STATE DEPARTMENT RELEASES SECRETARY OF STATE KERRY'S INTERVIEW WITH ABC NEWS

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Interview With Martha Raddatz of ABC's This Week
Interview
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
December 15, 2013

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, I want to get right to reports out of North Korea that the young leader, Kim Jong-un, has executed his uncle, his mentor, one of the most powerful people in North Korea. What does this tell you about the danger coming from North Korea?

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, it tells us a lot about, first of all, how ruthless and reckless he is. And it also tells us a lot about how insecure he is, to a certain degree. It tells us a significant amount about the instability internally of the regime, with the numbers of executions. This is not the first execution. There have been a significant number of executions taking place over the last months, which we’re aware of. And most importantly, it underscores the importance for all of us of finding a way forward with North Korea in order to denuclearize the peninsula. It’s an ominous sign of the instability and of the danger that does exist.

QUESTION: Well, what does it tell you about him? We know so little about him.

SECRETARY KERRY: We don’t know. I mean, North Korea remains relatively opaque. It is not easy, but we do have insights. And the insights that we have tell us that he is spontaneous, erratic, still worried about his place in the power structure, and maneuvering to eliminate any potential kind of adversary or competitor and does so, obviously, ruthlessly. I mean, you saw the pictures of his uncle being arrested in front of everybody at this meeting.

QUESTION: And this was so public.

SECRETARY KERRY: I mean, it really reminded me of a video that we saw of Saddam Hussein doing the same thing, having people plucked out of an audience, with people sitting there sweating, and nobody daring to move or do anything. This is the nature of this ruthless, horrendous dictatorship and of his insecurities.

And I think we need to factor that into the urgency of getting China, Russia, Japan, South Korea, all of us to stay on the same page and to put as much effort into the denuclearization as possible. To have a nuclear weapon potentially in the hands of somebody like Kim Jong-un just becomes even more unacceptable.

QUESTION: I want to move to the other headline, which is out of Iran, and Robert Levinson, the FBI agent who was reportedly working with the CIA in Iran, disappeared seven year ago. His family has confirmed to ABC News that he did have ties to the CIA. I know you’re not going to confirm anything like that, but I want to tell you what his family said. They say that the U.S. Government has abandoned and betrayed him and is getting lip service from the Obama Administration on their efforts for his release. Has there been any real progress?

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, there hasn’t been progress in the sense that we don’t have him back. But to suggest that we’ve abandoned him or anybody has abandoned him is simply incorrect and not helpful. The fact is that I have personally raised the issue, not only at the highest level that I have been involved with, but also through other intermediaries. So we don’t have any meeting with anybody who has something to do with Iran or an approach to Iran where we don’t talk to them about how might be able to find to find not just Levinson, but we have two other Americans that we’re deeply concerned about.

QUESTION: Do you have any --

SECRETARY KERRY: And we’re looking for proof of life. We’re working on several processes that I’m not free to talk about, but there are a number of different channels that are being worked, and they’re being worked aggressively.

QUESTION: Do you believe the Iranian Government is responsible for his disappearance?

SECRETARY KERRY: I think the Iranian Government – I can’t tell you what happened or how the sequence was, but I think the Iranian Government has the ability to help us here, and we hope they will.

QUESTION: The major news out of Syria this week: the U.S. has suspended nonlethal aid because Islamist rebels took over a warehouse.

SECRETARY KERRY: Yeah.

QUESTION: How did that happen?

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, it happened because there’s a certain amount of infighting taking place within the opposition. And this is the nature of the beast that has been unleashed by Bashar al-Assad, who probably is feeding some of it himself because he likes to try to play the part that he is the better alternative to these extremists. So there are some indicators that he’s even fueling some of that.

The problem is you have some radical Islamic elements there.

QUESTION: So what’s the next move?

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, there isn’t more – the moderate opposition has been united up until recently, and we believe they still can be united. We are aiming towards the Geneva II conference, which will take place in January – in the latter part of January. We are committed to try to bring people together, a strong representation of the opposition, together with the Assad regime representatives and with maybe 30 or so other countries and all try to work in the same direction, which is to get a political settlement out of Syria.

QUESTION: When can you start the nonlethal aid back again to those moderate…

SECRETARY KERRY: I think very quickly.

QUESTION: What are you waiting for?

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, we’ve already had, we’ve already had some proffers to have the warehouse protected and other kinds of things. But I think people want to be careful, have the meetings that we need to have, and make certain we can proceed forward thoughtfully. Nobody wants to just fill the warehouse up again and have it taken over again. That doesn’t make sense. So we need to make sure where we’re going.

But look, this is complicated. This isn’t easy. A year ago, before the President started to focus on this and figuratively had to accelerate the efforts to get a political solution, nothing was happening except fighting and killing. And a year ago, chemical weapons were being used and under the control of the Assad regime. Now, through our diplomatic efforts, we are moving towards a peace conference, difficult as it is --

QUESTION: And you really think that’s going to happen next month?

SECRETARY KERRY: We’re committed to going. The Russians are committed to going. Countries are committed to going.

QUESTION: John McCain says: The moderate opposition groups are losing. As a result, extremists are filling the void, and entire sections of Syria, stretching deep into Iraq, are now effectively safe havens for al-Qaida. True?

SECRETARY KERRY: There’s some truth – yeah, it’s absolutely true. Al-Qaida has greater clout there than it had before, and it’s an increasing threat. And it’s a threat we’re going to have to confront.

But John also understands that the members of Congress, with whom he serves, were not willing to put additional money in in order to fund overtly and put money into the opposition significantly.

QUESTION: Let’s turn to the war we are still in, and that is in Afghanistan. And there’s very little progress it appears with Hamid Karzai, the president who does not want to sign this security agreement that would allow U.S. forces to remain beyond 2014, making it clear that’s what the U.S. wants, to allow troops to stay beyond 2014.

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, the U.S. wants success in Afghanistan. And success means having an Afghan arms force that has the ability to sustain itself and provide security to the people of Afghanistan so they can continue on the road to developing their society, their institutions, their healthcare system, their education, and other things that are happening today. When America went into Afghanistan, Martha, there were about 900,000 kids in school. They were all boys. Today there are about 7 or 8 million children in school, and almost 40 percent of them are girls. So there’s a huge transformation taking place, and we want to try to hold onto that.

QUESTION: And this – if we don’t leave those troops there, can you guarantee that young women can still go to school there?

SECRETARY KERRY: No. Absolutely not. You can’t guarantee anything, I think. If American forces were not there, I think there would be serious challenges with respect to Afghanistan’s security. But – here’s the but – I believe that Hamid Karzai, either he or his successor will sign this. Now I think he needs to sign it.

QUESTION: His successor? So it’s okay for a successor --

SECRETARY KERRY: I said they will. No, no, no. I said either he or they will, but he needs to sign it.

QUESTION: By when? Give me a date.

SECRETARY KERRY: We negotiated – let me just finish – we negotiated an agreement. That wasn’t in place, by the way, a year ago. Now we have an agreement that’s been negotiated, and he has said to me personally, as recently as a day ago, reiterated through his minister, that the language is fine. So we are very close to the ability to move forward. And I believe it will be signed and I hope it’ll be signed as soon as possible.

QUESTION: Is there a cutoff date, where you have to say we can’t do it, we can’t leave troops there?

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, there is a cutoff date, but I’m not going to get into cutoff dates. I think what’s important to understand is --

QUESTION: First it was October, then it was going to have to be by January.

SECRETARY KERRY: No. This needs to be signed as soon as possible. And I think he understands that.

QUESTION: How long do you want troops to stay there?

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, that’s up to the President of the United States and it’s up to the process on the ground. But the President has already said we are prepared to be there for a number of years going forward in a very different role, a very diminished role of training, advising, and equipping the Afghans. We will not be in combat. America will not be engaged in combat.

QUESTION: But counterterrorism troops, you want there as well.

SECRETARY KERRY: It’s a very different. We will be doing counterterrorism. That is correct.

QUESTION: That’s combat.

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, it is – not automatically, not directly. It can be intel gathering. It can be providing information to the Afghans that they act on. And in some cases, it might wind up being kinetic by American forces. But the point is, it’s not day-to-day combat against the Taliban on behalf of the Afghan people. It’s counterterrorism to fight against terrorists – al-Qaida, and Haqqani Network, others – who are threatening American assets and America itself.

QUESTION: You’ve put so much effort in your first year into Mideast peace. You’ve got the parties talking, but has there been any real concrete progress on the really tough issues?

SECRETARY KERRY: Yes. Actually, there has been. But we’ve agreed not to be talking about what we’re doing, because it just creates great expectations, it creates pressure, it creates opposition in some cases. If this conflict was easy, Martha, this would have been done years ago. It’s confounded presidents and secretaries of state for 30 or 40 years. And it’s complicated.

QUESTION: And you feel this time its different?

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, I think we’re in a different moment now. And hopefully the leaders will seize this moment and at least move the balls forward somewhat.

QUESTION: We’re sitting in Ho Chi Minh City. You’re a Vietnam War veteran and an anti-war activist after the Vietnam War. How much of your world view comes from your time spent here?

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, obviously, some of it Martha. But one thing I’m very careful – very, very careful – not to do is see everything through the lens of Vietnam. That would be a huge mistake. And it’s informative, but it doesn’t imprison me. It doesn’t dominate me.

QUESTION: Thanks very much, Mr. Secretary.

SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you.

THE PACOM COMMANDER AND NORTH KOREA

FROM:  U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
Pacom Commander Discusses North Korea Situation
By Karen Parrish
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, July 12, 2013 - While North Korea's historic, alternating cycle of provocative attacks and inconclusive negotiations is well known, its continued pursuit of nuclear weapons limits any chance of meaningful international dialogue, the commander of U.S. Pacific Command told reporters yesterday.

Navy Adm. Samuel J. Locklear III, who was here this week as part of the U.S. delegation for security, strategic and economic dialogues with Chinese officials, responded to questions on North Korea's intent.

North and South Korea, whose capitals are Pyongyang and Seoul, respectively, have maintained an uneasy cease-fire since 1953. Communist North Korea is allied with China, but under three generations of Kim family rule and a "military first" policy, its people have suffered widespread hunger and deprivation as North Korea pours its limited resources into its armed forces and nuclear weapons program.

While the United States has provided food to North Korea in times of famine, and assisted U.S. nongovernmental organizations with aid to fight infectious disease outbreaks and supply electricity at provincial hospitals, most other trade and aid is tightly restricted by U.S. and international economic sanctions.

"I don't have a crystal ball on that one," Locklear said when asked whether more provocations from Pyongyang are likely in the near future. "History would say that there would likely be one."

Locklear added, however, that the position of countries in the region as well as the United States is "that North Korea must be committed to the total denuclearization [of the Korean Peninsula], and [present] a complete and verifiable plan to [do] that. And that's kind of the bottom-line entry of how you would get into a broader set of negotiations with North Korea at this time."

During meetings in June, President Barack Obama and Chinese President Xi Jingpin agreed that North Korea must denuclearize, that neither country will accept North Korea as a nuclear-armed state, and that both nations would work to deepen U.S.-China cooperation and dialogue to achieve denuclearization.

Locklear said North Korea has a range of missiles, from short-range to intercontinental, but only the short-range missiles have been demonstrated. North Korea's medium-range missile and a purported road-mobile intercontinental ballistic missile, he said, have not been credibly demonstrated.

North Korea's leaders announced in December they had successfully launched a satellite. In February, they completed an underground nuclear test, and in subsequent months communications were cut off with South Korea, and Kaesong, a joint North-South business and industrial sector situated on the North Korean side of the border, was shuttered.

"The fact that they were able to successfully do that [launch] was a demonstration to us that they have the ability to put something into a larger ballistic orbit," Locklear said. "Now, whether they can successfully take that technology and mate it with where they are in their nuclear program has not been demonstrated."

STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TESTIFIES BEFORE HOUSE ON U.S.-REPUBLIC OF KOREA ALLIANCE

FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT

Next Steps in the U.S. - Republic of Korea Alliance

Testimony
James P. Zumwalt
Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs

Before the House Foreign Affairs CommitteeSubcommittee on Asia and the Pacific and Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade

Washington, DC
June 27, 2013

Chairman Chabot, Chairman Poe, Mr. Faleomavaega, Mr. Sherman, and Members of the Subcommittees, I am pleased to appear before you today to discuss this important topic. The U.S.-Republic of Korea (ROK) alliance is a linchpin of security and prosperity in Northeast Asia, and our bilateral ties have never been stronger. This year marks the 60th anniversary of the U.S.-ROK Mutual Defense Treaty, the foundation of our alliance and a force for peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula. Over the past six decades, our close cooperation has evolved into an increasingly global partnership, and our economic and people-to-people ties are as robust as ever. Today, while our alliance continues to counter the threat from North Korea, we are expanding our cooperation to meet 21st-century challenges on the Korean Peninsula, in the Asia-Pacific region, and beyond.



A Future-Oriented Alliance
During her May 8 address to a joint meeting of Congress, Republic of Korea President Park Geun-hye said: "Along our journey, we have been aided by great friends and among them, the United States is second to none." Our alliance was forged in shared sacrifice in the Korean War sixty years ago, and it continues to provide an anchor for peace and security in the region. Today, we continue to strengthen and adapt our alliance to meet existing and emerging security challenges.

As stated by Presidents Obama and Park in their May 7 joint declaration, we have made significant progress on the goals outlined in our 2009 Joint Vision for the Alliance statement. The blueprint for the future of our alliance includes our Strategic Alliance 2015 plan, which outlines the conditions for the transition of wartime operational control (OPCON) to a Republic of Korea-led defense in December 2015. Our two countries continue to improve our interoperability and readiness through annual joint and combined exercises, and through a bilateral Extended Deterrence Policy Committee that focuses on improving the effectiveness of extended deterrence against threats posed by North Korean nuclear and weapons of mass destruction programs.


Cooperation on Global Issues
Presidents Obama and Park on May 7 highlighted recent successes and publicly committed to deepening our cooperation on global challenges, an increasingly important pillar of the U.S.-ROK alliance. The Republic of Korea hosted the November 2010 G-20 Summit, the November 2011 Fourth High-Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness, and the March 2012 Nuclear Security Summit. The Republic of Korea is currently a non-permanent member on the UN Security Council and our cooperation at the UN and in other multilateral fora has been excellent. We also have outstanding cooperation on countering biological threats, and just last week the Republic of Korea hosted our third bilateral, whole-of-government biopreparedness "Able Response" exercise.

U.S. and Korean soldiers serve side by side in Afghanistan, where the Republic of Korea is a major donor to reconstruction and stabilization efforts. The Republic of Korea has been a leader in supporting international efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear issue, including by supporting Iran sanctions and significantly reducing imports of oil from Iran. We are working together on Syria, where the Republic of Korea is providing assistance to address the humanitarian needs of the Syrian people. In April, we held the second U.S.-ROK Africa Dialogue, to share views and advance our cooperation on economic development and political and security issues in Africa.


A Strong Economic Partnership
The engine of our alliance is our deep economic cooperation. The Republic of Korea is Asia’s fourth-largest economy and our seventh-largest trading partner; our two countries have one of the most vibrant trading relationships in the world, one that topped over $100 billion in 2012. The year 2013, in addition to marking the 60th anniversary of our alliance, also marks the first anniversary of the entry into force of the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement (KORUS FTA). The KORUS FTA is increasing trade and investment between our two countries, is providing significant new opportunities for U.S. exporters, businesses, workers, and farmers, and reflects the depth and maturity of our strategic relationship. Our two countries continue to work together closely to fully implement the KORUS FTA, and we look forward to even more economic benefits as more provisions of the agreement are implemented.

The landmark KORUS FTA is not simply focused on strengthening trade ties, but also deepens the political and strategic partnership with our key Asia-Pacific ally and demonstrates to Americans and Koreans alike that our relationship brings them real, practical benefits. Our commitment to the KORUS FTA enhances our credibility as a Pacific power and tells the world that we will remain engaged in the Asia-Pacific region. As President Park said before Congress last month, the KORUS FTA "helps underpin Washington’s rebalancing toward the region."

On the topic of economic development, there is no better example than the Republic of Korea, which has made extraordinary progress, from a recipient of foreign aid and Peace Corps volunteers in the past, to a thriving economic powerhouse and international aid donor today. The ROK example shows the benefits of investing in development aid and people-to-people ties, and we plan to further expand our development partnership with Korea on a global basis. Building on the development cooperation memorandum of understanding (MOU) we signed in 2011, the Peace Corps and the Korea International Cooperation Agency will sign an MOU to collaborate on global development and international volunteer programs. This type of cooperation not only advances our shared interests, but will help forge closer ties between future generations of young Americans and Koreans.


Strong Science and Technology Ties
Our substantial ties also include strong cooperation in science and technology, on cyber space and cyber security, and on climate change and energy. The United States and Republic of Korea are also global leaders and partners on peaceful nuclear energy. We both recently decided to seek an extension of our existing civil nuclear cooperation agreement which has benefitted our two countries for over four decades and are in the process of negotiating a successor agreement to continue and expand this longstanding and fruitful cooperation in the future. As President Obama said, "I believe that we can find a way to support South Korea’s energy and commercial needs even as we uphold our mutual commitments to prevent nuclear proliferation." The Administration is ready to work with Congress to achieve an early extension of the existing agreement, and we are grateful for your efforts on the related pending draft legislation. We are confident that our two governments can produce a successor agreement that advances both our shared nonproliferation and nuclear cooperation policy objectives.


Deep People-to-People Ties
The foundation of our alliance and our sixty years of partnership and shared prosperity rests on our people-to-people ties and our shared values—a commitment to freedom, democracy, and the rule of law. Ties between Americans and Koreans are deeper and tighter than ever: Last year more than one million South Koreans visited the United States. The Republic of Korea sends more university students to the United States per capita than any other major economy, over 72,000 per year—a strong vote of confidence in the U.S. education system and the future of U.S.-ROK ties. The United States is the clear top choice for Korean entrepreneurs and scientists seeking to create businesses and develop new technologies, and we support efforts to facilitate such exchanges.

Our countries are working to reinvigorate exchange programs between Americans and Koreans. In May, we jointly announced our intent to renew the Work, English, Study, and Travel (WEST) program, which provides an opportunity for qualified university students from Korea to study English, participate in internships, and travel independently in the United States. We are also expanding the U.S.-Korea Fulbright Program through the creation of two new Fulbright scholarships focused on U.S.-ROK alliance studies. Our International Visitor Leadership Program (IVLP), which brings promising young Korean leaders to the United States on professional exchanges, has had notable successes—over 100 current and former ROK legislators and multiple cabinet ministers have been IVLP alumni.

Perhaps the most important example of our close ties is the proud legacy of Korean-Americans—over two million strong—who have made crucial contributions to America’s prosperity, defended America’s freedom, added their own unique qualities to America’s culture, and distinguished themselves in academia, science, medicine, business, and athletics. Korean-Americans increase the strength and vitality of our strong partnership.


DPRK
Let me turn now to perhaps the greatest challenge our alliance faces—North Korea. Many of the DPRK’s provocations in recent months—from its missile launch in December to its third nuclear test in February and subsequent bellicose rhetoric —have directly targeted the United States and the Republic of Korea. Let me be clear: the United States remains fully committed to the defense of the Republic of Korea, and we will continue to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with our ally in the face of these North Korean provocations, including through extended deterrence and the full range of U.S. military capabilities, both conventional and nuclear.

Despite the DPRK’s recent overtures in the region and outreach to counterparts in the Six-Party process, we have yet to see concrete steps suggesting that North Korea is prepared to negotiate on the key issue of paramount concern: the verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. We continue to coordinate closely with the ROK, as well as other Six-Party partners, on North Korea policy. The United States remains committed to authentic and credible negotiations to implement the September 2005 Joint Statement of the Six-Party Talks and to bring North Korea into compliance with its international obligations through irreversible steps leading to denuclearization. We will not accept North Korea as a nuclear-armed state, nor will we reward the DPRK for the absence of bad behavior, or compensate the DPRK merely for returning to dialogue. We have also made clear that U.S.-DPRK relations cannot fundamentally improve without sustained improvement in inter-Korean relations, which we support.

Like the Republic of Korea, the United States remains gravely concerned about the deplorable human rights situation in the DPRK and about the well-being of the North Korean people. With the co-sponsorship of the United States, Republic of Korea, Japan, the European Union, and others, the UN Human Rights Council in March established an independent one-year Commission of Inquiry to investigate and report to the international community on North Korea’s widespread, systemic human rights violations. Ambassador Robert King and Department of State Bureau of Democracy, Labor, and Human Rights Deputy Assistant Secretary Dan Baer recently organized the latest in a series of face-to-face consultations with the ROK and other key partners on ways to enhance pressure on Pyongyang to improve its human rights record.


The Future of the U.S.-ROK Alliance
Our sixty-year-strong alliance is rooted in our legacy of sacrifice, our shared interests in the Asia-Pacific region and around the world, our deep economic ties, and most importantly, our shared values and strong personal friendships that have developed from extensive people-to-people ties. The alliance has never been stronger and both our countries are actively working to prepare our alliance for the years to come. As President Park said to Congress in May, our efforts portray a "forward-leaning alliance" and "point to a 21st-century partnership that is both comprehensive and strategic."

President Park’s landmark visit to Washington this past May—a visit by Northeast Asia’s first modern-day female head of state—opens a new chapter in our alliance and partnership. We welcome the Republic of Korea’s growing leadership on the world stage and the United States is fully committed to this alliance, which is a force for peace and security not just on the Korean Peninsula, but in the region and around the globe. We are heartened that support for the alliance from the American and Korean people is at an all-time high: recent polls show that over 80 percent of Koreans support the alliance. Strong and enduring Congressional support for the Republic of Korea and for our alliance and partnership has been critical to the success of our relationship for the last six decades, and will be even more important in the decades to come.

Thank you for inviting me to testify on this important topic. I am happy to answer any questions you may have.

PRESIDENTS OBAMA, PUTIN MAKE REMARKS AFTER MEETING

FROM: THE WHITE HOUSE

Remarks by President Obama and President Putin of Russia After Bilateral Meeting

Lough Erne Resort
Lough Erne, Northern Ireland

8:33 P.M. BST

PRESIDENT PUTIN: (As interpreted.) I’ve had detailed talks with the President of the United States on almost all the matters. We began with economy and we had detailed discussions. We’ve agreed to launch new mechanisms of cooperation in this domain, including at the levels of the Chairman of Government of the Russian Federation and the Vice President of the U.S.

We have spoken in detail about the matters of security -- of strategic security between the two countries and the world as such. I believe that we have an opportunity to move forward on most sensitive directions.

We also spoke about problem spots on the planet, including Syria. And, of course, our opinions do not coincide, but all of us have the intention to stop the violence in Syria, to stop the growth of victims, and to solve the situation peacefully, including by bringing the parties to the negotiations table in Geneva. We agreed to push the parties to the negotiations table.

I hope that after the elections in Iran there will be new opportunities to solve the Iranian nuclear problem. And we’ll be trying to do that bilaterally and in the international negotiations process.

We also spoke about the problem of North Korea, and we agreed to emphasize our interaction on all the directions.

And I am very grateful to the U.S. President for the detailed discussion and for the frank exchange of opinions on these matters.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, I had a very useful conversation with President Putin, and I began by thanking him again for the cooperation that they've provided in dealing with the tragedy of the bombing at the Boston Marathon. We have a shared interest in countering terrorist violence, and we are continuing to strengthen our cooperation on this issue, including as we welcome Russia hosting the Winter Olympics in Sochi.

As President Putin indicated, we had extensive discussions about how we can further deepen our economic and commercial relationships. With Russian accession to the WTO, the removal of Jackson-Vanick, I think we're poised to increase both trade and investment between our two countries. And that can create jobs and business opportunities, both for Russians and Americans.

Our discussions on North Korea and Iran were very productive, and we both agreed to consult closely on the North Korean issue. And in Iran, we both accept -- expressed cautious optimism that with a new election there, we may be able to move forward on a dialogue that allows us to resolve the problems with Iran's nuclear program.

And with respect to Syria, we do have differing perspectives on the problem, but we share an interest in reducing the violence; securing chemical weapons and ensuring that they're neither used nor are they subject to proliferation; and that we want to try to resolve the issue through political means, if possible. And so we have instructed our teams to continue to work on the potential of a Geneva follow-up to the first meeting.

And finally, we had a discussion about the fact as the two nuclear superpowers, we have a special obligation to try to continue to reduce tensions, to build on the work that we did with New START, and to lead the world in both nuclear security issues and proliferation issues.

And one of the concrete outcomes of this meeting is that we’ll be signing here the continuation of the cooperation that was first established through the Nunn-Lugar program to counter potential threats of proliferation and to enhance nuclear security.

And this I think is an example of the kind of constructive, cooperative relationship that moves us out of a Cold War mindset into the realm where, by working together, we not only increase security and prosperity for the Russian and American people, but also help lead the world to a better place.

And finally, we compared notes on President Putin’s expertise in judo and my declining skills in basketball. (Laughter.) And we both agreed that as you get older it takes more time to recover.

PRESIDENT PUTIN: (As interpreted.) The President wants to relax me with his statement of age. (Laughter.)

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Thank you. Thank you very much, everybody.

PRESIDENTS OBAMA AND XI AGREED ON NEED FOR NORTH KOREA TO DENUCLEARIZE

FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Obama, Xi Agree North Korea Must Denuclearize
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, June 9, 2013 - During their two-days of informal talks in Rancho Mirage, Calif., that concluded yesterday, President Barack Obama and Chinese President Xi Jingpin agreed that North Korea must denuclearize, and that the United States and China will work together to resolve cybersecurity and other issues, National Security Advisor Tom Donilon told reporters in Palm Springs, Calif., yesterday.


"I'd say at the outset that the President had very good discussions in an informal atmosphere, uniquely informal atmosphere, with President Xi over the last two days," Donilon told reporters. "The discussions were positive and constructive, wide-ranging and quite successful in achieving the goals that we set forth for this meeting."

A specific goal of the talks, Donilon said, was "to build a personal relationship between the President and President Xi, and have an opportunity not under the pressure of being on the margins of another multilateral meeting to really sit down and explore the contours of the U.S.-China relationship."

During dinner on June 7, Obama and Xi "had a lengthy discussion about North Korea," Donilon said. China, he added, has taken a number of steps in recent months to send a clear message to North Korea, including through enhanced enforcement of sanctions and through public statements by the senior leadership in China.

Obama and Xi "agreed that North Korea has to denuclearize; that neither country will accept North Korea as a nuclear-armed state; and that we would work together to deepen U.S.-China cooperation and dialogue to achieve denuclearization," Donilon said.

Obama also emphasized to President Xi "that the United States will take any steps that we need to take to defend ourselves and our allies from the threat that North Korea presents," he added.

"The two sides stressed the importance of continuing to apply pressure both to halt North Korea's ability to proliferate and to make clear that its continued pursuit of nuclear weapons is incompatible with its economic development goals," Donilon said. "The discussions on this issue, I believe, will allow us to continue to move ahead and work in a careful way in terms of our cooperation to work together to achieve our ends."

The bottom line, Donilon said, "is I think we had quite a bit of alignment on the Korean issue -- North Korean issue, and absolute agreement that we would continue to work together on concrete steps in order to achieve the joint goals that the United States and China have with respect to the North Korean nuclear program."

Yesterday morning, Obama and Xi discussed economic issues, during which cybersecurity and other cyber issues were an important topic, Donilon said. The United States and China, he said, have a half-a-trillion-dollar-a-year trade relationship.

"Obviously, given the importance of our economic ties, the President made clear the threat posed to our economic and national security by cyber-enabled economic espionage," Donilon said. "And I want to be clear on exactly what we're talking about here. What we're talking about here are efforts by entities in China to, through cyber attacks, engage in the theft of public and private property -- intellectual property and other property in the United States. And that is the focus here, which is why it was in the economic discussion this morning.

"And again, we had a detailed discussion on this," he continued. "The President underscored that resolving this issue is really key to the future of U.S.-China economic relations. He asked President Xi to continue to look seriously at the problem that we've raised here."

The Chinese have agreed to look at this, Donilon said, noting that Obama and Xi have provided guidance to the new cyber working group that's been established as part of the U.S.-China strategic economic dialogue.

The cyber working group "will engage in a dialogue on the rules and norms of behavior in cyberspace that will explore confidence-building measures," Donilon said. "And we instructed the teams to report back on their discussions to the leaders."

Obama and Xi also discussed military-to-military relationships between the United States and China, Donilon said.

"It's the military-to-military relationship that lags behind our political and our economic relationship," Donilon said. "This was acknowledged on the Chinese side, and we actually have some momentum behind increasing and deepening these relationships as we go forward here, as we try to build a comprehensive and positive relationship with China."

Returning to the two presidents' discussion about North Korea, Donilon said, "The important point here is full agreement on the goals -- that is denuclearization; full agreement that in fact the Security Council resolutions which put pressure on North Korea need to be enforced, and full agreement that we will work together to look at steps that need to be taken in order to achieve the goal."

If North Korea continues to pursue a nuclear weapons program, that would allow it to become a proliferator, which would present a threat to the United States ... "and which would allow them to really up-end, if you will, security in Northeast Asia," Donilon said.

"A recognized nuclear weapon state in Pyongyang, weapons program in Pyongyang would of course have profound implications in the rest of Northeast Asia, and these are obviously results that the Chinese don't want to see," Donilon added. "They're results the United States doesn't want to see. So I think what you have essentially underway here is a shared threat analysis and a shared analysis as to what the implications and impact would be of North Korea pursuing a nuclear weapons program."

U.S. WATCHES NORTH KOREA AFTER MISSILES LAUNCED

FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
U.S. Remains Watchful After North Korean Missile Launches
By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, May 20, 2013 - The United States continues to call on North Korean leaders to exercise restraint and abide by their international obligations, Pentagon Press Secretary George Little said here today.

North Korea fired five short-range missiles in the past three days, and reporters asked Little if this is a North Korean return to the provocative behavior earlier this year.

"We have noticed broadly that North Korea has ratcheted back its provocative actions in recent weeks, and its bellicose rhetoric," Little said. "We hope that that is a trend they hope to follow."

The missile launches "could be construed" as provocative, Little said, although "these short-range missile launches do not necessarily violate their international obligations."

Still, the past few months have been bumpy. North Korean leaders conducted an underground nuclear test, fired a ballistic missile and threatened South Korea and the United States with nuclear destruction.

The North Korean rhetoric became a bit less inflammatory this month, but a period of tensions remains, albeit on a smaller scale than before, Little said.

"But anything that can be construed to be provocative continues to concern us," he added, "and the North Koreans have been known to shift tactics and behavior on short notice. And we're mindful of their behavior in the past."

The United States and its allies remain watchful and will continue to monitor what happens on the Korean Peninsula, Little told reporters.

DOD SAYS NORTH KOREA STILL CRITICAL THREAT

FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
DOD Report: North Korea Still Critical U.S. Security Threat
By Cheryl Pellerin
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, May 2, 2013 - North Korea's pursuit of nuclear capabilities and development of long-range ballistic missile programs make it one of the most critical U.S. security challenges in Northeast Asia, according to the Defense Department's first report to Congress on that nation's military development.

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel delivered the report, titled, "Military and Security Developments Involving the Democratic People's Republic of Korea 2012," to Congress today.

Required to be produced annually in classified and unclassified versions by Section 1236 of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2012, the report is DOD's authoritative statement on North Korea's current and future military power, Pentagon officials said. It was developed by the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy and the Defense Intelligence Agency.

The Korean People's Army -- an umbrella organization composed of ground, air, naval, missile and special operations forces -- ranks in personnel numbers as the fourth-largest military in the world. The large, forward-deployed military can inflict great damage on South Korea despite serious resource shortfalls and aging hardware, the report said, but the strength of the U.S.-South Korean alliance deters North Korea from conducting attacks on its southern neighbor.

On a smaller scale, North Korea has used military provocation to achieve national goals, the report notes. In 2010, for example, it sank the South Korean naval vessel, Cheonan, killing 46 South Korean sailors, and shelled Yeonpyeong Island, killing two South Korean marines and two civilians.

North Korea's continued pursuit of nuclear technology and capabilities and its development of long-range ballistic missile programs -- including the December 2012 Taepodong-2 missile launch and the April 2012 display of a new road-mobile intercontinental ballistic missile -- demonstrate North Korea's threat to regional stability and U.S. national security, the report observed.

These programs, North Korea's hostility toward South Korea, and the proliferation of items prohibited under U.N. Security Council Resolutions 1718, 1874 and 2087 make North Korea a continued security challenge for the United States and its allies and partners, the report said.

The report assesses the following aspects of North Korean military power:

-- The security situation on the Korean Peninsula, goals and factors shaping North Korean security strategy, and military strategy;

-- Trends in North Korean security;

-- North Korea's regional security objectives, including North Korean military capabilities, developments in North Korean military doctrine, and training;

-- North Korea's proliferation activities; and

-- Other military security developments.

North Korea's strategy under Kim Jong Il, who was supreme leader from 1994 until his death in 2011, focused on internal security, coercive diplomacy to compel acceptance of its diplomatic, economic and security interests, development of strategic military capabilities to deter external attack, and challenging South Korea and the U.S.-South Korean alliance, the report said.

"We anticipate these strategic goals will be consistent under North Korea's new leader, Kim Jong Un," the report added.

On the topic of cyber capabilities, the report said North Korea probably has a military computer network operations capability. North Korea may view computer network operations as an appealing platform from which to collect intelligence, the report added, and the nation has been implicated since 2009 in cyberattacks ranging from computer network exploitation to distributed denial of service attacks.

In assessing North Korea's security situation, the report said, "North Korea continues to fall behind the rising power of its regional neighbors, creating a widening military disparity and fueling its commitment to improving asymmetric and strategic deterrent capabilities as the primary guarantor of regime survival."

Tensions on the Korean Peninsula have grown as relations between North and South Korea worsen, the report noted. North Korea has portrayed South Korea and the United States as constant threats to North Korea's sovereignty in a probable attempt to legitimize the Kim family rule, its draconian internal control mechanisms and existing strategies, the report said.

"The regime's greatest security concern is opposition from within," the report added, "and outside forces taking advantage of internal instability to topple the regime and achieve unification of the Korean Peninsula."

North Korea seeks recognition as an equal and legitimate international player and recognized nuclear power and seeks to normalize its diplomatic relations with the Western world and pursue economic recovery and prosperity, the report said.

"[North Korea's] rhetoric suggests the regime at this time is unlikely to pursue this second goal at the expense of the primary goal of pursuing its nuclear and missile capabilities," the report added.

North Korea is attempting to upgrade its conventional weapons by reinforcing long-range artillery forces near the Demilitarized Zone that separates North Korea and South Korea, the report said, and has a substantial number of mobile ballistic missiles that could strike targets in South Korea and Japan.

"These advances in ballistic missile delivery systems, coupled with developments in nuclear technology, are in line with North Korea's stated objectives to strike the U.S. homeland," the report said.

Weapon sales are a critical source of foreign currency for North Korea, the report said, and it is unlikely to cease export activities.

North Korea also continues to invest in nuclear infrastructure. It conducted nuclear tests in 2006, 2009 and 2013 and could conduct more tests at any time, the report said, violating its obligations under four U.N. Security Council resolutions and the September 2005 Joint Statement of the Six-Party Talks.

Global concern about North Korea's proliferation activity continues to mount, leading some nations to take action. In June 2011, for example, a vessel bound for Burma, suspected of carrying military-related cargo, returned to North Korea after refusing a U.S. Navy inspection request.

In February 2010, South Africa seized North Korean-origin spare tank parts destined for the Republic of Congo. In December 2009, Thai authorities impounded the cargo of a chartered plane containing about 35 metric tons of North Korean weapons including artillery rockets, rocket-propelled grenades and surface-to-air missiles. In October of that year, South Korea seized North Korean-origin chemical-warfare protective suits destined for Syria.

"The United States remains vigilant in the face of North Korea's continued provocations and steadfast in commitments to allies in the region, including the security provided by extended deterrence commitments through the nuclear umbrella and conventional forces," the report said.

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE HAGEL ON RESPONSE TO NORTH KOREAN THREATS

FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Hagel: U.S. Makes Measured Responses to North Korean Threats
By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, April 3, 2013 - U.S. leaders are taking North Korean threats seriously and will continue to make measured responses to Kim Jong Un's bellicosity, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said here today.

The secretary spoke to students at the National Defense University at Fort Lesley J. McNair.

The North Korean leader has threatened to shell the South Korean capital of Seoul and to launch missiles at Guam, Hawaii and the western United States. He also rescinded the armistice North Korea signed with the United Nations in 1953 that ended hostilities on the Korean Peninsula. This week, he announced he was restarting a nuclear plant to produce more weapons-grade uranium and plutonium.

"It only takes being wrong once, and I don't want to be the secretary of defense that was wrong once," Hagel said in answer to a student's question. "We will continue to take these threats seriously. I hope the North will ratchet this very dangerous rhetoric down."

For decades, officials have urged North Korean leaders to abide by the agreements they signed. These include a denuclearized Korean Peninsula and an end to provocations against South Korea. But the North Korean government's behavior has resulted in sanctions, and millions of children there have had their growth stunted by malnutrition. The world is willing to help North Korea, Hagel said.

"But they have to be a responsible member of the world community," he added. "You don't achieve that responsibility and peace and prosperity by making nuclear threats and taking very provocative actions."

North Korea has a nuclear capacity and is working on the missile systems to deliver those weapons. "As they have ratcheted up their dangerous, bellicose rhetoric, [North Korea presents] a real and clear danger and threat" to American allies and the U.S. homeland itself, the secretary said.

"I think we have taken measured responses to those threats," Hagel said. "We are ... undergoing joint exercises with the South Koreans now. We are doing everything we can, working with the Chinese and others, to defuse the situation on the peninsula."

Yesterday, the secretary spoke with new Chinese Defense Minister Gen. Chang Wanquan. The two men discussed ways for the two nations to work together.

The United States and China can bridge their differences by concentrating on common interests, Hagel said. "It's not differences that matter, it is how you deal with them," he said. "You build a platform for a relationship on your common interests, not on your differences."

North Korea is a good example of a common interest, the secretary said.

"Certainly, the Chinese don't want a complicated and combustible situation to explode into a worse situation," he said. "It's not in their interests for that to happen. It's certainly not in our interest or our allies' interests."

SECRETARY HAGEL SAYS U.S.-SOUTH KOREA WANT PEACE

FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
U.S., South Korea Committed to Peace, Hagel Says

By Claudette Roulo
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, March 28, 2013 - The long-standing relationship with South Korea is particularly important to the United States, especially in light of the recent actions by North Korea, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said today.

At a joint Pentagon press conference with Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Hagel stressed that the United States and its allies are prepared to address any threat to the Asia-Pacific.

"We -- the United States, South Koreans, all of the nations ... in that region of the world -- are committed to a pathway to peace. And the North Koreans seem to be headed in a different direction here," Hagel said.

Joint exercises held earlier this month were intended to assure regional allies "that they can count on us to be prepared and to help them deter conflict," Dempsey said.

On Monday, North Korean media announced that long-range artillery and strategic rocket units were ordered to prepare to deploy to areas near the South Korean border.

"I think their very provocative actions and belligerent tone, it has ratcheted up the danger, and we have to understand that reality," Hagel said.

South Korean Army Gen. Jeong Sung-jo, the chairman of South Korea's Joint Chiefs of Staff, and U.S. Army Gen. James D. Thurman, the commander of U.S.-Republic of Korea Combined Forces Command, announced March 24 that they had signed a combined plan to counter threats from North Korea.

The chairman noted that, as a commander of a United Nations command, Thurman is responsible for maintaining the armistice between the two Koreas.

"So he has to have not only visibility and transparency, but he has to have influence in the process of managing the potential for conflict on the peninsula," Dempsey said. A result of two years of discussions, the combined counter-provocation plan establishes a framework for how that influence will be handled, he added.

Uncertainty surrounding the intentions of the North Korean government and its president Kim Jong Un is not the primary issue for the region, Hagel said. But, he added, "We have to take seriously every provocative, bellicose word and action that this new, young leader has taken so far since he's come to power."

North Korea's leaders have a history of ratcheting up tensions in the region to create more favorable conditions for the country, Hagel said. Whether or not that is currently the case, he added, the United States still has to be prepared to respond to contingencies in the region.

"But the fact is that this is the wrong way to go," Hagel said. "The action that he's taken and the actions they've taken and the words he's used, it is not going to project a more responsible, accountable relationship."

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE NEWS BRIEFING FOR MAY 31,2012

FROM:  U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Presenter: Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Media Operations Capt. John Kirby May 31, 2012
DOD News Briefing with Capt. Kirby from the Pentagon
             CAPTAIN JOHN KIRBY:  Good afternoon, everybody.  I don't have any major things to announce.
             I just wanted to remind everybody that the secretary is on travel ... started yesterday.  He's in Hawaii this morning.  He'll meet with the Pacific Command commander, Admiral Locklear, get some briefings and updates, and then he'll also be doing an all-hands call, a troop call with the staffers there at the Pacific Command before moving on to Singapore for the Shangri-La Dialogue.  And then we'll be, of course, posting transcripts of all the public things that he's saying throughout the trip.
             So with that, Bob.
             Q:  (Inaudible) -- Courtney, then.
             Q:  Oh.
             Q:  Oh, hard question?
             Q:  I actually don't have a hard question, but I can ask one.  (Laughter.)   What's -- how many U.S. military trainers are now in Pakistan?  And has that number increased recently?
             CAPT. KIRBY:  There are no U.S. trainers in Pakistan.  What has happened in just the last week or so has been the return of a couple liaison officers from Regional Command East; they're at Bagram in Eastern Afghanistan.  They -- a couple of liaison officers have returned to the area around Peshawar to coordinate and continue to liaise with the 11th Corps headquarters there at the Pakistani military.
            Q:  They were there or they're no longer there anymore?
             CAPT. KIRBY:  They were -- they were -- they -- those two liaison officers were removed from their posting there in Peshawar right after the November incident -- the cross-border incident, and then they have now returned.
            Q:  What's the purpose of that or the significance of that?
            CAPT. KIRBY:  Well, I mean, it's significant in that, as we've been talking about all along, that the tactical and operational coordination between the ISAF and the Pakistani military is getting better, in fits and starts to be sure, but it is getting better, and this is another example of how that coordination is going to continue to improve.  It's the same number of liaison officers we had before; it's just that now they're back.  And that -- the whole purpose is to increase and improve communication between the two militaries along that border.
            Q:  So it's two?
            CAPT. KIRBY:  It's two.
            Q:  Are there any liaison officers anywhere else in Pakistan?  You have --
            CAPT. KIRBY:  Not that I'm aware of, not that I'm aware of.
            Q:  Is this something done in isolation then?  It's not part of a series of actions?
            CAPT. KIRBY:  I wouldn't say that it was a part of some sort of quid pro quo or negotiation process.  It's been -- it's been something that obviously we were interested in renewing, and this is being done -- and I might add -- at the Pakistanis' request.  I mean, they requested that these two liaison officers come back.
            Q:  No trainers?
            CAPT. KIRBY:  No trainers.
            Q:  And do you have any kind of agreement with the Pakistanis about sending trainers back in?
            CAPT. KIRBY:  Not right now.  Again, even the training mission -- as you know, back before they left Pakistan, it was a train-the-trainers mission for their Frontier Corps.  And the small number of trainers that were there were at the Pakistanis' request and invitation for a requirement they believed they needed to fill.  They have not determined that that requirement exists anymore, so there are no trainers.
            Q: (Inaudible) -- movement on it?
            CAPT. KIRBY:  There's been no movement on the ground lines of communication and the gates, no.  They still remain closed.
            Q:  Different subject?
            Q:  Go ahead.
            Q:  When we asked George the day before yesterday about the North Korea story, he was very dismissive of it, to say the least, and was critical of the reporter who wrote it.  And now we find out that the general involved said in fact he did say all of those things, although he did not -- the general himself takes responsibility and says he didn't mean it to come out the way it did.
            So why did the Pentagon not tell us the day before yesterday that the general was acknowledging that he had said any of this?  Why were we not offered the complete information?
            CAPT. KIRBY:  Well, I think timing here is an issue.  I don't think the general's statement had come out by the time that George did his briefing the other day.
            But I think what George said was, and I agree with it, is that the general's comments were taken out of context.  And when something's taken out of context, that's not just -- that's not always just the fault of the journalist or the reporter, sometimes it's the fault of the speaker.  And the general acknowledged that he could have been a little bit more concise and a little bit more clear about what he was speaking to.
            As I understand it, he was answering a hypothetical question about future potential outcomes, and it was just literally the words he used to answer the question which led to some confusion.  But look, I mean, the bottom line is that there are no U.S. troops on the ground in North Korea.  We do take our alliance with our South Korean partners very, very seriously, as we do the security of the Korean Peninsula.  And we continue to try to make that alliance stronger and better and more robust all the time.
            Q:  My question -- I understand what you're saying.  However, he is -- when you -- the -- when George spoke from the podium and -- did you have the full information at that time to make the statements that you did, that the reporter was distorting the facts?
            CAPT. KIRBY:  We had -- we had enough information to know that the general's comments had been taken out of context, that they -- that as -- that he did -- he did not mean it to come across the way it was reported.  We did know that then.  We didn't have the general's statement at that point, but we did know that they had been taken out of context.
            Q:  And let me just then, for the record, ask:  You said there were no U.S. troops on the ground in North Korea.  The question is of course 'have U.S. special forces ever parachuted into North Korea on a mission?'
            CAPT. KIRBY:  Not to my knowledge, Barbara.
            Q:  Continuing on North Korea, are we still seeing preparations for a nuclear test, as they had indicated that they were going to be doing?
            CAPT. KIRBY:  Well, as you know, Louie, we're not going to talk about intelligence matters.  So I'm not going to be able to speak with any specificity to that.  I will just say that we continue to call on North Korea to meet their obligations to the international community and to the United Nations and to -- and to stop any and all provocative acts such as trying to pursue a nuclear weapons capability.
            Yes, sir.
            Q:  General Kehler yesterday said the -- his command was working on, in conjunction with the Pentagon, a, quote-unquote, "hedge strategy" for missile defense.  And that included the possibility of standing up the East Coast missile defense shield.  Now, what I want to ask you is, how seriously is the Pentagon -- how seriously is the Pentagon looking at setting up something like that on the East Coast?  Is this just sort of an exercise to appease Congress or is DOD really looking at serious options for standing up a missile shield on the East Coast?
            CAPT. KIRBY:  Well, we always look very seriously at the broad scope of our missile defense capabilities and how to make them more robust and to improve them.  And as -- and the general said yesterday that there was a broad swath of things that they were looking at.  That was just one of them.  So certainly it's something that's in consideration.
            But the general also said -- and General Dempsey himself said it just a couple weeks ago -- that we don't believe we need that kind of a capability right now.  It's not programmed for in the budget we just submitted back in February.  We don't believe we need it right now.
            But just as a matter of course, we constantly look at ways to improve our capabilities, particularly in a field as dynamic and technologically challenging as missile defense.
            Q:  To follow up, then, if the marks that the House side put in on the defense spending bill, that does make it into the final version of the legislation and the money is there, would that accelerate or change DOD's sort of assessment about whether or not a missile shield will be needed?
            CAPT. KIRBY:  Well, look, without speaking to pending legislation, it -- once the NDAA is signed into law, it becomes law.  So we will follow the law and all the components of it.
            Yes, sir.
            Q:  On the report this morning that some of the detainees in Guantanamo Bay have been subjected to hearing songs from "Sesame Street," first of all, can you comment on that?  And second, if it's true, what would you say about the characterization of some who call this torture?
            CAPT. KIRBY:  Well, look, there's been several investigations done about the use of interrogation techniques down there at Guantanamo Bay, and particularly the use of music as incentives or disincentives between 2004, 2008, that time frame.  And universally, the -- these investigations have shown and leadership has revealed that music can be used as both an incentive and a disincentive.  It depends on how you use it.
            I don't know.  I can't say with any specificity what type of music has been used in the past or is even being used now.  But we -- I will reiterate that we don't mistreat detainees.  That's the policy.  We rigorously follow that policy.  We do not torture, and we do not abuse our detainees at all.  We subscribe to the law and to humane treatment.  So it -- but yes, music is used, again, both in a -- in a positive way and as a disincentive.  But I wouldn't get into characterizing exactly what type of music is being used.
Q:  But are you --
            CAPT. KIRBY:  But we do not -- we do not torture.
            Q:  Music from the Barney show, if not Sesame Street?
            CAPT. KIRBY:  I don't know what the playlist is.
            Q:  Can you tell me how to get -- how to get tapes of this?  (Laughter.)
            CAPT. KIRBY:  Next question, please.
            Q:  Also on Yemen, there is a -- (laughter) -- after the -- (inaudible) -- report this week, you know, one of the -- one of the, I think, implications of the report that came out were the Yemeni fighters, Yemeni security forces were being somehow outgunned by al-Qaida, at least the groups that were featured in that report.  And I -- you provided some information about, you know, the U.S. arming Yemen security forces.
            CAPT. KIRBY:  Right.
            Q:  What's the latest, you know, interaction between U.S. and Yemen on their request for arms from the U.S. or the U.S. offering arms?  Is this -- is this a concern for the Pentagon that security forces are, you know, Yemen security forces are outgunned by al-Qaida or is --
            CAPT. KIRBY:  I -- well, first of all, it's an ongoing dialogue and discussion that we have with the Yemeni military about the kind of support and the assistance that we give them, and it's not just military.  I mean, the relationship with Yemen is not just about security, although that's a major component of it.  So it's an ongoing discussion that we're having, to try to meet their needs as best we can.  It's a comprehensive CT strategy that we have in Yemen.
            I don't believe that we believe that the Yemeni military is, quote-unquote, "outgunned."  Al-Qaida, AQAP specifically, in Yemen remains a threat not just to our interests and to our allies and to the American people, but to the Yemeni people and to the Yemeni government.  And we are constantly -- as I said the other day, constantly looking at ways to try to help to improve our ability to help the Yemenis improve their capacity and capability.
            Q:  (Off mic) -- there's been a number of news reports on -- one on a ship carrying arms headed for Syria; another one today of Iranian commercial airliners, again, being used to carry arms into Syria.
            CAPT. KIRBY:  Yeah.
            Q:  What can you tell us about the level of arms smuggling you're seeing going on and your concerns that both Iran and Russia specifically may be using some of these techniques to get arms into Syria?
            CAPT. KIRBY:  Well, we remain deeply troubled and concerned by the ongoing violence in Syria and by the horrific acts of the Assad regime against its own people.  And we certainly have seen reports and have reason to believe that Iran continues to assist the Assad regime in committing these acts of atrocities against the Syrian people.
            So it remains -- it remains a matter of deep concern.  And we also know that other nations share that concern, and some of those nations are providing lethal assistance to the Syrian opposition as well.  For our sake, what we're doing remains nonlethal assistance.
            Q:  Do you have anything on this -- on this report at all about the Iranians using commercial airliners, which has been a technique in the past?
            CAPT. KIRBY:  Yeah, we've seen the reports; can't confirm them.  But again, the larger issue here is that the Iranian regime -- Tehran continues to support, in tangible and intangible ways, the Assad regime.  And that needs to stop.
            Q:  On Syria, talking about the al-Qaida threats in the region, could you confirm if -- do you have any information if recently al-Qaida has had any significant presence inside Syria?
            CAPT. KIRBY:  I don't know that anybody has an accurate number on al-Qaida's presence in Syria.
            We do believe that al-Qaida has some presence inside Syria and interest in fomenting violence in Syria.  They are not -- we do not believe that they share the goals of the Syrian opposition or that they are even embraced by the opposition at all.  But we -- I think we'd be hard-pressed to give you an exact number of how many are there.  The sense that we get is that it is primarily members of AQI that are migrating into Syria.
            Q:  Al-Qaida in Iraq, you mean?
            CAPT. KIRBY:  Yeah, correct.  Yeah, sorry, al-Qaida in Iraq.
            Q:  Take it back, John, to what you were saying earlier about the two liaison officers returning to Pakistan.  Could you -- just for my clarification, you're saying their liasing with who and what --
             CAPT. KIRBY:  With the 11th Corps headquarters there.  The 11th Corps is the -- is the chief command of the Pakistani military that -- that's their area of responsibility is that border region.  That marries up with RC East on the Afghan side.  And so these are liaison officers that every -- work every day there or will now work every day there in Peshawar with their counterparts in the 11th Corps headquarters staff, again, just to improve the communication between the two sides.
            Q:  Regarding -- (inaudible) -- border -- (inaudible) --
            CAPT. KIRBY:  Regarding -- yes, regarding operations along the border.
             Q:  They've been out of there since November?
            CAPT. KIRBY:  Correct.
            Q:  Or do they --
            CAPT. KIRBY:  Correct.
            Q:  John, this was raised the other day, but since then there's been further developments.  The sort of language and rhetoric on Syria, military intervention or otherwise, has really been steadily creeping up over the last couple of days.  Hillary Clinton is the latest, perhaps, to give her views on it, although she was pretty anti-intervention, but she did say it can't be ruled out.  I wonder whether the exercise now completed has provided any valuable lessons or any potential future --
            CAPT. KIRBY:  Which exercise?
            Q:  Eager Lion.
            CAPT. KIRBY:  Oh, the exercises in Jordan.
            Q:  (Off mic) -- not connected to Syria, blah, blah, blah, but --
            CAPT. KIRBY:  (Laughs.)
            Q:  -- whether that has actually provided some pretty good lessons.  A lot of people are talking now about, you know, using proxy forces to carry out the wishes of the alliance or America or whoever it may be.  And you know, there were a lot of so-called proxy partners involved in that exercise.
            CAPT. KIRBY:  Well, let me start small and then try to get to a bigger point.
            The -- it was an important exercise, and we were grateful for the opportunity to participate in it.  It was a -- it was an exercise designed to deal with regional challenges, not a specific threat or a specific country, as you said yourself, Mike, and we are still processing the lessons learned from the exercise.  So I have not seen a lessons-learned document from it; so I couldn't sit here and give you any specifics.  I think all that work is being done.
            It was a big exercise; it's going to take a little while, I think, to digest all the information and the results.  But it -- but the intent was really about regional partnerships in those and regional challenges there.
            But, to your other point about options, I mean, look, this building, the military, the Pentagon exists to provide the president options.  That's what we do, and we would be irresponsible if we weren't thinking about options whether or not they're called for.  And so, of course, we're certainly looking at a broad range of potential options here.
            But that's not the track we're on.  The president has been very clear that he wants to continue a diplomatic and economic regimen of pressure on the Assad regime to step down and to stop killing their people.  And that's the track this government's on, and that's the track that the Pentagon supports.
            Q:  Military options?  Military options to do what?
            CAPT. KIRBY:  Well, again, I'm not going to get into hypotheticals or specific planning scenarios.  But again, we would -- it would be irresponsible for us if we weren't looking at a broad range of potential options.  And you know very well, covering this beat for so long, that the military is -- can be valuable in any number of different scenarios, not all of which involve combat.
            The point is we're doing the prudent thing that we're supposed to do, which is to think through options.  But we've not been called to present any.  And these are decisions that only the policymakers can make.  And again, we're supporting the commander in chief's intent, which is to keep the pressure on them diplomatically and economically.
             Q:  Say to what extent you've discussed these military options that are being planned -- not yet asked for -- with U.S. military allies in the region?
            CAPT. KIRBY:  What I'll tell you is that we remain in communication with our allies and partners routinely.  And we continue to be in communication with them as the situation develops in Syria.  But I won't go beyond that.
            Q:  And if you were asked by the White House, the president, to exercise one of these military options, whatever they might be, how ready would the U.S. military be to do that?
            CAPT. KIRBY:  We get paid to be ready, Barbara.
            Q:  Going back to the North Korea story, the quote that George had was that it was contorted, distorted and misreported.  Do you still think that's a fair characterization?
            CAPT. KIRBY:  Yes, I do.
            Q:  What exactly is misreported, though, if it was a --
            CAPT. KIRBY:  Well, I think -- again, it was -- the reporting was that there were U.S. boots on the ground in North Korea.  There aren't.  There aren't.  And the general didn't say that there were.  He was talking hypothetically about a future scenario that he was asked about.
            But look, I mean, this isn't about bashing the journalist who wrote this blog, and it's not about bashing the general, who admitted that he used some unfortunate rhetoric.  These things happen.  It's unfortunate, but it happens.  He didn't choose his words as precisely as he would have liked, and he admitted that, and what resulted was a story that didn't get it right in terms of what the situation really is in North Korea.  And that's really the larger -- think we got to keep our mind on here, which is there aren't troops in North Korea and that we remain committed to our alliance there.  That's really the important thing.
            Yes, sir.
            Q:  Just following up on the point regarding al-Qaida's sort of influence in the Syrian -- amongst the Syrian rebel forces, there was a story, I think last week --
            CAPT. KIRBY:  Well, I didn't say they were part of rebel forces --
            Q:  OK.
            CAPT. KIRBY:  -- or that they're even operating with the opposition.  We don't believe that they are, and they -- certainly we don't believe they share the same goals as the Syrian opposition.  So I'm sorry.
            Q:  But there was -- I think it was a report last week saying the administration was considering a plan to start vetting certain units or parts of the Free Syrian Army, whether or not to evaluate if there was any sort of influence of al-Qaida in those units and whether or not they can receive weapons, wherever they may come from.  Is the Pentagon -- has the White House approached the Pentagon about that plan?  Has the Pentagon been briefed on that plan?  And if so, what's DOD's -- is -- what is DOD's role in that?
            CAPT. KIRBY:  Not to my knowledge.  But I'm happy to take the question and look at it, but not to my knowledge.
            Louie.
            Q:  The U.S. and Israel back earlier this year had postponed a large missile defense exercise.  And I think it's supposed to start around this time frame.  Is it going to start soon?  And what can we expect from it?
            CAPT. KIRBY:  I'll have to get back to you on that.  I'll check on that.  You're right that that was supposed to -- that that exercise was postponed for later in the year.  And I'll check and see where we are on that.
            Thanks, everybody

AFTERNOON PRESS STAND-UP BEIJING INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Afternoon Press Stand-Up at Beijing International Airport
Remarks Glyn Davies
Special Representative for North Korea Policy Beijing, China
May 23, 2012
AMBASSADOR DAVIES: Hello, everybody. It's great to see you all. I have a little bit of a problem. I am really, really late for my flight. So I simply want to say, number one, thank-you very much for coming out. Number two, a very good visit to Beijing. I had a chance to meet with key officials here. I just came from the CCID and my meeting with Vice Minister Liu Jieyi. We had a terrific conversation, very wide-ranging. And it was so good that it went late. So I am now late, so I have to run.

I look forward to getting to Tokyo and meeting with officials there. I get there tonight and I'll have meetings there tomorrow, and a little bit on Friday as well.

So with your permission, I hope you understand, I've got to get on my flight. Thank-you very much for coming out. I look forward to coming back. All the very best to you.

QUESTION: Are you convinced that the North Koreans will not go ahead with this nuclear test?

AMBASSADOR DAVIES: Well, I certainly hope that they don't go ahead with their nuclear test. That would be a highly provocative and inappropriate miscalculation on their part. Thank-you very much, I’ve got to run…

QUESTION: Is there anything the Chinese said that could…

AMBASSADOR DAVIES: I am going to keep our diplomatic conversations with the Chinese between us at this stage. Thank-you so much, really appreciate it. I have to run, all the best.

QUESTION: [inaudible]

AMBASSADOR DAVIES: I have to run, thanks so much.
The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department.
External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.

U.S. RESPONSE TO N. KOREAN MISSILE LAUNCH ANNOUNCEMENT

The following excerpt is from a U.S. State Department e-mail:
North Korean Announcement of Missile Launch
Press StatementHillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of StateWashington, DC
March 16, 2012

North Korea’s announcement that it plans to conduct a missile launch in direct violation of its international obligations is highly provocative. UN Security Council Resolutions 1718 and 1874 clearly and unequivocally prohibit North Korea from conducting launches that use ballistic missile technology. Such a missile launch would pose a threat to regional security and would also be inconsistent with North Korea’s recent undertaking to refrain from long-range missile launches. We call on North Korea to adhere to its international obligations, including all relevant UN Security Council Resolutions. We are consulting closely with our international partners on next steps.