретар на ООН Ки-Мун, който категорично заяви, че Палестинските територии трябва да бъдат в състояние да реализират правото си на жизнеспособна собствена държава.” “Двудържавно решение е единствената устойчива опция,” каза Ки-Мун.

/бел.ред. Палестина все още не е държава. Политическият й статут е предмет на дългогодишни остри спорове. В различни точки на света терминът „Палестина“ се тълкува по различен начин. Вижте какъв е статутът на този линк: Палестинска автономия. Закон на САЩ, приет през 1991 г. с цел да се избегне проблемна ситуация, забранява финансирането на организацията на ООН, която приеме не-държава като пълноправен член, в следствие на което САЩ не може да прави членските си вноски, които дават 22% от бюджета на организацията наброяваща 193 държави членки на ООН, т.е. САЩ да не плаща членски внос на ООН, като Главната квартира на организацията е в САЩ. През 1995г. на 50-годишният юбилей на ООН, САЩ й дължат чл.внос и други такси в размер на 1.246 Млрд. долара. На 17 юни 2005г. Камерата на Представителите на САЩ гласува решение H.R. 2745 за двойно намаляване на вноските към ООН до 2008г., ако не отговаря на критерийте. В края на октомври 2011 г. Палестина става член на агенцията за образование и култура на ООН – ЮНЕСКО. На 1 Ноември 2011г. САЩ спря внсоките си в ЮНЕСКО, като говорителят на Държавния департамент Виктория Нюланд заяви, че “решението на ЮНЕСКО “буди съжаление, то е прибързано и подкопава общата ни цел за обхватен, справедлив и траен мир” между Израел и палестинците. Тя тогава добави, че “през ноември е трябвало САЩ да преведат 60 млн. долара на организацията, но това няма да се случи. За момента северноамериканската държава ще запази членството си.” Генералният секретар на ЮНЕСКО българката Ирина Бокова (р.1952г.) тогава призна, че отказът на Вашингтон да плати сумата поражда безпокойство за стабилността на бюджета на организацията. Тази година Бокова, която е с опит във външната политика, като бивша външна министърка от правителството на Жан Виденов (БСП-БКП) и дъщеря на Георги Боков бивш партизанин-ремсист и главен реактор на в-к “Работническо дело” (1958-76), е кандидат за 2-ри мандат като шеф на организацията. Бишата кандидатка за вице-президент на Р България (от БСП – 1996г.) е подкрепена от правителството на ГЕРБ и президента Плевнелиев. ООН е създаден през месец юни 1945г. в Сан Франциско, Калифорния, а за седалище е избран Ню Йорк. Проблемите на Израел и САЩ с ООН датират още от 1975г. с приемането на Resolution 3379 която обявява “ционизма за расизъм”, която е отменена през 1991г.  с Resolution 4686. ЗАДЪЛЖЕНИЯТА НА САЩ КЪМ ООН: United States and the United Nations

В края на 2011г. ООН намали своя бюджет за втори път през последните 50 години, като го съкрати за периода 2012-2013 г. до 5,15 милиарда долара от 5,41 милиарда долара през 2010-2011 г. и започна да съкращава постове в своята централа в Ню Йорк. Тази сума се отнася за текущите разходи на ООН и не включва нито мироопазващите операции, за които са предвидени 7 милиарда долара от 1 юли 2011 г. до 30 юни 2012 г., нито финансирането на международните трибунали./

Президентът Обама коментира и ситуацията през последните седмици в ислямския свят.

Атаките през последните две седмици не са само прости нападения срещу САЩ. Те са атаки също срещу самите идеали, върху които е основана Организацията на Обединените нации“, подчерта Обама.

Ако сме сериозни за тези идеали, ние трябва да говорим честно за по-дълбоките причини на тази криза, защото сме изправени пред избора между силите, които ни разделят и надеждите, които ни крепят като цяло. Днес трябва да потвърдим, че нашето бъдеще ще се определя от хора като Крис Стивънс (загиналият в Либия американски посланик, б.р.) и не от тези като неговите убийци. Днес трябва да заявим, че това насилие и нетолерантност нямат място сред нашата Организация на Обединените нации“, обяви Обама по време на речта.

Няма думи, които да извинят убийството на цивилни. Няма видео, което да оправдае атака срещу посолство“, изтъкна Президентът Обама днес пред Общото събрание на ООН.

Припомняме – Ню Йорк Таймс:  Атаката в либийския град Бенгази, която отне живота на американския посланик Кристофър Стивънс и трима други американци, представлява голям неуспех за ЦРУ 

Атаката в либийския град Бенгази, която отне живота на американския посланик Кристофър Стивънс и трима други американци, представлява голям неуспех за Централната разузнавателна агенция на САЩ в нейните усилия за събиране на информация на фона на ескалиращата нестабилност в северноафриканската нация, коментира „Ню Йорк таймс”. 
Сред повечето от евакуираните служители на посолството от града след атаката е имало и над 10 агенти на ЦРУ, които са играели ключова роля в разузнаването и събирането на информация относно внушителен брой въоръжени екстремистски групировки в и около града. 
„Това е катастрофална загуба за разузнаването”, заяви служило в Либия американско официално лице, предпочело да остане анонимно, поради това, че ФБР все още разследва атаката. Разузнавателните усилия на ЦРУ в Бенгази и Източна Либия включват „Ансар ал-Шариа”, милиция, която бива обвинена за атаката, както и предполагаеми членове на клона на „Ал Кайда” в Северна Африка, известен като „Ал Кайда на Ислямския Магреб”. /Източник:Deadly Attack in Libya Was Major Blow to CIA … – The New York Times/. 

В речта си Обама отново осъди антиислямското любителско видео, създадено от копти в САЩ, което предизвика редица протести и атаки в ислямския свят, като „жестоко и отвратително”.

Но колкото и да е отвратително, подчерта Обама, няма извинение, което може да оправдае убийството и насилието, тъй като свободата на словото е защитена от Конституцията на САЩ.

Тук, в Съединените щати, безброй публикации провокират негодувание. Като мен, повечето от американците са християни, и ние не забраняваме богохулството срещу нашите свещени вярвания“, изтъкна той

Освен това, като президент на страната и главнокомандващ на нашите военни, аз приемам хората да казват ужасни неща за мен всеки ден и аз винаги ще защитавам правата им да го правят, допълни още Обама.

Обама също предупреди, че през 2012 година, „когато всеки с мобилен телефон може да изпрати обидни мнения по целия свят с натискането на един бутон, идеята да се контролира потока от информация е остаряла“.

Въпросът е как ще отговорим. Трябва да се съгласим, че нито едно слово не може да оправдае безсмисленото насилие“.

Американският президент не пропусна и темата за Сирия.

В Сирия бъдещето не трябва да принадлежи на диктатор, който избива своя народ. Ако има причина за възникването на протести в света днес, то това е режим, който измъчва децата и използва ракети срещу жилищни сгради“, обясни Обама, допълвайки, че заедно трябва да се изправим с тези сирийци, които вярват в различната визия – обединена Сирия, където децата не се страхуват от правителството“.

По думите на президента на САЩ режимът на Башар Асад трябва да приключи, за да може да спре страданието на сирийския народ.

Обама призова всички световни лидери да се изправят срещу екстремизма. Задължение е на всички лидери да говорят срещу насилието и екстремизма, изтъкна той.

—————————–

ОРИГИНАЛЕН ТЕКСТ НА ОБРЪЩЕНИЕТО НА ПРЕЗИДЕНТА БАРАК ОБАМА

———————————

Office of the Press Secretary

September 25, 2012
Remarks by the President to the UN General Assembly

United Nations Headquarters
New York, New York

10:22 A.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT:  Mr. President, Mr. Secretary General, fellow delegates, ladies and gentleman:  I would like to begin today by telling you about an American named Chris Stevens.

Chris was born in a town called Grass Valley, California, the son of a lawyer and a musician.  As a young man, Chris joined the Peace Corps, and taught English in Morocco.  And he came to love and respect the people of North Africa and the Middle East. He would carry that commitment throughout his life.  As a diplomat, he worked from Egypt to Syria, from Saudi Arabia to Libya.  He was known for walking the streets of the cities where he worked — tasting the local food, meeting as many people as he could, speaking Arabic, listening with a broad smile.

Chris went to Benghazi in the early days of the Libyan revolution, arriving on a cargo ship.  As America’s representative, he helped the Libyan people as they coped with violent conflict, cared for the wounded, and crafted a vision for the future in which the rights of all Libyans would be respected. And after the revolution, he supported the birth of a new democracy, as Libyans held elections, and built new institutions, and began to move forward after decades of dictatorship.

Chris Stevens loved his work.  He took pride in the country he served, and he saw dignity in the people that he met.  And two weeks ago, he traveled to Benghazi to review plans to establish a new cultural center and modernize a hospital.  That’s when America’s compound came under attack.  Along with three of his colleagues, Chris was killed in the city that he helped to save. He was 52 years old.

I tell you this story because Chris Stevens embodied the best of America.  Like his fellow Foreign Service officers, he built bridges across oceans and cultures, and was deeply invested in the international cooperation that the United Nations represents.  He acted with humility, but he also stood up for a set of principles — a belief that individuals should be free to determine their own destiny, and live with liberty, dignity, justice, and opportunity.

The attacks on the civilians in Benghazi were attacks on America.  We are grateful for the assistance we received from the Libyan government and from the Libyan people.  There should be no doubt that we will be relentless in tracking down the killers and bringing them to justice.  And I also appreciate that in recent days, the leaders of other countries in the region — including Egypt, Tunisia and Yemen — have taken steps to secure our diplomatic facilities, and called for calm.  And so have religious authorities around the globe.

But understand, the attacks of the last two weeks are not simply an assault on America.  They are also an assault on the very ideals upon which the United Nations was founded — the notion that people can resolve their differences peacefully; that diplomacy can take the place of war; that in an interdependent world, all of us have a stake in working towards greater opportunity and security for our citizens.

If we are serious about upholding these ideals, it will not be enough to put more guards in front of an embassy, or to put out statements of regret and wait for the outrage to pass.  If we are serious about these ideals, we must speak honestly about the deeper causes of the crisis — because we face a choice between the forces that would drive us apart and the hopes that we hold in common.

Today, we must reaffirm that our future will be determined by people like Chris Stevens — and not by his killers.  Today, we must declare that this violence and intolerance has no place among our United Nations.

It has been less than two years since a vendor in Tunisia set himself on fire to protest the oppressive corruption in his country, and sparked what became known as the Arab Spring.  And since then, the world has been captivated by the transformation that’s taken place, and the United States has supported the forces of change.

We were inspired by the Tunisian protests that toppled a dictator, because we recognized our own beliefs in the aspiration of men and women who took to the streets.

We insisted on change in Egypt, because our support for democracy ultimately put us on the side of the people.

We supported a transition of leadership in Yemen, because the interests of the people were no longer being served by a corrupt status quo.

We intervened in Libya alongside a broad coalition, and with the mandate of the United Nations Security Council, because we had the ability to stop the slaughter of innocents, and because we believed that the aspirations of the people were more powerful than a tyrant.

And as we meet here, we again declare that the regime of Bashar al-Assad must come to an end so that the suffering of the Syrian people can stop and a new dawn can begin.

We have taken these positions because we believe that freedom and self-determination are not unique to one culture.  These are not simply American values or Western values — they are universal values.  And even as there will be huge challenges to come with a transition to democracy, I am convinced that ultimately government of the people, by the people, and for the people is more likely to bring about the stability, prosperity, and individual opportunity that serve as a basis for peace in our world.

So let us remember that this is a season of progress.  For the first time in decades, Tunisians, Egyptians and Libyans voted for new leaders in elections that were credible, competitive, and fair.  This democratic spirit has not been restricted to the Arab world.  Over the past year, we’ve seen peaceful transitions of power in Malawi and Senegal, and a new President in Somalia.  In Burma, a President has freed political prisoners and opened a closed society, a courageous dissident has been elected to parliament, and people look forward to further reform.  Around the globe, people are making their voices heard, insisting on their innate dignity, and the right to determine their future.

And yet the turmoil of recent weeks reminds us that the path to democracy does not end with the casting of a ballot.  Nelson Mandela once said:  “To be free is not merely to cast off one’s chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.”  (Applause.)

True democracy demands that citizens cannot be thrown in jail because of what they believe, and that businesses can be opened without paying a bribe.  It depends on the freedom of citizens to speak their minds and assemble without fear, and on the rule of law and due process that guarantees the rights of all people.

In other words, true democracy — real freedom — is hard work.  Those in power have to resist the temptation to crack down on dissidents.  In hard economic times, countries must be tempted — may be tempted to rally the people around perceived enemies, at home and abroad, rather than focusing on the painstaking work of reform.

Moreover, there will always be those that reject human progress — dictators who cling to power, corrupt interests that depend on the status quo, and extremists who fan the flames of hate and division.  From Northern Ireland to South Asia, from Africa to the Americas, from the Balkans to the Pacific Rim, we’ve witnessed convulsions that can accompany transitions to a new political order.

At time, the conflicts arise along the fault lines of race or tribe.  And often they arise from the difficulties of reconciling tradition and faith with the diversity and interdependence of the modern world.  In every country, there are those who find different religious beliefs threatening; in every culture, those who love freedom for themselves must ask themselves how much they’re willing to tolerate freedom for others.

That is what we saw play out in the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world.  Now, I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity.
It is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well — for as the city outside these walls makes clear, we are a country that has welcomed people of every race and every faith.  We are home to Muslims who worship across our country.  We not only respect the freedom of religion, we have laws that protect individuals from being harmed because of how they look or what they believe.  We understand why people take offense to this video because millions of our citizens are among them.

I know there are some who ask why we don’t just ban such a video.  And the answer is enshrined in our laws:  Our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech.

Here in the United States, countless publications provoke offense.  Like me, the majority of Americans are Christian, and yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs.  As President of our country and Commander-in-Chief of our military, I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day — (laughter) — and I will always defend their right to do so.  (Applause.)

Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views, even views that we profoundly disagree with.  We do not do so because we support hateful speech, but because our founders understood that without such protections, the capacity of each individual to express their own views and practice their own faith may be threatened.  We do so because in a diverse society, efforts to restrict speech can quickly become a tool to silence critics and oppress minorities.

We do so because given the power of faith in our lives, and the passion that religious differences can inflame, the strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression; it is more speech — the voices of tolerance that rally against bigotry and blasphemy, and lift up the values of understanding and mutual respect.

Now, I know that not all countries in this body share this particular understanding of the protection of free speech.  We recognize that.  But in 2012, at a time when anyone with a cell phone can spread offensive views around the world with the click of a button, the notion that we can control the flow of information is obsolete.  The question, then, is how do we respond?

And on this we must agree:  There is no speech that justifies mindless violence.  (Applause.)  There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents.  There’s no video that justifies an attack on an embassy.  There’s no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan.

In this modern world with modern technologies, for us to respond in that way to hateful speech empowers any individual who engages in such speech to create chaos around the world.  We empower the worst of us if that’s how we respond.

More broadly, the events of the last two weeks also speak to the need for all of us to honestly address the tensions between the West and the Arab world that is moving towards democracy.

Now, let me be clear:  Just as we cannot solve every problem in the world, the United States has not and will not seek to dictate the outcome of democratic transitions abroad.  We do not expect other nations to agree with us on every issue, nor do we assume that the violence of the past weeks or the hateful speech by some individuals represent the views of the overwhelming majority of Muslims, any more than the views of the people who produced this video represents those of Americans.  However, I do believe that it is the obligation of all leaders in all countries to speak out forcefully against violence and extremism.  (Applause.)

It is time to marginalize those who — even when not directly resorting to violence — use hatred of America, or the West, or Israel, as the central organizing principle of politics. For that only gives cover, and sometimes makes an excuse, for those who do resort to violence.

That brand of politics — one that pits East against West, and South against North, Muslims against Christians and Hindu and Jews — can’t deliver on the promise of freedom.  To the youth, it offers only false hope.  Burning an American flag does nothing to provide a child an education.  Smashing apart a restaurant does not fill an empty stomach.  Attacking an embassy won’t create a single job.  That brand of politics only makes it harder to achieve what we must do together:  educating our children, and creating the opportunities that they deserve; protecting human rights, and extending democracy’s promise.

Understand America will never retreat from the world.  We will bring justice to those who harm our citizens and our friends, and we will stand with our allies.  We are willing to partner with countries around the world to deepen ties of trade and investment, and science and technology, energy and development — all efforts that can spark economic growth for all our people and stabilize democratic change.

But such efforts depend on a spirit of mutual interest and mutual respect.  No government or company, no school or NGO will be confident working in a country where its people are endangered.  For partnerships to be effective our citizens must be secure and our efforts must be welcomed.

A politics based only on anger — one based on dividing the world between “us” and “them” — not only sets back international cooperation, it ultimately undermines those who tolerate it.  All of us have an interest in standing up to these forces.

Let us remember that Muslims have suffered the most at the hands of extremism.  On the same day our civilians were killed in Benghazi, a Turkish police officer was murdered in Istanbul only days before his wedding; more than 10 Yemenis were killed in a car bomb in Sana’a; several Afghan children were mourned by their parents just days after they were killed by a suicide bomber in Kabul.

The impulse towards intolerance and violence may initially be focused on the West, but over time it cannot be contained.  The same impulses toward extremism are used to justify war between Sunni and Shia, between tribes and clans.  It leads not to strength and prosperity but to chaos.  In less than two years, we have seen largely peaceful protests bring more change to Muslim-majority countries than a decade of violence.  And extremists understand this.  Because they have nothing to offer to improve the lives of people, violence is their only way to stay relevant.  They don’t build; they only destroy.

It is time to leave the call of violence and the politics of division behind.  On so many issues, we face a choice between the promise of the future, or the prisons of the past.  And we cannot afford to get it wrong.  We must seize this moment.  And America stands ready to work with all who are willing to embrace a better future.

The future must not belong to those who target Coptic Christians in Egypt — it must be claimed by those in Tahrir Square who chanted, “Muslims, Christians, we are one.”  The future must not belong to those who bully women — it must be shaped by girls who go to school, and those who stand for a world where our daughters can live their dreams just like our sons.  (Applause.)

The future must not belong to those corrupt few who steal a country’s resources — it must be won by the students and entrepreneurs, the workers and business owners who seek a broader prosperity for all people.  Those are the women and men that America stands with; theirs is the vision we will support.

The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.  But to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated, or churches that are destroyed, or the Holocaust that is denied.  (Applause.)

Let us condemn incitement against Sufi Muslims and Shiite pilgrims.  It’s time to heed the words of Gandhi:  “Intolerance is itself a form of violence and an obstacle to the growth of a true democratic spirit.”  (Applause.)  Together, we must work towards a world where we are strengthened by our differences, and not defined by them.  That is what America embodies, that’s the vision we will support.

Among Israelis and Palestinians, the future must not belong to those who turn their backs on a prospect of peace.  Let us leave behind those who thrive on conflict, those who reject the right of Israel to exist.  The road is hard, but the destination is clear — a secure, Jewish state of Israel and an independent, prosperous Palestine.  (Applause.)  Understanding that such a peace must come through a just agreement between the parties, America will walk alongside all who are prepared to make that journey.

In Syria, the future must not belong to a dictator who massacres his people.  If there is a cause that cries out for protest in the world today, peaceful protest, it is a regime that tortures children and shoots rockets at apartment buildings.  And we must remain engaged to assure that what began with citizens demanding their rights does not end in a cycle of sectarian violence.

Together, we must stand with those Syrians who believe in a different vision — a Syria that is united and inclusive, where children don’t need to fear their own government, and all Syrians have a say in how they are governed — Sunnis and Alawites, Kurds and Christians.  That’s what America stands for.  That is the outcome that we will work for — with sanctions and consequences for those who persecute, and assistance and support for those who work for this common good.  Because we believe that the Syrians who embrace this vision will have the strength and the legitimacy to lead.

In Iran, we see where the path of a violent and unaccountable ideology leads.  The Iranian people have a remarkable and ancient history, and many Iranians wish to enjoy peace and prosperity alongside their neighbors.  But just as it restricts the rights of its own people, the Iranian government continues to prop up a dictator in Damascus and supports terrorist groups abroad.  Time and again, it has failed to take the opportunity to demonstrate that its nuclear program is peaceful, and to meet its obligations to the United Nations.

So let me be clear.  America wants to resolve this issue through diplomacy, and we believe that there is still time and space to do so.  But that time is not unlimited.  We respect the right of nations to access peaceful nuclear power, but one of the purposes of the United Nations is to see that we harness that power for peace.  And make no mistake, a nuclear-armed Iran is not a challenge that can be contained.  It would threaten the elimination of Israel, the security of Gulf nations, and the stability of the global economy.  It risks triggering a nuclear-arms race in the region, and the unraveling of the non-proliferation treaty.  That’s why a coalition of countries is holding the Iranian government accountable.  And that’s why the United States will do what we must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

We know from painful experience that the path to security and prosperity does not lie outside the boundaries of international law and respect for human rights.  That’s why this institution was established from the rubble of conflict.  That is why liberty triumphed over tyranny in the Cold War.  And that is the lesson of the last two decades as well.

History shows that peace and progress come to those who make the right choices.  Nations in every part of the world have traveled this difficult path.  Europe, the bloodiest battlefield of the 20th century, is united, free and at peace.  From Brazil to South Africa, from Turkey to South Korea, from India to Indonesia, people of different races, religions, and traditions have lifted millions out of poverty, while respecting the rights of their citizens and meeting their responsibilities as nations.

And it is because of the progress that I’ve witnessed in my own lifetime, the progress that I’ve witnessed after nearly four years as President, that I remain ever hopeful about the world that we live in.  The war in Iraq is over.  American troops have come home.  We’ve begun a transition in Afghanistan, and America and our allies will end our war on schedule in 2014.  Al Qaeda has been weakened, and Osama bin Laden is no more.  Nations have come together to lock down nuclear materials, and America and Russia are reducing our arsenals.  We have seen hard choices made — from Naypyidaw to Cairo to Abidjan — to put more power in the hands of citizens.

At a time of economic challenge, the world has come together to broaden prosperity.  Through the G20, we have partnered with emerging countries to keep the world on the path of recovery.  America has pursued a development agenda that fuels growth and breaks dependency, and worked with African leaders to help them feed their nations.  New partnerships have been forged to combat corruption and promote government that is open and transparent, and new commitments have been made through the Equal Futures Partnership to ensure that women and girls can fully participate in politics and pursue opportunity.  And later today, I will discuss our efforts to combat the scourge of human trafficking.

All these things give me hope.  But what gives me the most hope is not the actions of us, not the actions of leaders — it is the people that I’ve seen.  The American troops who have risked their lives and sacrificed their limbs for strangers half a world away; the students in Jakarta or Seoul who are eager to use their knowledge to benefit mankind; the faces in a square in Prague or a parliament in Ghana who see democracy giving voice to their aspirations; the young people in the favelas of Rio and the schools of Mumbai whose eyes shine with promise.  These men, women, and children of every race and every faith remind me that for every angry mob that gets shown on television, there are billions around the world who share similar hopes and dreams.  They tell us that there is a common heartbeat to humanity.

So much attention in our world turns to what divides us.  That’s what we see on the news.  That’s what consumes our political debates.  But when you strip it all away, people everywhere long for the freedom to determine their destiny; the dignity that comes with work; the comfort that comes with faith; and the justice that exists when governments serve their people  — and not the other way around.

The United States of America will always stand up for these aspirations, for our own people and for people all across the world.  That was our founding purpose.  That is what our history shows.  That is what Chris Stevens worked for throughout his life.

And I promise you this:  Long after the killers are brought to justice, Chris Stevens’s legacy will live on in the lives that he touched — in the tens of thousands who marched against violence through the streets of Benghazi; in the Libyans who changed their Facebook photo to one of Chris; in the signs that read, simply, “Chris Stevens was a friend to all Libyans.”

They should give us hope.  They should remind us that so long as we work for it, justice will be done, that history is on our side, and that a rising tide of liberty will never be reversed.

Thank you very much.  (Applause.)

END
10:16 A.M. EDT

10 comments for “Обама в ООН: “Идеята да се контролира потока от информация е остаряла”

  1. 2012/09/25 at 5:18 PM

    Remarks at the Heads of State Luncheon

    Remarks
    Hillary Rodham Clinton
    Secretary of State
    United Nations
    New York City
    September 25, 2012

    Secretary General, heads of state, excellencies: on behalf of President Obama and our government, let me again warmly welcome you here on behalf of the host country. And let me also express our very great appreciation to the Secretary General for your leadership, sir.

    You have, over the course of your time at the helm of the United Nations, continued a reform effort as well as advanced and advocated for a number of important initiatives, and we salute you and express our deep gratitude.

    As the Secretary General just said, we meet in the wake of a great loss, not only for the United States, with the killing of our Ambassador and three of his colleagues, but also a reminder of the important work that these men and women do every single day. The blue-helmeted peace keepers, the dedicated aid workers – they are out there at our behest. Our governments ask them to serve; the United Nations and other multilateral organizations do as well.

    And in the last weeks, we have seen the price that too many of them pay. As the Secretary General said, in addition to our loss, very recently an Algerian diplomat also lost. Last year, Nepalese, Norwegian, Romanian, Swedish, UN officials and guards killed in Afghanistan; all those lost in the bombing of the UN facility in Nigeria last summer. As President Obama said this morning in his address to the General Assembly, attacks such as these, against embassies, consulates, diplomats anywhere in the world, strike at the heart of the mission of the United Nations.

    So let us stand together against violence and extremism on behalf of those values and principles that we ascribe to and that we aspire to see fulfilled. And let me ask you to raise our glasses in a toast to all of our diplomats and development experts from every nation serving and sacrificing far from home. They represent the best traditions of our international community. They are committed to the peace and progress that brought about the establishment of this extraordinarily important institution, and we owe them our full support and gratitude.

    Thank you.
    PRN: 2012/1513

  2. 2012/09/25 at 5:20 PM

    Background Briefing on Secretary Clinton’s Bilateral Meetings with Lebanese Prime Minister Miqati and UN Secretary General’s Special Representative for Syria Brahimi

    Special Briefing
    Office of the Spokesperson
    Waldorf Astoria Hotel
    New York City
    September 25, 2012

    MODERATOR: All right, everybody. We are here with [Senior State Department Official], hereafter Senior State Department Official, to give you a sense of the Secretary’s meetings this morning with Lebanese Prime Minister Miqati and UN Secretary General’s Special Representative for Syria Brahimi.

    Go ahead, [Senior State Department Official].

    SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Okay. You guys can all hear me? Everybody hear me at the back? All right. Andy, don’t laugh at me.

    QUESTION: (Off-mike.) (Laughter.)

    SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: So I’ll give a quick rundown of her meeting with Special Representative Brahimi and then with Prime Minister Miqati, a minute or two on the Security Council session tomorrow, and then open it up to your questions.

    The main purpose of the Secretary’s meeting with Brahimi – this was her first in his capacity as the Special Representative on Syria – was to hear his impressions of the consultations that he’s been doing with the Assad regime, with various elements of the opposition, and with a number of the key regional stakeholders and countries. And so she had a lot of questions for him about what he had seen, what he had learned, what his views were about the way forward. He was open and expansive with her. They were very candid in exchanging their views and perspectives.

    He described the situation, as he has in many forums, as challenging, that Assad remains intransigent, and that there is still work to do with respect to the opposition coalescing around a common pathway forward, and delved into some detail on that coming out of his meetings in Damascus and his meetings with the opposition. He was clear with her, as he’s also been clear with many other interlocutors and even publicly, that he is not going to rush into putting a plan on the table, that he wants to be systematic in doing his consultations, he wants to look for opportunities and openings, he wants to find as many building blocks as he can piece together to ultimately come up with a strategy that he believes is workable.

    And the Secretary wasn’t surprised to hear that, because he’s communicated that in a number of different places, but was broadly supportive of that approach of taking a systematic, deliberative approach that Brahimi has embraced. We expect him now to undertake both here in New York and then back out in the region another round of consultations with many if not all of the key players before he goes ahead and puts something forward.

    They did spend some time at a broad level discussing ideas about how to bring about an effective political transition to a new democratic Syria. And in that respect, they had some discussion of the Geneva communiqué and elements of it that might be evergreen, so to speak, useful even at this point. And the Secretary was clear about her view that Geneva retains a great deal of value, but as we’ve long said, only if consequences are attached to it for noncompliance.

    They spent some time reviewing efforts by the opposition to follow up on the Cairo meeting that was held under Arab League auspices in August, and efforts both inside and outside to coalesce the opposition, both on the political dimension and in terms of trying to deliver services on the ground in areas that the regime no longer controls.

    And at the end of the meeting, they had a brief discussion about the ad hoc meeting of the Friends of the Syrian People on Friday, and they agreed that they would stay in touch over the next couple of days as he reflects on what, coming out of that meeting, might be useful for him and his purposes as he tries to carry his work forward. So that was Brahimi.

    With Prime Minister Miqati, they had a very candid discussion about the issue of the protests that have unfolded over the last couple of weeks across the Middle East and North Africa, including in Lebanon. The Prime Minister discussed issues around the video and issues related to freedom of expression and this concept of defamation of religion. The Secretary had a very good reference in the President’s speech, which had just been given, to kind of walk through our perspective and our arguments, and it was actually quite a constructive, wide-ranging discussion on that set of issues.

    They spent the bulk of the meeting talking about the potential risks and threats to Lebanon’s stability arising out of the conflict in Syria, including the refugee flows into Lebanon. And Prime Minister Miqati highlighted his concerns about extremists coming into Lebanon and potentially using the north as a platform for operations that would destabilize both Lebanon and the surrounding areas.

    The Secretary very much acknowledged that risk and reinforced our view that there is risk in the south, a very acute risk in the south, and in fact more than a risk – an actuality of Hezbollah using its areas as a platform for destabilizing Syria and also creating real challenges in other parts of the world as well.

    That meeting probably went 30 minutes. The meeting with Brahimi went about an hour. The end of the Miqati meeting they had a one-on-one that, because we were moving so quickly and I was coming over here, I haven’t gotten a readout on.

    And then finally, with respect to tomorrow, the Germans, who are the hosts of the Security Council this month, have set up a very broad umbrella for this session. And so you can expect that, from a number of different members of the Council, they will raise a wide variety of issues – everything from the Middle East peace process to Syria, to the transitions, to the freedom of expression issues that we’ve been dealing with, to terrorism, and really the whole waterfront of challenges that are confronting the Middle East and North Africa.

    The Secretary is going to focus her intervention on the United States’s view that despite the turbulent waters of the last couple of weeks, our course, with respect to supporting the transitions that are unfolding in transitioning countries and reform in other countries, is fundamentally the right course and our strategy is fundamentally the right strategy. And she will focus tomorrow more on the security dimensions of that, how we can support these countries as they try to strengthen their security sectors and rule of law. And then at the Deauville meeting later in the week she’ll carry that theme forward with a greater emphasis on the political and economic dimensions of these transitions.

    So with that, I’d be happy to take a few questions. Well, not happy, but I will – (laughter).

    MODERATOR: Elise, Elise.

    QUESTION: Can you talk a little bit more about – as they discussed it, about Lebanon’s security? I didn’t understand – that he was worried that – is he worried about Hezbollah allowing extremists to use its territory to destabilize Syria? And I was just kind of – I was just wondering if you could flesh that out a little.

    SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: He’s worried about violent extremists coming into Lebanon, especially the north of Lebanon, from outside the country.

    QUESTION: Right, right.

    SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: And potentially instigating violence inside Lebanon or using Lebanon as a base of operations to carry out violence elsewhere.

    MODERATOR: Along the lines of what we’ve already seen.

    QUESTION: Right. But I mean, you would think that they would – that Hezbollah would not allow its territory to do that.

    SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Well —

    QUESTION: Unless it was against the rebels —

    MODERATOR: We’re talking about the north.

    QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

    SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Right. So –

    MODERATOR: Anne.

    QUESTION: But could you – will you give us —

    SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: I think – so the north of Lebanon obviously is not an area that Hezbollah controls.

    QUESTION: Okay.

    QUESTION: And with Brahimi, did the Qatari speech to the General Assembly come up today, where he appears to call for military intervention in Syria by other Arab (inaudible)? Are you familiar with that? And even if it didn’t come up with Brahimi, what’s your view of it?

    SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: I saw a press report relating to a potential no-fly zone as a Plan B if the Brahimi effort doesn’t bear fruit. I’ve only seen that one press report, so I’m just not in a position to comment. We’ve made clear what our view is at the moment on questions related to military intervention and no-fly zones. It did not specifically come up in this meeting. Brahimi is very focused on how you create the conditions for some kind of diplomatic process to unfold. But he was also realistic, that right at the moment, we’re not around the corner from a diplomatic process being launched, and more work needs to be done to lay the ground.

    QUESTION: Do you see momentum for that Plan B among Arab nations?

    SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: I think on Friday we’ll have an opportunity to dig into questions relating to steps that various stakeholders can take beyond what we’ve taken so far. We’ve had intensive consultations with the Turks on the entire range of contingencies. We’ve obviously had conversations with our partners in the Gulf, with the Jordanians, and others.

    I don’t regard the Qatari position as fundamentally new. This is something that they have discussed in the past and have raised as a prospect or possibility at the right time under the right circumstances. We have obviously never, at any point, taken anything off the table, but we’ve been clear that, in our view, military intervention from the outside right now would do more harm than good.

    MODERATOR: Steve.

    QUESTION: You mentioned what you thought Brahimi felt about there not being a diplomatic solution around the corner. I mean, does the Secretary share that view? And is there anything that she or the United States is trying to do at these meetings this week to get something going?

    SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: We believe that there is still room, as Brahimi does, for a negotiated transition, political transition that leads to an interim government and ultimately to a new Syria. The point I was trying to make is he doesn’t think that’s going to happen tomorrow or next week, that there has to be more consultation, more work done on both sides.

    Now, with respect to what we’re trying to get done on Friday, one of the major focuses of the meeting – and [Senior State Department Official] will have a chance to give you a full preview of Friday’s meeting. But it’s fair to say that one of the major points of focus of the meeting on Friday will be to generate a common effort by all of the countries that are gathered to keep driving forward this follow-up to the August transition plan that the opposition put forward to try to create greater cohesion among a broad swath of the opposition and try to effectively connect the external opposition with the internal opposition on the ground. So in that respect, taking steps related to opposition cohesion is something I think the Secretary sees as an important predicate to an effective transition, an effective diplomatic process that produces the result we’re looking for.

    MODERATOR: Andy.

    QUESTION: Also to follow up on that, just so I’m sort of clear, you did talk about this idea of opposition cohesion as one central focus, but you also talked about the Qatari and another potential Plan B. Are these things going to go on parallel tracks, i.e, Brahimi will keep trying to create his diplomatic sort of playing field while you guys continue to actually start spelling out what Plan B is? Or is there some conflict there? I mean, can one – does the second one have to wait for – give Brahami time to do his thing?

    SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: We have, at various points over the last year, had references to Plan Bs, Plan Cs, Plan Ds. There’s kind of a consistent meme that emerges in the commentary on Syria. I think our view over the past few months has been that it’s more profitable to think about what the basic theory of the case is, and that is that we want to continue to ratchet up the pressure and increase the isolation on the regime so that they are more likely to be prepared – and those around them are more likely to be prepared – to be part of a transition process that leads to a new Syria.

    So we are pursuing in parallel efforts to coalesce the opposition, efforts to pressure the regime, and efforts to support the opposition on the ground with nonlethal assistance like communications gear and other things, so that they can do – take measures to protect themselves and defend themselves and also to try to provide sort of a basic livelihood as they continue – to the people around them as they continue to face an unrelenting assault from the opposition – from the government.

    So the bottom line is that we don’t see multiple different paths where you go down one for a while, stop, and get on another one. We see a number of tracks that operate in parallel that all add up to a common goal, which is to produce an endgame where the institutions of Syria remain intact, but Assad is gone, those around him are gone, and you have a democratic, representative, inclusive Syria in their place.

    QUESTION: [Senior State Department Official] – sorry. Can I ask you about your statement that there’s still space for the diplomatic solution? Because I understand that the only redline that’s been outlined by this Administration is the use or deployment of chemical weapons. So space in theory would be eternal right now, because there’s no endpoint that would break that space for a diplomatic solution, right? There’s no point at which you are saying now we have to stop speaking, if that’s —

    SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: I guess I was making less of a policy statement there than a descriptive statement, which is to say that we believe that the conditions can be created for a diplomatic solution to this. This is not about drawing redlines or talking about pivots or things like that. I was merely trying to underscore that what Brahimi is trying to do is a tall order There’s no doubt about it. We face enormous challenges on the ground in Syria. The violence has escalated. The willingness of the regime to throw every asset it has at the people of Syria has been absolutely confirmed in blood.

    And so we are mindful of how difficult and challenging this is, but we also believe that there remains the potential and possibility of working out some kind of political transition that leads to an interim authority and ultimately to a new government.

    QUESTION: Right.

    SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: So in saying that, I’m not trying to suggest that that’s going to go for a while and then we move on to the next thing.

    MODERATOR: I mean, this is not new on our part. The Secretary’s been talking for months now about parallel tracks of pressure, cohesion of the opposition to create the conditions for transition.

    QUESTION: Right. But how do you add urgency to the process if it just seems open-ended, that there is no point at which that space for diplomacy is going to close? It doesn’t really drive home to the Assad regime that (inaudible).

    QUESTION: And can I just add on to that respect, please? It does seem that all your tracks lead to – the one thing is that this opposition piece – no matter how successful you are on these other tracks, this opposition piece is really one of the most critical, because if the other tracks are working and the opposition isn’t ready, you’re in trouble. It just – I see this as what’s dog – like like bedeviling.

    SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Yeah.

    QUESTION: So urgency first. (Laughter.)

    SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Urgency first, bedeviling second. Is that where we are? (Laughter.)

    On the urgency point, I guess I’m pausing because I’m trying to make sure I fully understand the question. Assad and those around him are clearly facing a substantial amount of pressure and are paying a heavy price for doing what they’re doing in their isolation in the international community, in the squeeze on their economy, in the defections that have gone on, in the military pressure they’re feeling on the ground from the opposition. So there are a substantial number of pressure points that are not creating just open running room for him to do as he pleases. Quite the contrary –

    MODERATOR: And the territory he’s already lost.

    SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: — he has been losing territory. He has been losing currency. He has been losing friends. And he’s been losing regime supporters. So from our perspective, there are a number of elements here which absolutely point up the urgency of what the opposition on the ground, first and foremost, but then the international community behind them are trying to do. And I would just caution against having as the only metric of urgency be military action by someone outside the country.

    On the issue of the opposition, this is a complicated, multisided, diplomatic effort involving people on the inside and people on the outside, involving people of different backgrounds and different professions and different regions of the country. And it is not surprising that it takes both time and real spadework to try to create a cohesive opposition that can effectively steward a transition.

    But I think you are right to say that it is a fundamentally important ingredient to a long-term, viable solution in Syria, and that’s why we’re putting so much energy and effort into it. And it’s why today the Secretary was very much encouraging Special Representative Brahimi to himself be very focused on this element of it; that as he tries to pursue diplomacy, it is in his interest to help contribute to a more cohesive opposition that can play an effective role in carrying out the transition.

    MODERATOR: Margaret and then Michel.

    QUESTION: Thanks. You said Assad’s losing friends. Is there any reason to believe that the reception at the UN is going to be more warm on the fourth try to get action versus the past three which have failed because they’ve having holdouts in the Security Council in the past (inaudible)?

    SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: When you say the fourth try, what are you referring to?

    QUESTION: The three previous tries to have some sort of UN intervention or any kind of consequence. You talked about adding more bite to some of the efforts to stop the violence.

    SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Yeah. I mean, it’s basically been our view since the third veto by the Russians and the Chinese that the most profitable investment of our time and energy is not, at the moment, in the Security Council. It’s in supporting the opposition on the ground, trying to get the opposition cohered, attending to the —

    QUESTION: (Inaudible) Russians?

    SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: No, I’m not. We – as the Secretary was very, I think, candid about in Vladivostok, we have not seen eye-to-eye with the Russians on this. It is our view that, over time, as the fears they express about what a protracted struggle in Syria means for regional stability become clearer, that they will eventually recognize that being part of the solution is in their fundamental interests. But they haven’t done that yet.

    QUESTION: Is it correct, [Senior State Department Official], that Brahimi feels the same way that Kofi did about the Geneva plan, that he’s – or is he not doing that? Is he not coming out in favor of that because he knows it’s a —

    SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: He took that on board. He didn’t opine on the subject today. So the short answer is that we didn’t hear directly from him today what his view is on how to best implement the Geneva plan. The Secretary described her view of consequences and he —

    QUESTION: I’m sorry, but I’m not sure I really understand the point of the meeting. I mean, if you hung everything on the Geneva plan —

    MODERATOR: No. You’re over-reading what [Senior State Department Official] said. What [Senior State Department Official] said was that as Brahimi develops his plan, which is going to include —

    SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Elements – I said elements of the Geneva plan would be part of it. The Secretary was —

    MODERATOR: You shouldn’t draw —

    QUESTION: The implementation of it is not something that would be discussed?

    SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: I guess I’m not sure I’m following what you’re saying.

    QUESTION: Well —

    SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Brahimi’s trying to —

    QUESTION: Brahimi has inherited this thing, this plan, from Kofi, and the job from him.

    SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Yeah.

    QUESTION: When – before Kofi left, he was talking about how he needed the tools, he needed a resolution.

    SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Yeah.

    QUESTION: You guys supported it. The Russians and the Chinese didn’t.

    SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Yeah.

    QUESTION: To actually implement it of course. And I’m wondering if Brahimi feels the same way. And what I think you just said is that they didn’t discuss that. So I’m puzzled as to why – the only thing that you have going for you, you didn’t talk about implementing it.

    SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Let me try to clarify. Brahimi inherited the job from Kofi; he didn’t inherit any particular plan from Kofi. He’s coming at this, trying to do a round or multiple rounds of consultations before he decides what the vehicle is he wants to use to drive forward. Today —

    QUESTION: So he —

    QUESTION: Introducing it as a basis?

    SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Today, they talked about how elements of the Geneva plan could be useful as he constructs the components of his political transition strategy or his negotiating strategy. Then there’s the added dimension of, having done that, what is the vehicle through which you implement it. Is it a Security Council resolution with consequences, is it some other mechanism? And I guess the point I’m making is they did not get into detail on that today.

    QUESTION: So the —

    MODERATOR: Okay. We’re going to take – we’re going to let Michel over here – we’re going to take two more and then [Senior State Department Official] has got to go.

    QUESTION: [Senior State Department Official], is the Secretary planning to meet with the opposition this week for Walid Muallem?

    SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Yeah, Robert can – not with Walid Muallem, but she is planning to meet with opposition figures who would participate in the ad hoc meeting on Friday, and Robert can give you the specifics on who will come.

    MODERATOR: We’re going to have a pre-brief of the Friends of Syrian People ad hoc on Thursday when we have a little bit better sense of the outlines, so we’ll give you – on that.

    And last one for Jo.

    QUESTION: Thank you. You mentioned that possible tracks was to support the opposition as they seek to protect themselves and defend themselves. Is there anything more you can tell us about that?

    SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: No. I mean, we are – we’ve been very clear about our assistance and the type of assistance we’re providing and to whom. And that’s going to continue, and —

    QUESTION: Is it going to be increased in any form?

    SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: We’ll have more to say about that on Friday, so I think you can expect to hear from her some announcements relating to opposition support funding – not changes in the fundamental character, but as we have – we had an initial $15 million. As we’ve sent it through, obviously, we need to address that question, and she’ll speak to that on Friday.

    QUESTION: But they’re still talking about nonlethal aid?

    SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Right.

    QUESTION: So would it be fair to say she’s going to announce additional support?

    SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: I —

    QUESTION: I mean, you – I mean, is that something —

    MODERATOR: We’ll have more when we have more for you, but I think [Senior State Department Official] just leaned into it, right? Let’s —

    SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: I leaned into it.

    QUESTION: Suggested it.

    MODERATOR: (Laughter.) All right, and we need to let him go.
    PRN: 2012/1515

  3. 2012/09/25 at 5:22 PM

    USCIS Reminds Syrians to Register for Temporary Protected Status

    U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) reminds Syrian nationals (and persons without nationality who last habitually resided in Syria) that the registration deadline for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) is
    Sept. 25, 2012.

    Syrian nationals who have continuously resided in the United States since March 29, 2012, and who meet other TPS eligibility requirements, must file their applications for TPS with a postmark date no later than Sept. 25, 2012. The TPS designation for Syria will remain in effect through Sept. 30, 2013.

    USCIS advises Syrian nationals (and persons without nationality who last habitually resided in Syria) to review their TPS application packages carefully. Details and procedures for applying for TPS are provided on the USCIS website and in the Federal Register notice announcing TPS for Syria.

    For more information on TPS, visit http://www.uscis.gov/tps.

  4. 2012/09/25 at 5:25 PM

    U.S. Engagement at UNGA: September 24

    Monday September 24 marked the effective start of the United Nations General Assembly’s high-level meetings. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton held numerous bilateral meetings and launched two major initiatives. Attorney General Eric Holder spoke at the United Nations on the rule of law.
    Secretary Clinton started the day speaking about development issues at the Clinton Global Initiative: go.usa.gov/rS4G

    The launch of two major initiatives- the Global Philanthropy Working Group and the Equal Futures Partnership- were among the highlights of the day. When launching the Global Philanthropy Working Group, Secretary Clinton also announced changes in the tax regulations that will make it easier for civil society to engage in cross-border philanthropy worldwide. You can read more here: go.usa.gov/jh4

  5. 2012/09/26 at 4:31 AM

    Libyan Officials Visit United States on Exchange Program Focused on Border Security

    Office of the Spokesperson, Washington, DC
    September 25, 2012

    Under the Department of State-funded Export Control and Related Border Security (EXBS) Program, U.S. Customs and Border Protection is coordinating an International Visitors Program (IVP) for nine (9) officials from the Libyan Ministry of Defense and the Customs Authority.

    The IVP began on September 16 and will run through September 29, 2012, as part of a larger Department of State-Department of Homeland Security collaborative program with the Libyan government to improve border security.

    The IVP is designed to provide an overview of U.S. border security operations, share best practices with Libyan border enforcement officials, and bolster U.S.-Libyan cooperation on nonproliferation.
    The IVP includes visits to Washington, DC, Baltimore, Maryland; Savannah and Brunswick, Georgia; El Paso, Texas; Jacksonville, Florida; Nogales and Tucson, Arizona; and the Department of Homeland Security’s Global Borders College in West Virginia.
    The IVP will stress strategic planning, integrated border management, and the importance of training academies.

    PRN: 2012/1509

  6. 2012/09/27 at 1:06 PM

    Remarks With League of Arab States Secretary General Nabil Elaraby at Memorandum of Understanding Signing

    Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary of State

    Waldorf Astoria Hotel

    New York City
    September 25, 2012

    SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you very much, and Secretary General, this is a historic and important event for the United States.
    Under your leadership at a time of great challenge and change, the United States and the Arab League have worked more closely together than ever before.
    Our work on Libya broke new ground in U.S.-Arab League cooperation, and I appreciate your strong leadership on Syria as we continue to work to address this crisis.

    We also consult on many shared challenges, from Yemen to Sudan and beyond.
    Today, we broaden our partnership to take on new challenges together.

    The MOU we signed today launches an annual U.S.-Arab League dialogue.

    It outlines areas in which we hope to work together to bring tangible improvements to people’s lives, including education and our response to humanitarian emergencies.

    As a start, I am pleased to announce a small professional and cultural exchange program to bring Arab League officials together with their American counterparts.

    I believe in the potential of multilateral organizations, and as Secretary of State, I have made it a priority to deepen our engagement with regional organizations that are playing a growing role in world events, from the African Union to ASEAN to the Arab League.

    Now of course, that doesn’t mean we are always going to agree on everything. That doesn’t happen with any two people, let alone two organizations or countries.

    There will be times when we do differ on principles and approaches.

    But our hope is that dialogues like this can help us understand each other better, to narrow any areas of difference, and to find as much common ground as possible.

    Our hope is not only to strengthen ties between our institutions
    – the Government of the United States and the Arab League
    – but between our people, the people of the Arab world and the American people.

    Recent events remind us we have a great deal of work to do,
    and we look to partners in regional organizations to help us build mutual understanding and
    work to uphold and defend principles such as nonviolence and tolerance
    while we work in very constructive and practical ways

    to make a difference in the lives of the people we serve.

    So, Secretary General, thank you.

    SECRETARY GENERAL ELARABY: Madam Secretary, thank you very much for this ceremony, and thank you very much for the effort that the State Department has put with the – my colleagues in the League of Arab States in finalizing the text that we have signed now.

    Let me, first of all, say two preliminary comments.

    First of all, the statement – the (inaudible) statement made today by President Obama was very impressive, and I think it was timely, and thank him for that.

    The second point of a general nature that I would like to make is to convey personally my condolences for the tragic death of the Ambassador in Benghazi.
    It touched us all. I called (inaudible) right away to convey my condolences.
    She was not in. I (inaudible), and the League of Arab States issued a statement.

    On this point, let me just say that the League of Arab States, along with the European Union, the African Union, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, who issued a statement, all of us, on this. And in this statement, there is also a reference at the end that we all should work on further measures to ensure that such events will never happen (inaudible).

    As a lawyer – and you are a lawyer – I think the first (inaudible) should be

    an international treaty that would ensure that certain matters,

    if happened – should not happen, and if happened, the perpetrator would be punished and the rule of law would apply.

    This Memorandum of Understanding is very important for us.
    The Arab world has a lot of contacts, and historic contacts, with the United States.
    And most of our, I would say, problems depend on what the United States will do to resolve them.
    Just to refer to Palestine, we need the United States participation.
    Now we have Syria; we need United States participation, active participation.

    So I think it was said that you are indispensible. But in the world today – and we continue – we think that this Memorandum of Understanding will open new avenues for further cooperation and understanding.
    And you also – as you rightly pointed out, what is needed is not to start by agreement, agreeing on something, but to, in all honesty, exchange views and see how we can reach a common understanding of certain matters.
    And I think this is a very good beginning.

    We do have also a matter that I have to refer to, is that there is – we have an office here in New York, we have an office in Geneva, and we very much would like that this matter will be taken up and the facilities needed to carry out their mission could be extended at the right moment when we decide that (inaudible).

    I’m indeed grateful for the program – the cultural program and the exchange that you have referred to, and I’m sure that you will benefit (inaudible).
    That’s very generous of you.
    I hope that this is a beginning, and that there will be many other steps in
    the future to strengthen ties between the United States of America and the League of Arab States.

    Thank you very, very much.
    PRN: 2012/1516

  7. 2012/09/27 at 1:29 PM

    Vietnam Veteran US diplomat Fred Hof, the US Special Advisor on Transition in Syria, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s special adviser on Syria is resigning from his post

    09/26/2012 06:50 AM EDT
    Background Briefing on Secretary Clinton’s Meetings With Iraqi Vice President al-Khuzai, Arab League Secretary General Elaraby, and Yemeni President Hadi
    Senior Administration Official
    Waldorf Astoria Hotel, New York City
    September 25, 2012
    —————-
    QUESTION: Sorry. Jo Biddle from AFP (inaudible).

    SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yeah. Hi.

    QUESTION: Since a lot of the focus of the meetings of the Secretary has been on Syria, I wonder if you could talk to us perhaps to confirm that Fred Hof is resigning from his post and what that actually — the implications that will have for your policy on Syria going forward.

    SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yeah. Well, first I want to say, yes, I can confirm that he is going to be retiring. He’s had a wonderful, terrific, long, and distinguished career in government service. As it happens to folks who have dedicated so much of their lives to government work, there comes a time when it really is important for us to reconnect with our families and spend time with them, and that’s the reason that he has decided to step down. Of course, the Secretary is extremely grateful for his leadership and all the work he’s done on a variety of issues, and obviously most recently focused on Syria. So we wish him all the very best and fully understand that there comes a time in everyone’s career when sometimes you just have to pick, to go back to your family.

    QUESTION: And going forward, is this going to have implications? Is he going to be replaced or —

    SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, we have a number of people who are fully engaged on Syria. As you know, Ambassador Ford is relentlessly working the issue, and frankly at all levels. As you’ve seen from these first couple of days of here at UNGA, the Secretary is working on this intensely. We continue to have a number of our key players at all levels, whether it’s Deputy Secretary Burns or Under Secretary Wendy Sherman, a number of people, Beth Jones, and others who are working on the Syria issue.

    But we will look, obviously, to ensure that Fred’s role is sustained in terms of the excellent work he’s done to try to bring together the opposition, in particular, and working with the different parties to see how we might be successful in bringing about the political transition that we know that the Syrian people want, that people in the region want, the world wants. And again, we have talented folks, and I’m sure somebody will step up and be able to continue the fine work that Fred has done on this issue.

    Do you have any other questions while — I hope again — I know it’s a very long day, and I’m sorry that this got delayed. We will have an opportunity again to do it by phone in terms of the readout of the Transatlantic Dinner. And then I’m sure we’ll have more programming every day of the week. And please bear with us. We’ll do our best to keep you well informed. Thank you very much.

    QUESTION: Thank you.

  8. 2012/09/27 at 1:40 PM

    Senior State Department Official on Secretary Clinton’s Meeting with Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu

    “They are doing a number of events together, including the ad hoc meeting on Syria on Friday”

    “the need to stay engaged post-2014, both in Afghanistan and throughout Central Asia, to continue to support democratic principles and push back against any efforts to roll back the clock, both noting the fragility there”

    “our hope that our ally Turkey and our ally Israel will sit down and work through the difficult issues that they have together”

    Special Briefing
    Senior Department Official
    New York , NY
    September 26, 2012

    SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: As she always does at the UN General Assembly, the Secretary had a meeting this morning with Turkish Foreign Minister Davutoglu.
    They were both extremely pressed for time, so unfortunately, they only had about 25 minutes together. They both left somewhat frustrated that they didn’t get through their full agendas, so we’re anticipating that they’ll have a chance to talk again during the course of the week.

    They are doing a number of events together, including the ad hoc meeting on Syria on Friday.

    So they didn’t get through everything, but let me give you a sense of what they did get through.

    First, the Secretary obviously opened by thanking Turkey for the public statements made by Prime Minister Erdogan and other senior Turkish officials in the wake of the violence in Benghazi, Cairo, Tunis, et cetera.
    That led to a general conversation building on the themes that President Obama put forward yesterday morning about the importance of defending and supporting the democratic transitions going on in the Middle East and North Africa, as well as democratic transitions and democratic principles in other parts of the world, notably including the need to stay engaged post-2014, both in Afghanistan and throughout Central Asia, to continue to support democratic principles and push back against any efforts to roll back the clock, both noting the fragility there.

    They then went on to a topic where they have been in intense conversation for arguably more than a year, but those of you who were with us in Istanbul earlier in June know, and that is obviously Syria, where we have had, since the Secretary’s trip to Istanbul, a series of bilateral meetings with the Turks. We also participate together in the Friends of the Syrian People and in the ad hoc group on Friday on Syria. They obviously talked about the agenda for the meeting on Friday and the importance of setting that meeting up well. In particular, the essential aspect of continuing to support the opposition, not only in the ways we have each chosen to do so on the ground, but also support efforts to unify them – external and internal opposition, different strands of the internal opposition with each other, especially in light of the very quickly evolving situation on the ground in Syria, where, as you know and as we have discussed before, the Government is making – is steadily losing control of territory.

    And then finally in this meeting, the Secretary raised again our hope that our ally Turkey and our ally Israel will sit down and work through the difficult issues that they have together, and Secretary again encouraged that and offered to be helpful to our allies in that, given the enormous number of strategic interests and challenges that Turkey and Israel share, and the value of their being able to collaborate and cooperate on all those things.

    So let me see if there are any questions on that.

    QUESTION: Yeah. Firstly, on the Turkey-Israel thing, just because you brought it up last, what was the reception to that? Is there any – are there any plans for talks or is something in the works? Are you guys going to be involved in setting that up?

    SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Well, I think I don’t want to go beyond what I said, which is that Secretary has talked about this in virtually every meeting she’s had with the Turkish side, as she has with the Israeli side. I think the hope here was to try to get them thinking again about making another effort.

    QUESTION: And then on the efforts with the opposition, what’s new, essentially, in today’s conversation? Where is it developing?

    SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Let me say – and I think we’ll be talking a little bit more about this when we set up the ad hoc meeting for you tomorrow in a background session, and then obviously when you hear her remarks at the session. But we’ve talked for some time about the importance of the external opposition and the internal opposition unifying not only behind some of the essential governance principles that have already been articulated – democratic principles of human rights and a Syria for all Syrians and all that kind of thing – but also behind a transition plan building off the July 3rd from Cairo or similar ideas from the inside.

    So, as you know, the Turks have extensive contacts with various different opposition groups, not only the external ones but now with groups inside – as do we. And a lot of the work we’ve been doing together is to try to understand how local coordinating councils are taking up the slack as the Syrian Government recedes from areas where they’ve lost territory, trying to look at emerging leaders within those groups, trying to ensure that the nonlethal support that we are giving, which is also in the form of communications as we’ve spoken about, can be used to link groups not just on the tactical ground situation, but also in terms of long-term planning.

    Anybody else?

    QUESTION: I have (inaudible).

    SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Yeah, so let’s end backgrounder here.

    PRN: 2012/1522

  9. 2012/09/27 at 1:54 PM

    Netanyahu says sanctions have failed to deter Iran; “red line” must be drawn to prevent nuke

    Netanyahu’s speech marks perhaps his final plea before Israel takes matters into its own hands

    Iran insists its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes but Israel, the U.S. and other Western allies reject the claim. Four rounds of U.N. sanctions have already been placed on Iran

    Speaking shortly before Netanyahu, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas accused Israel of ethnic cleansing for building settlements in east Jerusalem
    Israel conquered the eastern part of Jerusalem from Jordan during the 1967 Mideast War. It later annexed it but the move has not been internationally recognized

    Article by: ARON HELLER , Associated Press Updated: September 27, 2012
    http://www.startribune.com/nation/171515801.html

    UNITED NATIONS – Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned Thursday that Iran will have enough enriched uranium to make a nuclear bomb by next summer and urged the world to draw a clear “red line” to stop it in its tracks.

    Saying it was getting “late, very late” to stop Iran, Netanyahu flashed a diagram showing the progress Iran has made toward creating a bomb. He said Iran had already completed the first stage of uranium enrichment, and then he drew his own red line on the diagram to highlight the point of no return — the completion of the second stage and 90 percent enrichment.

    “Iran is 70 percent of the way there and … well into the second stage. By next summer, at current enrichment rates, they will have finished the medium enrichment and move on to the final stage,” Netanyahu said. “From there it is only a few more weeks before they have enriched enough for a bomb.”

    Netanyahu has repeatedly argued that time is running out to stop the Islamic Republic from becoming a nuclear power and the threat of force must be seriously considered.

    “I believe that faced with a clear red line, Iran will back down — and it will give more time for sanctions and diplomacy,” the Israeli prime minister said. “Red lines don’t lead to war, red lines prevent war … nothing could imperil the world more than a nuclear-armed Iran.”

    Netanyahu’s speech marks perhaps his final plea before Israel takes matters into its own hands.

    Israeli leaders have issued a series of warnings in recent weeks suggesting that if Iran’s uranium enrichment program continues it may soon stage a unilateral military strike, flouting even American wishes.

    The Obama administration has urgently sought to hold off Israeli military action, which would likely result in the U.S. being pulled into a conflict and cause region-wide mayhem on the eve of American elections.

    Israel considers a nuclear-armed Iran to be an existential threat, citing Iranian denials of the Holocaust, its calls for Israel’s destruction, its development of missiles capable of striking the Jewish state and its support for hostile Arab militant groups.

    “Given this record of Iranian aggression without nuclear weapons, just imagine Iranian aggression with nuclear weapons,” Netanyahu said.

    Iran insists its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes but Israel, the U.S. and other Western allies reject the claim. Four rounds of U.N. sanctions have already been placed on Iran.

    A U.N. report last month only reinforced Israeli fears, finding that Iran has moved more of its uranium enrichment activities into fortified bunkers deep underground where there are impervious to air attack. Enrichment is a key activity in building a bomb, though it has other uses as well, such as producing medical isotopes.

    While Israel is convinced that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon, American officials believe Iran has not yet made a final decision to take the plunge, even as it develops much of the infrastructure needed to do so.

    Obama has repeatedly said he will not allow Iran to gain nuclear weapons and has said the U.S. would be prepared to use force as a last resort.Israel’s timeline for military action is shorter than that of the United States, which has far more powerful bunker-busting bombs at its disposal, and there is great suspicion in Israel over whether in the moment of truth Obama will follow through on his pledge.

    Speaking shortly before Netanyahu, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas accused Israel of ethnic cleansing for building settlements in east Jerusalem.

    “It is a campaign of ethnic cleansing against the Palestinian people via the demolition of their homes,” Abbas said in his speech to the U.N. General Assembly.

    Netanyahu rebuked Abbas in his own address, saying: “We won’t solve our conflict with libelous speeches at the U.N.”

    Israel conquered the eastern part of Jerusalem from Jordan during the 1967 Mideast War. It later annexed it but the move has not been internationally recognized. The Palestinians want east Jerusalem to the capital of their future state in the West Bank.

    Abbas also said he has opened talks on a new bid for international recognition at the U.N., but didn’t specify exactly when he will ask the General Assembly to vote.

    “Intensive consultations with the various regional organizations and the state members” were underway, he said.

    The Palestinians will apply to the General Assembly for nonmember state status.

    That stands in sharp contrast to last year, when they asked the Security Council to admit them as a full member state, but the bid failed.

    Abbas insisted that the new quest for recognition was “not seeking to delegitimize Israel, but rather establish a state that should be established: Palestine.”

    Palestinian officials said their bid is likely to be submitted on Nov. 29.

  10. 2012/09/29 at 3:13 PM

    Background Briefing: Readout on the United Nations Security Council P-5+1 Ministerial

    Special Briefing
    Senior State Department Official
    Waldorf Astoria Hotel
    New York City
    September 27, 2012

    MODERATOR: Good evening, everybody. Thank you for your patience. As you know, the Secretary just completed a P-5+1 minus Iran ministers meeting. Here to give you a sense of that meeting is [Senior State Department Official], hereafter Senior State Department Official.

    Take it away, [Senior State Department Official].

    SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Good afternoon, good evening. I’ve lost all sense of time. I’m sure you have as well.

    We had a political directors meeting with High Representative Ashton for about 90 minutes prior to the ministers joining for a little over 30 minutes. And we had excellent consultations with our colleagues in both settings. And I would say the watch words for both were unity. The P-5+1 remains completely unified in wanting to get the Iranians to consider and to address the concerns of the international community, and that the P-5+1 is completely united in ensuring that Iran does not acquire a nuclear weapon.

    In addition, the P-5+1 is unified in our dual-track approach. No one likes sanctions. We understand that sanctions sometimes not only hurt countries, but have an effect for people’s day-to-day lives. We’re quite well aware of that. But we believe that it is necessary for Iran to understand that there are consequences to their not addressing the concerns of the international community, and we believe that it also helps to create political space for the diplomacy, which is far and away the preferred way to deal with this issue. All of the ministers were unified in their belief that diplomacy is the much preferred way forward, and that we are committed to that dialogue and diplomacy, and to the dual-track approach which we have been pursuing.

    We discussed how we will proceed forward in making sure that we have all of the right substance on the table. We expect there to be contact in the next instance between Cathy Ashton and Dr. Jalili to discuss the next steps forward. She had said she would call him after this P-5+1 consultation, both with political directors and ministers. She will do that. They will talk about what we discussed as possible next steps. We think we will do this – continue to do this in a step-by-step process, which will include some additional consultations among ourselves, then consultations with the Iranians. And I would suspect at some point, we will indeed return to P-5+1 political directors track for a fourth round.

    But we are taking this step by step, and so I think unity is – was the key word today. There was complete unanimity among the ministers most importantly, and also a strong affirmation of the job that the High Representative has been doing in coordinating this effort and coordinating these talks and the way forward.

    Finally, all of the ministers also agreed that we had to proceed on a basis that was credible. As the High Representative has said many times, as the President has said, as the Secretary of State has said, we will not have talks just for talks’ sakes. So these informal conversations with Iran are very important to gauge the seriousness of their ability to really engage with us, and to take the diplomatic track, which is much preferred from our perspective.

    So that’s where we are, and I’m happy to answer your questions.

    MODERATOR: Brad.

    QUESTION: Yeah. Firstly, just – you said there would probably be another meeting at the – a fourth meeting at the political —

    SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: At some point, I’m sure there will be. I think we’ve got some work to do, some additional work to do first, so I would not expect that to happen immediately. But I would hope that we will get there in the not-too-distant future.

    QUESTION: That’s a meeting that would include Iran, right?

    SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Yes.

    QUESTION: Okay. And it’s not contingent on anything coming back from her discussions with Jalili?

    SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Everything is step by step in this process, because we have to ensure that Iran is serious. We have to ensure that we aren’t going to have talks for talks’ sake. And we have some reason to believe that they will move to a point of seriousness, but we will test this out every step of the way.

    QUESTION: And then, if I may – sorry, this is the last one – was there any mention by anyone about the redlines that Prime Minister Netanyahu has been speaking about in recent weeks?

    SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: I think we all heard the speech today, and we will continue to have our discussions. As the Prime Minister said, we consult very closely together. We are in discussions together. We are proceeding forward in both wanting to use diplomacy as the way ahead. And so that is how we are proceeding.

    MODERATOR: Indira.

    QUESTION: You mentioned that you were going to be going forward now with discussions with Iran about some of the ideas that you came up with today. So how are those ideas different from what you’ve already offered to Iran? Was there a new proposal that came out or was it a new idea?

    SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: What we have on the table is very substantive, very fair, and begins to address the concerns of the international community, but is only a first step to many steps that will have to be taken for Iran to address our concerns. So we have always been in discussions about a range of steps that will be necessary by Iran. So we will continue to have those internal consultations.

    QUESTION: But the original plan that you had told us about as offered —

    SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Stays on the – is on the – stays on the table.

    QUESTION: — that hasn’t been changed in any way?

    SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: That has not been changed, no.

    QUESTION: And what about the Meyer report that came out – I guess it was yesterday – saying that Iran, according to the IAEA, was willing to give up the 20 percent enrichment in exchange for dropping of all sanctions? Was there any discussion about that offer?

    SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: We did not discuss that report, no.

    QUESTION: Is that a nonstarter?

    SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: I think we have said that in order for Iran to get the sanctions relief that it’s looking for, they would have to do considerably more than the initial proposal.

    QUESTION: And last question: Was there a discussion today about new steps? Because Europe has talked about new sanctions that they are proposing. Did they discuss that in their meeting?

    SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: We have – we all believe in a dual-track approach. As you note, the Europeans have been discussing additional sanctions. The President of the United States put out a new Executive Order recently. On Monday, we designated NIAC for their relationship as an agent or affiliate of the IRGC. The Congress passed additional legislation, which we are now implementing. So this dual track – the pressure track is going to continue.

    QUESTION: So the Europeans didn’t tell you what they were coming up with?

    SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: We’ve had a lot of discussions.

    MODERATOR: Anne.

    QUESTION: What gives you confidence that – or hope that they (inaudible) may be moving – the Iranians may be moving to a point of greater seriousness? What signs do you see that that’s happening, and what would you count as for your seriousness?

    SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Well, I think that the High Representative, when she had her dinner with Dr. Jalili, I think indicated to the press that Iran wants and looks forward to additional dialogue to try to reach an agreement. But that discussion has to be, as I said, a credible one. And we have to make sure that the timetable that’s being used is not just being used to buy time for Iran to continue its nuclear program.

    The President and the Secretary have been very clear that we are not sure that Iran has made the strategic decision to really make a credible deal with the P-5+1. But there are some signals, because they were willing to discuss 20 percent, because we did have some serious discussions, that we might find a basis to move forward. We are not there yet. And as the Secretary said, what they put on, proposed, on the table in response to our proposal was a nonstarter.

    MODERATOR: Paul.

    QUESTION: I haven’t heard Western officials talk about concern about ordinary Iranians as a result of the sanctions. Is there – was there more discussion of the possible impact on ordinary Iranians these days?

    SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Not in this particular meeting, Paul. I think that’s just a fact of life, that when the rial has lost its value, when oil sales have decreased as fundamentally as they have in Iran, that Iran is going to face a struggle. And what we are trying to do here is to lead the Iranian regime to a decision that in order to be able to have the prosperity that they want, ostensibly for their people, they need to address the concerns of the international community.

    PRN: 2012/1544