Home



Located in the Washington, DC metro area

Government Relations, LLC will assist you in working with the complex tapestry of government bureaucracies that govern companies which export their products.

Export Licensing
We will assist you in obtaining the required export and import documents. As a business on the leading edge of technological development, you must export responsibly.
International Trade
We will help your business establish an Export Management System (EMS) to ensure that transfers to foreign customers are conducted in accordance with the provisions of the ITAR, the EAR, and other pertinent regulations.
Government Liaison
We have contacts with bureaucrats and political leaders on Capitol Hill and in the U.S. Departments of Commerce, Defense, Energy, Homeland Security, State, Treasury, and other government agencies.

Other Resources

The International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR)

Export Administration Regulations (EAR) Press Releases

Get the latest press statements, notices to the press, and more from the Office of the Spokesman (does not include the Daily Press Briefing; see DOSBRIEF above); generates 50-100 emails per month.

09/05/2008 10:51 PM
Press Releases: Call to Temporarily Loosen Restrictions on Cuba (Taken Question)
Taken Question
Office of the Spokesman
Washington, DC
September 5, 2008
Question Taken at September 5, 2008 Daily Press Briefing

Call to Temporarily Loosen Restrictions on Cuba (Taken Question)

Question:  What is your reaction to the call to temporarily loosen restrictions on travel and sending money to Cuba in the wake of Hurricane Gustav?

Answer: We have been heartened by the outpouring of compassion for hurricane victims in Cuba.  The U.S. Government has offered humanitarian aid to the Cuban people that would be distributed through in-country non-governmental organizations.

In fact, there is sufficient flexibility under existing regulations to permit humanitarian organizations or individuals licensed to send money and other assistance to Cuba to significantly increase such assistance in support of Hurricane Gustav relief efforts. The State Department has been coordinating closely with the Treasury Department and the Commerce Department to facilitate humanitarian relief directed to hurricane victims in Cuba.

We do not believe that at this time it is necessary to loosen the restrictions on remittances and travel to Cuba to accomplish the objective of aiding the hurricane victims. Non-governmental organizations on the ground in Cuba are already mobilizing to provide such assistance.

2008/694

Released on September 5, 2008

  

09/05/2008 10:27 PM
Press Releases: Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to Host Iftaar Dinner
Notice to the Press
Office of the Spokesman
Washington, DC
September 5, 2008


Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to Host Iftaar Dinner

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will host an Iftaar dinner to celebrate the holy month of Ramadan on Monday, September 8, 2008, at 8:00 p.m., in the Benjamin Franklin Room at the U.S. Department of State, Washington, D.C.

The month of Ramadan is devoted to worship, contemplation, charity, and fellowship, observed with a daily fast.  At the end of each day, Muslims traditionally break the fast with a meal known as Iftaar.  This Iftaar is a chance to celebrate Ramadan, which commemorates the revelation of the Koran to the Prophet Mohammed, and to engage in reflection, generosity, and compassion – important aspects of Islam.  This year the theme is, “Celebrating Islamic Art and Culture.”

The remarks are open to press coverage for writers and still photographers and pool press coverage for cameras.

Final access time for all press: 7:45 p.m. at the C Street entrance

Media representatives may attend this briefing upon presentation of one of the following: (1) a U.S. Government-issued identification card (Department of State, White House, Congress, Department of Defense, or Foreign Press Center), (2) a media-issued photo identification card, or (3) a letter from their employer on letterhead verifying their employment as a journalist, accompanied by an official photo identification (driver’s license or passport).
 
Media inquiries can be made to Mr. David Staples at (202) 776-8405 or the Office of Press Relations at (202) 647-2492.

2008/693

Released on September 5, 2008

  

09/05/2008 04:00 AM
Press Releases: Secretary Rice To Deliver Keynote Address to the 2008 National HBCUs Week Conference
Notice to the Press
Office of the Spokesman
Washington, DC
September 5, 2008


Secretary Rice To Deliver Keynote Address to the 2008 National HBCUs Week Conference

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will deliver a keynote address to attendees of a four-day national conference commemorating National Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) Week on Monday, September 8, 2008 at approximately 1:00 p.m., in the Regency Ballroom of the Hyatt Regency Washington on Capitol Hill, 400 New Jersey Avenue, NW, Washington, DC. The conference is coordinated by the White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities.

Secretary Rice’s remarks are open for press coverage.

Camera Pre-set time: 10:00 a.m.-11:00 a.m. (Note: all cameras must be set-up in the room by 11:00 a.m.)
Final access time for all press: 12:30 p.m.

To participate in the event, media must present one of the following: (1) a U.S. Government-issued identification card (Department of State, White House, Congress, Department of Defense or Foreign Press Center), (2) a media-issued photo identification card, or (3) a letter from their employer on letterhead verifying their employment as a journalist, accompanied by an official photo identification (driver's license or passport).

PRESS CONTACTS:
ReShone Moore
U.S. Department of Education
White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities
(202) 502-7893

Office of Press Relations
U.S. Department of State
(202) 647-2492

2008/691

# # #


Released on September 5, 2008

  

09/05/2008 04:00 AM
Press Releases: Assistant Secretary of State Goli Ameri To Name Fran Drescher as Public Diplomacy Envoy
Notice to the Press
Office of the Spokesman
Washington, DC
September 5, 2008


Assistant Secretary of State Goli Ameri To Name Fran Drescher as Public Diplomacy Envoy

Assistant Secretary of State for Educational and Cultural Affairs Goli Ameri will announce Fran Drescher as the newest Public Diplomacy Envoy on September 8, 2008, at 10:00 a.m. in the Treaty Room of the U.S. Department of State.

Ms. Drescher will join Cal Ripken, Jr. and Michelle Kwan as Public Diplomacy Envoys. “The Nanny” star is a Golden Globe and Emmy nominee, cancer survivor and founder of non-profit organization the Cancer Schmancer Movement. She will support U.S. public diplomacy efforts, including working with health organizations and women’s groups to raise awareness of women’s health issues, cancer awareness and detection, and patient empowerment and advocacy. Ms. Drescher’s first trip in her new role will be in late September and include stops in Romania, Hungary, Kosovo and Poland.

Assistant Secretary Ameri and Ms. Drescher will deliver remarks and answer questions at this event.

This event is open for press coverage.

Pick up time for cameras: 9:00 a.m. from the 23rd Street Entrance
Final access time for all press: 9:30 a.m. from the 23rd Street Entrance

Press Contacts:
Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Darlene Kirk (202) 203-7616
Office of Press Relations, U.S. Department of State (202) 647-2492

Media representations may attend this briefing upon presentation of the following: (1) a U.S. Government-issued identification card (Department of State, White House, Congress, Department of Defense, or Foreign Press Center), (2) a media-issued photo identification card, or (3) a letter from their employer on letterhead verifying their employment as a journalist, accompanied by an official photo identification (driver’s license or passport).

2008/692

Released on September 5, 2008

  

09/04/2008 10:00 PM
Press Releases: Release of Foreign Relations, 1969–1976, Volume E-15, Documents on Eastern Europe, 1973-1976
Media Note
Office of the Spokesman
Washington, DC
September 4, 2008


Release of Foreign Relations, 1969–1976, Volume E-15, Documents on Eastern Europe, 1973-1976

The Department of State released today Foreign Relations of the United States, 1969–1976, Volume E–15, Documents on Eastern Europe, 1973–1976, as an electronic-only publication. This volume is the latest publication in the subseries of the Foreign Relations series that documents the most important decisions and actions of the foreign policy of the administrations of Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford. Volume E–15 is the tenth Foreign Relations volume to be published in this new format, available to all free of charge on the Internet. Approximately 25 percent of the volumes scheduled for publication for the 1969–1976 subseries, covering the Nixon and Nixon-Ford administrations, will be in this format.

The documentation in this volume highlights U.S. policy toward Eastern Europe from 1973–1976 during the period of détente. Relations with the communist-dominated states of Eastern Europe warmed during this period, building on the progress made during Nixon’s first term, the afterglow of détente with the Soviet Union, and U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam. The documents opening this volume show that U.S. foreign policy still perceived the countries of Eastern Europe as sharing the status of “captive nations” under Soviet domination, but held hopes for improved bilateral relations on a country-by-country basis. The Nixon and Ford Administrations’ ambitions for improved relations with Hungary and Czechoslovakia remained unrealized, and U.S. contacts with Bulgaria and Albania were extremely limited. The majority of this volume focuses on those countries with which the United States had major continuing bilateral relations, evident in new or improved economic, cultural, and political-military relations:  Romania, Yugoslavia, and Poland. These three countries, both Administrations hoped, were most likely to assert their independence from Moscow. Finally, although the United States officially established diplomatic ties with the German Democratic Republic during this period, relations remained limited and evidenced a continuing low level of tension over the status of divided Berlin.

In its first term, the Nixon Administration had focused on increasing contacts with Yugoslavia and Romania; in its second term—as well as after President Ford took office—Poland emerged as a country of primary U.S. interest. Polish First Secretary Edward Gierek visited Washington during October 1974, and President Ford visited Poland in the summer of 1975. In 1976, Gierek’s government fell into disarray when it drastically raised the prices of basic commodities, especially food, in response to an economic downturn. The resulting workers riots forced Gierek to abandon this policy and threatened to destabilize his government. Despite continued improvements in U.S.-Polish relations during this period, U.S. intelligence and diplomatic sources alike had begun to question the ultimate stability of the Gierek regime. 

Yugoslavia and Romania continued to hold the most promising prospects for improved U.S. relations with Eastern European nations. Romania seemed the most stable country by the end of 1976 and, as such, received the greatest share of official attention from the United States. There was also a flurry of high-level contact between the two countries, which underscored a growing cordial relationship. In December 1973, President Nicolae Ceausescu became the first Eastern European head of state to make an official visit to the United States. Another visit from Ceausescu followed in June 1975. In return, Kissinger briefly stopped in Bucharest in November 1974, and Ford paid an official state visit to Bucharest and Sinaia 9 months later. Romania became the first Eastern Bloc nation to win most-favored nation trade status from the United States. While recognizing the harshness of Ceausecu’s internal policy, the United States sought to encourage him to act independently of the Soviet Union.

Yugoslavia was easily the most independent of Moscow’s orbit—and therefore a natural focus of U.S. attention in Eastern Europe for a quarter century—but faced a looming succession crisis. The health and visibility of Yugoslav President Josip Broz Tito became an increasing source of speculation among diplomatic and intelligence sources. All evaluations of relations with Belgrade during this period, first and foremost, demanded a focus on dentifying Tito’s probable successor and orienting the country’s military to a congenial view of the United States. In 1976, the United States prepared a lengthy contingency study for a hypothetical post-Tito Soviet invasion of Yugoslavia. The Departments of State and Defense negotiated the sales of military equipment to Yugoslavia, which might enable it to resist such an invasion. In 1976, the Ford administration concluded a significant agreement to sell TOW anti-tank missile systems to Yugoslavia. The question of Tito’s successor, of course, remained unclear—and unanswered—by the time Ford departed office.

U.S. relations with the German Democratic Republic served as a counterpoint to the overall trend toward a thaw in U.S.-Eastern European relations. Despite the signing of the Quadripartite Agreement in September 1971, the status of West Berlin remained contentious, especially over U.S. concerns about Soviet interference with, and delays for, supplies, personnel, and civilians transiting in and out of West Berlin. The U.S. initiative to open relations with the German Democratic Republic originated from Secretary of State William Rogers; Nixon, in particular, was unenthusiastic about establishing formal diplomatic ties, and would have further delayed taking action were it not for the pressures generated by West German Chancellor Willy Brandt’s Ostpolitik and recognition by Great Britain and France. As a result, the recognition of the German Democratic Republic and the establishment of an embassy in East Berlin in 1974 did not immediately lead to a more cordial bilateral relationship.  

The volume, including a preface, list of names, abbreviations, sources, annotated document list, and this press release, is available on the Office of the Historian website (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/nixon/e15). For further information contact Marc Susser, the Historian, at (202) 663-1123, fax to (202) 663-1289, or e-mail to history@state.gov.

2008/690


Released on September 4, 2008

  

09/03/2008 10:02 PM
Press Releases: Briefing On U.S. Economic Support Package for Georgia

Briefing On U.S. Economic Support Package for Georgia

Reuben Jeffery III, Under Secretary Economic, Energy and Agricultural Affairs
Washington, DC
September 3, 2008

Additional Speakers:
Matt Bryza, Deputy Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs
Richard L. Greene, Deputy Director of Foreign Assistance 
 
  
UNDER SECRETARY JEFFERY: Okay. If you have any follow-up questions, we’d be happy to try to field them for a few moments.

QUESTION: I’m Andrei Sitov from TASS, from Russia. My question, I guess, is to Matt. Matt, the Russians are calling for demilitarizing Georgia, the zone of conflict, and for embargoing weapons deliveries. What’s the U.S. attitude to those calls?

MR. BRYZA: Sure. Well, first of all, what does Russia mean by the zone of conflict? If Russia means demilitarizing the actual zone of conflict of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, well, that’s probably something worth exploring, which would mean that Russian troops would not be able to be present in either zone of conflict, Abkhazia or South Ossetia.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) demilitarizing Georgia?

MR. BRYZA: Demilitarizing – well, that includes South Ossetia and Abkhazia, so my statement remains. I’d also like to underscore that there is no such thing as a buffer zone, which the Russian Government has claimed. Secretary Rice just talked about the six-point ceasefire agreement, the clarification letter of President Sarkozy, as well as the additional clarifications that she helped negotiate. And together, those documents make clear there’s no such thing as the ability for Russia for conduct patrols – I mean, to conduct anything other than patrols within a few kilometers of Tskhinvali, no buffer zone whatsoever.

In terms of arms embargoes on Georgia, now, Georgia is a sovereign state, a peaceful state, a democracy that has a right to develop its own military, to defend itself, as well as to contribute to Coalition operations as it did so effectively in Iraq.

QUESTION: Could you – a billion dollars is a lot of money considering the population of Georgia and previous U.S. assistance there. Could you tell us what that money’s going to be spent on –

UNDER SECRETARY JEFFERY: Sure.

QUESTION: -- and how you came up with what would put Georgia per capita way up in the recipients of U.S. assistance?

UNDER SECRETARY JEFFERY: Sure, the – first, I should say at the outset that last week the Secretary referred to a visit a number of us took to Georgia. There were probably eight economic agencies that the U.S. Government represented: Treasury; State; Commerce; U.S. Trade Representative, and then we had Trade Development Authority; Millennium Challenge Corporation; AID and OPEC. We spent two and a half days with the Georgian leadership where we discussed -- and representatives of the IMF and the World Bank -- where we discussed at great length their preliminary assessments of their needs. And I stress, they remain preliminary; this will be an iterant process as we move forward.

The commitment, the $1 billion number, as the Secretary had indicated, is a multi-year commitment. It will be targeted in three broad areas: ongoing humanitarian assistance, first and foremost.  There’s a significant issue with internally displaced persons. Second, physical reconstruction of infrastructure and facilities that have been damaged or destroyed by the Russian incursion. And thirdly, support for ongoing – Georgia’s ongoing economic growth, to keep them on a trajectory of positive economic growth.

We expect to be working extensively with Congress – members and their staffs – in the days to come to fine tune the specific modalities by which that assistance can and will be delivered.

QUESTION: Can I just follow up on that? Can you give us a sense of how much of this is intended to bring Georgia back to where it was before the events of last month, and how much of it is additional beyond what you would have expected to contribute to Georgia’s economic development?

UNDER SECRETARY JEFFERY: Well, I think you have to remember that the country was invaded and that’s a significant shock to the economy. Fortunately, the fundamentals of the economy going into this event were quite strong. This is a country that has experienced significant economic growth, GDP -- if I’m not mistaken -- increase was only like four billion in 2003 to ten billion this past year. Foreign direct investment increased commensurately over that period. 

Our objectives, without putting too fine a point on it, are to help Georgia regain its economic – maintain and regain its economic momentum going forward.

QUESTION: How much of this does have to be approved, then, by Congress?

UNDER SECRETARY JEFFERY: I’ll turn it over to my colleague Rich Greene.
 
MR. GREENE: We’ve divided the package up into two components. The first component Reuben talked about, a multi-year program – the first component is about $570 million of immediate-type assistance. Of that 570, about 370 we think we can do through existing reprogramming authorities we have this year and next fiscal year. About 200 of that 570 would require congressional reauthorization of several acts that really have nothing to do with Georgia; they’re more generic State Department and DOD authorities that we had previously asked Congress for. And then the balance of the billion, 430 million, it is our hope and expectation that the next Congress and the next administration will provide that funding.

QUESTION: Hi. I think this should be directed at Matt. The Secretary said that now is not the time for further military assistance. Why not? And when is the right time?

MR. BRYZA: Thanks, Desmond. Well, now, we -- as Under Secretary Jeffery just pointed out, we are focusing on the most urgent needs, which, first and foremost, are addressing the humanitarian situation, sustaining confidence in the economy, restoring economic growth. And before one talks about military assistance, it’s important to think through and assess what the situation is, what the needs are, and then the Georgian Government needs to take some decisions on its own as to what its future force structure would look like, based upon what its own goals are. 

We have absolutely no question that a thriving democracy like Georgia’s will remain peace-loving. You know, we have our differences with the narrative coming out of Moscow about how this conflict began. It did not begin on August 7th with the attack on Tskhinvali by Georgia, which we do believe was a mistake; but it began much sooner, thanks to provocations by South Ossetian militias, under the command, by the way, of Russian officers. 

So Georgia did not launch a war. Georgia was drawn into one. It’s a peace-loving country. And we anticipate that it will weigh the mutual benefits of developing homeland defense capability and the ability in line with its NATO aspirations to contribute to Coalition operations, like it has done in Iraq and like in Afghanistan, which is an aspiration as well. 

QUESTION: Is that to say that military assistance is coming at some point? 

UNDER SECRETARY JEFFERY: No, I think – let me – that gets to an important point. I can’t stress or state more clearly there is zero military assistance component to this billion dollar package. Similarly, the ongoing humanitarian assistance that the U.S. Government is undertaking in Georgia is just that. It’s humanitarian, nonmilitary in nature. As Matt indicated, the ongoing assessments are taking place in a variety of areas in Georgia of potential future needs, but this is for humanitarian, economic, and physical reconstruction. 

QUESTION: On a related issue, perhaps, for Matt or anybody, but – it’s been a few days since we asked or I’ve lost track of the four Humvees. Can you tell us the status of the four Humvees the Russians took into custody and what negotiations or talks are ongoing, if they’re not back? 

MR. BRYZA: Yeah. Well, yeah, we don’t have any real – any new information on that either. I mean, we saw statements by Deputy Chief of Defense Lt. Gen. Nagovitsin saying rather flippantly that Russia’s military was treating these Humvees as war trophies. We have worked through our Defense Attaché’s office in Moscow with the general staff and the ministry of defense. Don’t have anything new for you on that, though, frankly. 

QUESTION: (Inaudible.) An important issue for the Russians. There are three missing in action Russian pilots. Missing in action over Georgian territory. Do you have any information? Have you talked to the Georgians about those individuals? Do you have anything on that?
 
MR. BRYZA: We did receive requests from our colleagues in the Russian Government to encourage the Georgians to engage with the Russian Government. This is a very important issue. It’s a humanitarian and a human issue. And all the way through, by the way, we have expressed our heartfelt and honest condolences for everybody who died in this conflict, whether they were citizens of Russia or Georgia or whether they were ethnically South Ossetian or Georgian or Russian. So this is an issue that I think we do see eye to eye on with the Georgian Government, and we hope this will be resolved expeditiously. 

MODERATOR: Thank you all.

2008/688


Released on September 3, 2008

  

09/03/2008 09:45 PM
Press Releases: 2008 Secretary’s Award for Corporate Excellence Finalists Selected
Media Note
Office of the Spokesman
Washington, DC
September 3, 2008


2008 Secretary’s Award for Corporate Excellence Finalists Selected

Eleven finalists were selected yesterday for the Secretary of State’s prestigious 2008 Award for Corporate Excellence (ACE). These U.S. companies were chosen from 61 nominations submitted by American ambassadors around the world. ACE finalists are international business leaders who recognize the vital role that U.S. businesses play abroad as good corporate citizens. The eleven finalists for 2008 are:

  • Cargill in China for its public-private partnership efforts to prevent the spread of disease, foster environmental stewardship, contribute to disaster relief, implement innovative food safety training programs, and demonstrate volunteerism;

  • Dole in the Philippines for its environmental stewardship and role in improving quality of life through education, training, environmental protection and health programs;
  • Esso Angola for its public-private partnership’s efforts in leading the fight against malaria and HIV/AIDS, and for its literacy programs for women and girls;

  • Google Brazil for its efforts to empower Amazon indigenous people through digital technology in support of their efforts to stop land encroachment and practice a sustainable forest management that would improve their economic well-being;
  • Microsoft India for empowering small and medium enterprises, promoting economic development, and strengthening innovation through strategic product development, including improved technology for HIV/AIDS and TB diagnosis ;

  • Occidental de Colombia for developing a range of educational programs for local communities, for its exemplary environmental stewardship, and for its commitment to human rights;
  • Starbucks in Guatemala for supporting fair trade coffee, for providing educational and health programs for the underprivileged, and for promoting sustainable development;

  • STM Telecom Sanchar in Nepal for providing needed services where others feared to go because of security concerns, for technical training and contributions to the development of rural technology, and for innovative health care programs;

  • Surevolution in Colombia for providing a unique combination of free and fair trade and good corporate citizenship, for helping indigenous artisans obtain sustainable wages, and for providing economic opportunities to at-risk populations;

  • Virtusa in Sri Lanka for providing the country with an effective disaster recovery system that is widely used throughout the region, and for providing widespread IT skills training;

  • Weyerhaeuser in Uruguay for supporting social and charitable programs that benefit local communities, for providing safety and injury prevention training, and for protecting the local environment with green energy generation and education.

The Secretary has awarded ACE since 1999 to recognize U.S. businesses for advancing good corporate citizenship, innovation, and democratic principles. The Department of State is committed to working with business to further these best practices worldwide and to recognize efforts to improve lives at home and abroad. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will announce the 2008 ACE winners in a November 6 awards ceremony at the State Department. 

For more information, please visit: http://www.state.gov/e/eeb/ace/, or contact ­­­­­­­­­­­Jeff Jamison, Public Affairs Advisor, by email, JamisonJM@state.gov.

2008/689

Released on September 3, 2008

  

09/03/2008 09:21 PM
Press Releases: Coup in Mauritania
Press Statement
Sean McCormack, Spokesman
Washington, DC
September 3, 2008


Coup in Mauritania

The United States strongly condemns the military coup in Mauritania. Furthermore, the United States does not recognize the legitimacy of the High State Council and “cabinet” and considers these actions both undemocratic and a step backwards for Mauritania.  We are deeply disappointed with the lack of progress in the restoration of constitutional rule and call for an earnest search for a political solution to the current situation in Mauritania.

In response to the coup, most United States government aid to Mauritania has been terminated, including both development and security assistance.  In addition to measures already announced, we are exploring targeted sanctions against military and civilian individuals who are impeding the return to democratic government.

We continue to urge the coup leaders to free President Abdallahi and Prime Minister Waghef and restore Mauritania’s constitution.  The international community, including the United Nations, European Union, Organization of the Islamic Conference, and the African Union has sent a resounding message that the removal of a democratically elected government by unconstitutional means cannot be tolerated.  

2008/687

Released on September 3, 2008

  

09/03/2008 10:20 PM
Press Releases: Briefing On the History of Libya’s WMD Effort and Dismantlement Program and Libya’s Renunciation of Terrorism

Briefing On the History of Libya’s WMD Effort and Dismantlement Program and Libya’s Renunciation of Terrorism

Paula A. DeSutter, Assistant Secretary of State for Verification, Compliance, and Implementation
Washington, DC
September 3, 2008

Additional Speakers: 
Dell L. Dailey, Coordinator for Counterterrorism
Donald A. Mahley, Special Negotiator for Non-Proliferation


MR. MCINTURFF: Well, thank you all very much for coming. This is a wonderful turnout for the first day of school. (Laughter.) We have a special briefing this morning on Libya. We’re going to run through our three speakers – each have a few quick opening remarks – and then we will open it up for questions. Our speakers have limited time, so we’ll try and keep to that and let them get back to their workday. 

The order in which we’ll do this: We’ll start with Assistant Secretary Paula DeSutter, who is Assistant Secretary for Verification, Compliance, and Implementation. We also have with us Coordinator for Counterterrorism Dell Dailey and Special Negotiator for Non-Proliferation Don Mahley right here. 

So, without further ado.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY DESUTTER: Well, thank you. I think probably a lot of you have been around throughout the Libya process. I think I recognize a few faces. The Verification, Compliance, Implementation Bureau was the lead and coordinator for the U.S. effort to assist Libya in their WMD elimination. And I would remind you of just a couple things.

First, Secretary Rice was, at the time this was negotiated and implemented, the National Security Advisor. And so back in the days when no one within the bureaucracy really knew that this deal was forthcoming, the Secretary was leading that effort to try to get them to make the commitment. Secretary Powell at the time was very much involved and had said, at the very beginning, look, verification and elimination comes first, and only following the verification and elimination are we going to start to have the benefits begin rolling. 

So we had set up benchmarks. And once the Libyans met those benchmarks, there were a clear set of activities that would flow from it. Early on, it was mostly lifting sanctions. There were – there was a interlocking web of international and national sanctions on Libya that, in some cases, made it very difficult even for us to implement the WMD elimination. What was critical at the time was that – and we didn’t know it at the beginning. And we tried to move fast. We wanted to remove especially the proliferation sensitive materials before anybody could change their mind. But what we discovered over time was that the Libyan Government had indeed made a strategic commitment to eliminate their materials, eliminate their WMD programs. And that decision having been made at the top, it was fully implemented. And there was a very cooperative and transparent program – not always smooth, not always easy, but we were able to work those things out.

Don Mahley, at the time, was our senior WMD rep at the beginning when we were trying to move fast and remove materials. Karin Look, who is my Deputy Assistant Secretary, is here and she was – has been the senior WMD rep for – a year and a half, two years?

MS. LOOK: After that – after Don --

ASSISTANT SECRETARY DESUTTER: After Don was finished. With that, I’ll just say one other thing. We – the Secretary and I chatted about this a little bit this morning. And she was remarking on how important this model was, and it’s true and we’d like to build upon it. It demonstrated that even when there is a country whose leadership we’ve had very difficult challenges with over a long period of time – if that country changes critical behavior that you have a terrible problem with – in this case, terrorism and WMD acquisition – that change in regime behavior can move – remove the necessity for calling for regime changes other administrations had done.

And with that, I’ll stop and turn it over.

AMBASSADOR DAILEY: My name is Dell Dailey. I’m the Coordinator for Counterterrorism. The Secretary’s September visit to Libya really does show a change and a new chapter in our relationships, our bilateral relationships with Libya. It’s the first visit since 1953, John Foster Dulles, almost 50 years or so – 55 years, so it is a heck of a signal. 

It’s going to allow us to expand cooperation in a lot of areas: education, culture, commerce, science, technology, human rights, and security. My aspect is, of course, counterterrorism security. I’m pleased to be here with folks who have been part of this process for a heck of a long time. I frankly had just watched it up until a year and a half ago as a concerned citizen; saw it as a success story and now, I’m pleased to be a part of it in the governmental perspective.

Coming off of the state sponsor terrorism list is a pretty powerful tool. And both with the Libyans and with the North Koreans, it was a request on their part for us to extend this if they went through the appropriate WMD and nuclear and denuclearization process. It is a model for other countries to use and I’d like to echo what Paula said. We both took it from the same source: from the Secretary. They’ve been off the list since June 2006. And in that timeframe, there’s been some very close cooperation in virtually all the areas of counterterrorism across the national aspect: diplomatic, military, intelligence services, economics. So it’s been a good move.

Where Libya has really been strong as – they’ve slowed down the movement of foreign fighters from their country through North Africa and ultimately, into Iraq. They’ve been good team members and partners on that. They’ve additionally been good team members on looking inside their own borders for potential foreign fighters that have gone across Northern Africa into Iraq. And now, we see a little bit of a shift possibly even into Afghanistan. 

And my final comment is an example of their cooperation not just with the United States, but with there are other countries there, foreign fighters that have moved from Libya into Syria that have been stopped by the Syrians have gone back to Libya. So there is a level of cooperation that’s increased dramatically in this timeframe, too.

With that, I’ll close my comments, turn it over to Don, and I’ll be prepared to field any other questions you have in the future.

AMBASSADOR MAHLEY: Well, thank you. Let me just say that while you heard some sort of overviews up to this point, I’d like to focus for just a minute or so on a vignette which is a specific element of what kind of things we want to talk about concretely from the positive benefits of this kind of cooperation. 

I would like to note that we are in the process, with United States financial assistance, of building in Libya a regional nuclear medical center. Now, this is something which is not yet present in Africa and will allow Libya to assume a role of leadership in some of the preventive medical capabilities that go about there. It is something, obviously, that involves nuclear technology and therefore is possible in Libya only after they made their 2003 decision to get rid of their nuclear weapons programs. It will benefit both the Libyan people and the Libyan Government in terms of its regional capabilities and its regional reputation. It is a significant outlay of United States dollars. It is also a significant outlay of Libyan talent and resources. 

And so with all of that, I think it’s just an example -- and I want to point out that it’s only an example, of the kinds of things that this kind of behavior change by Libya opens the door for and allows us to go forward with in a very cooperative fashion. We’re doing some other things that we’re working with the Libyans on, but I think this is really a centerpiece that they’ve asked for, that satisfies some needs in terms of the use and employment of some of the people that were previously engaged in things of not such useful behavior with their same technologies, and, at the same, time does indeed advance not only Libyan interests, but also interests within the region. 

So with that – with that just as a vignette of an example, I’m like everybody else, I’ll turn it over to questions and answers to folks. Thank you. 

QUESTION: Sue Pleming from Reuters. Could you talk a little bit more about this nuclear medicine unit? How much is it worth? How far along are you? And also, if you could specify a little bit more exactly on where else -- you mentioned educational, scientific, cultural. Could you provide some specifics on exactly where – what you’re going to achieve over the next few months, you think? Or broader if next few months it’s not going to happen. 

AMBASSADOR MAHLEY: Well, let me give you a couple of figures on the nuclear medical center. We’ve got $3 million that are obligated in the current fiscal year. This is of U.S. money, another 11 for the coming fiscal year, and 25 for the following four years after that. 

It is not something which is finished. It is something which we did by a very deliberative process. We decided that we wanted to start a planning process to make sure we strategically had it aligned, we had everybody in place that was going to be able to make it work. We’re now proceeding along that. And this $3 million allocation we have right now is to begin groundbreaking for the construction of this. And we will have it finished, we hope, in about three to four years. 

Now that doesn’t mean we’re not going to be able to use some proceeds from it in the process. But it’s – it’ll be about four years before that’s really, really finished and up and running in all its aspects. 

QUESTION: And how much will the whole thing cost? And what exactly will you be doing in terms of nuclear medicine? Can you give some examples of what this means in layman’s terms?

AMBASSADOR MAHLEY: (Laughter.) It would have to be in layman’s terms since I’m not a nuclear medicine man. 

What this does is it provides for example, a very advanced diagnostic capability as well as some treatment capabilities in which nuclear medicine is a component, when we talk about radiation therapy for some kinds of diseases, as well as the use of radioactive isotopes, for example, in terms of the diagnostic processes you’re going to get. All of this is something which, as I say, organically has been largely missing from the African continent with the exception of South Africa for a whole – for history. And therefore, not only does it provide that, but it provides it in a Libyan base which, frankly, we believe at least will help the Libyan reputation and their capability to cooperate with some of their African colleagues. This is something which is important to the Libyans, as well as is important to us. 

Now, I would note, for example, that the plans for the conversion of Rabta, their former chemical weapons facility, is to make that into a pharmaceutical output in which they’re going to be providing materials in terms of cocktails of medicines and other kinds of things for treating – treatment of AIDS and malaria in Sub-Saharan Africa, so that this is all a part of a general attitude on the part of Libya to be helpful. 

What is going to be the total cost? Frankly, I can’t tell you because a lot of that gets involved with in-kind contributions from the Libyans in terms of labor and operations and ongoing operational expense. So I would say probably it’s going to represent an overall investment of about $35 to $40 million in capital and probably an operating expense of 750,000 to a million, at least, a year. But that’s a very rough estimate and please don’t hold me to that as being an authoritative figure. 
 
ASSISTANT SECRETARY DESUTTER: Let me draw in one more just a rough data point that has nothing to do with verification. The death rate among women in Africa from breast cancer and cervical cancer is outrageously high and a part of it is the lack of access to diagnostics and treatment. And so the nuclear medicine field where radiation treatment and diagnostics are going to be available far more than they have been before, I think, is going to have a tremendous beneficial effect. 

QUESTION: I’m sorry. Just one more thing on this -- is the Saudi-U.S. funded nuclear medicine thing or is it – are the Libyans putting money into it? I mean, this $38-$40 million, is that just – is it just going to be funded by the U.S.? 

AMBASSADOR MAHLEY: The United States is providing a great amount of the actual capital funding. But as I pointed out, the Libyans are providing both in-kind funding and supplemental funding to that so it is a truly joint operation between the United States and Libya. It does not have other foreign contributors other than the United States.

QUESTION: Are there any other U.S. – I’m sorry, Viola Gienger from Bloomberg News. Are there any foreign companies, like U.S. companies that are involved in either that project or in the pharmaceutical project at the former nuclear plant?

AMBASSADOR MAHLEY: Well, the Rabta conversion, for example, is being done cooperatively with an Italian firm. So yes, there are a number of other countries and a number of other fund sources that are going on within Libya for that. Now, don’t ask me for a catalog of what those are because I can’t tell you.

MR. MCINTURFF: Charlie.

QUESTION: Can I ask a question of Dell? You mentioned that Libya cut down the flow of foreign fighters – you said greatly reduced, I think. Can you give us any more specifics either by way of numbers or percentages of the numbers that used to go and that you think now are going still through Libya?

AMBASSADOR DAILEY: The movement of foreign fighters from around the world into Iraq is best calibrated by what our forces in Iraq are able to say has taken – has arrived. They assume at this point now that they get approximately 10 to 20 people a month that are foreign fighters from a myriad of countries, probably up to 22-plus. Prior to this time, you could go back about a year, they were receiving somewhere to the neighborhood of 60 to 80.

Now, obviously, Libya’s not integral – is not the factor that slowed down this number. But going into the countries that have provided – I’d say the source countries that provide the foreign fighters – giving them phone numbers and addresses of folks who have departed, who are going to go to Iraq, and letting those local law enforcement officials go back to the families, to the communities, to that area and say, do you know X, Y, and Z about one of your sons or brothers, that has turned out to be a pretty effective tool. And you couple that with interdiction in the air – correction, interdiction through air movement at particular ports, and you couple that with interdiction across the border, and you couple that with actually killing or capturing inside Iraq and we’ve got these reduced numbers.

Excuse me.

QUESTION: Michele Kelemen with National Public Radio. Going to ask – both of you have talked about this as an example, but it’s taken a really long time – you know, you look at what’s happening with North Korea now. They’re backtracking where they are because they’re not formerly off this terrorism list yet. And then on the terrorism side, Qadhafi never accepted responsibility for Pan Am 103. So aren’t you worried that you’re, you know, letting them off without really accepting that responsibility?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY DESUTTER: Well, in terms of the model, I’ll start there. One of the things that – I think Libya originally thought that the benefits of moving forward were going to flow really fast. And in terms of the removal of sanctions, that did begin to happen very rapidly. The Iran-Libya Sanctions Act, they were removed from that very quickly, the terrorism list. They were the first country ever removed from the list of State Sponsors of Terrorism. To some degree, there have been impediments --

QUESTION: Hold on one second. Weren’t they removed once before and then put back on? Or is that someone else?

AMBASSADOR DAILEY: I don’t know. I can’t answer that.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY DESUTTER: I remember when we were working the process, it was very difficult cause it was the first time anybody had been through the process. Maybe a thousand years ago. But for us, they were removed in June 2006, and that’s when we did the process.

So that all has taken a long time. There were some elements where they didn’t want public acclimation, which was difficult for the United States as we were removing the WMD equipment. But they certainly are a demonstration, and I think the Secretary’s visit is going to be a huge demonstration of the fact that by changing behavior a country can change the nature of relations. 

That doesn’t mean that there are no issues between the United States and Libya that are going to have to continue to be worked, just like there are with the hundreds of other countries in the world where we have differences and have to work those things out. But what’s different is that we work those things out as two countries that have a number of common interests and purposes. Libya made the decision to eliminate their WMD without the requirements to be – we didn’t pay them for any of the equipment that we removed, over a thousand tons of WMD-related equipment and documents that we removed from there.

They – there were many cases where Libya took us to facilities that we could have never known about. And so that level of demonstration – in fact, on the biological weapons issues, we said, okay, we are now convinced that there – you know, while there was an early program that’s terminating, how are we going to be sure that you’re not going to pursue that in the future? It’s very difficult to verify. And their answer was, oh, get U.S. companies to come in in co-production with us and then you’ll know everything that we’re doing – a little bit of a misunderstanding about how much U.S. companies report to us. 

But the openness and the transparency – but I think the Secretary’s visit will help be a reminder of the model and help give a very public international face to the fact that countries that change WMD behavior, change terrorism behavior, cooperate with us, have a way forward. It’s not, this or nothing. It’s walk away from the WMD path, make your country more secure, which Qadhafi himself said he had done for Libya. 

Mr. Dailey, did you want –

AMBASSADOR DAILEY: 15 August, 2003, the Libyan Government accepted responsibility for their actions. Whether Qadhafi signed on the dotted line or not, I don’t know. But it was adequate for international courts and national courts to proceed forward, so I think it’s appropriate to accept the fact that they received – they accepted responsibility for it. 

QUESTION: Andrei Sitov from TASS, from Russia. Thank you. Obviously, the Libyan deal is very important. I congratulate the U.S. on achieving it. But there is a much more important relationship that seems to be sort of in limbo at this point. How do you see further contacts, professional contacts with Russia, developing in each of your respective areas? 

MR. MCINTURFF: I think we’re going to keep this on the Libya track for the purpose of the short briefing. But –

QUESTION: Can I ask after --

AMBASSADOR DAILEY: What country did you say? 

QUESTION: Russia.

AMBASSADOR DAILEY: Sorry, I’m going to just stay on the – inside the bounds. 

ASSISTANT SECRETARY DESUTTER: I would just give one quick answer, and that is we have hoped very much over the past few years – and I in my role as a verifier – to work closely with the Russians. One of the areas that we hope to work – we’ve hoped to work closely with them on is how to do verification and elimination of North Korea’s nuclear weapons program. That, however, is a bit in abeyance, but it’s not because the United States isn’t interested. We’d very much like to work with them. We and the Russians have more experience in verification and elimination than any other countries in the world, and we hope that things can evolve in a positive way so that we can move forward on a post-START agreement that we can bring the Russians back into compliance with their obligations under the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty and a number of other areas. 

QUESTION: Why is that in abeyance?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY DESUTTER: Russia – you may have noticed some activities in Georgia, where --

QUESTION: Right.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY DESUTTER: And so we are trying to focus, as a government, on those.

QUESTION: But is it –

ASSISTANT SECRETARY DESUTTER: But – yes.

QUESTION: Are we putting it in abeyance, or are they? I’m just trying to –

ASSISTANT SECRETARY DESUTTER: The Russians haven’t – the Russians put in abeyance their compliance with the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty. They’ve refused to accept any inspections. They’ve not been providing data. That decision was made a little over a year ago, and then they ceased their compliance – was it December, Karen?

MS. LOOK: In December. 

ASSISTANT SECRETARY DESUTTER: And so that has been a focus for us. I think the post-START effort is very important to us, and we’ll try to continue forward. They haven’t been very forthcoming in a number of areas. And on North Korea, I think we just – it remains to be seen. But the Six-Party process continues and their role in the Six-Party process will continue.

QUESTION: One last thing. We’re supposed to present a --

MR. MCINTURFF: Let’s just stick with Libya for now. There was a question in the back here?

QUESTION: Just another question for Ms. De Sutter. Could you give a bit more of a sense the difference it’s been working with the Libyans and the North Koreans? People – the North Koreans now apparently are rebuilding the Yongbyon facility, but people I’ve talked to on the Libya front said it was clear from day one that they’d made a strategic decision, we’re going to do it, and they brought everyone in; and that’s never been the case with the North Koreans, and now you see the situation now. But maybe just a bit more on that, the difference of working with the Libyans and –

ASSISTANT SECRETARY DESUTTER: Well, let me start with – let me do it this way. Verification is usually seen in the arms control/nonproliferation world as the hard part. It’s usually very easy to negotiate things, or you negotiate them over a long period of time. You argue about it, and then you go and implement it. But it’s never been seen as a very easy process. That’s why people consider the verifiers to be the skunks at the garden party, and you end up getting people to work verification who like being called skunks at the garden party. That’s who we are. 

And one time, I went to the Secretary. We had brought a piece of missile baffle out of Libya, and I took it to her and gave it to her as a present. And I told her, “Remember back when we were negotiating START with the Russians, and you would spend months and months arguing over how you were going to eliminate a rocket nozzle?” You know, are we going to cut this much or that much, bigger, bigger? And it was very difficult. Okay? You had to – each bit of agreement took a lot of work.

In the Libyan case, there had been some leftover engine equipment.  Our missile team went in and pointed to all of the things that needed to be eliminated. And the Libyans came in with blow torches and sledge hammers, and by the end of the day, all of the things that needed to be eliminated had been eliminated, to the degree where there was no way they could ever be used for those purposes again.

That was a big difference. That’s what was one of the things that was so unique about Libya. Now, we can’t, you know, lose sight of the fact that verification and elimination has always been the hard part. North Korea has made a commitment to end all its nuclear programs, to eliminate them, and we are in the difficult part of trying to move forward to be able to do the work. And it’s more like the old process than our new Libyan model. 

One of the differences is, from beginning to end, the WMD elimination in Libya was done in nine months, nine months to a year. There was ongoing verification, but nine months to a year. There are still a couple things that need to get done. But it happened fast. It happened fast because of that strategic commitment. When we would go to a facility, they would – you know, the facility head would nervously phone Tripoli. Tripoli would tell them, “Let them in.” 

It’s going to be up to North Korea, to some degree, to decide how quickly they want the verification and elimination process to take place, how much they want the United States to be able to testify at the end of the process, as we did in the Libya case, that we have reasonable confidence that we’ve been able to verify it. They can make it difficult. They can make it take a long time. They can ensure that, at the end of the process, we don’t have the level of confidence that everybody in the world, especially here in the U.S., would like to see in that process. 

We have to take it a day at a time and see what we can do. We know what verification would entail. Obviously, North Korea’s program is far, far more extensive than what Libya had, and so even under a best-case scenario with a strategic commitment by North Korea, it would take longer. It would be more difficult. We’re prepared to do that work. Obviously, the verifiers have been worrying about how to do this for quite a long time. And so the – doing that work will be difficult.

QUESTION: You seem to be suggesting that you’re not quite sure that the North Koreans have made – that Kim Jong-il has made the same decision that Qadhafi did. Is that correct?

And secondly, can – are you sure now that they are, in fact, reassembling Yongbyon?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY DESUTTER: In answer to the first question, I have yet to see the sort of things that we would look for as a strategic commitment. However, if we get on the ground and begin the verification process and elimination process in a real way, then we’ll be able to judge in a little bit better fashion.

As for Yongbyon, I’ve got to tell you I’ve been on leave for a while. And my guys said, “I’ve got to show you what’s going on.” But you know, everyone has known from the beginning that the actions they were taking at Yongbyon were reversible. The question is: Are they deciding that they just want to blow it off, or are they just posturing? They like to posture.

MR. MCINTURFF: Let’s have the last question. I know Dell Dailey has to leave here. 

QUESTION: Why, in your opinion, Qadhafi took this strategic decision?

AMBASSADOR DAILEY: You mean from a counterterrorism perspective?

QUESTION: Yes.

AMBASSADOR DAILEY: I think he had spent enough time kind of on the outside of the international society and realized that turning around his nuclear program, and also soliciting to be taken off the state sponsor list, would be an advantage for him to reintegrate in the international community. As a strategic decision, I’m not sure if the North Koreans have done that or not.

QUESTION: There were lots of rumors in the Middle East that it wasn’t Libya, it was Syria with Ahmed Jibril, who was a Palestinian leader, who attacked the Pan Am 103. What do you say to this?

AMBASSADOR DAILEY: Well, I think we have a pretty good legal justification of who was at fault and who was guilty, and that speculation is just speculation.

MR. MCINTURFF: I think we’re going to have to wrap it up there.

QUESTION: You don’t have a minute to ask about Pakistan, do you?

MR. MCINTURFF: Thank you all very much for coming. I think we’re going to wrap it up there.

2008/685


Released on September 3, 2008

  

09/03/2008 06:49 PM
Press Releases: Anbar Province Sets the Example for All of Iraq

Anbar Province Sets the Example for All of Iraq

Ma’amoun Sami Rasheed , Governor of Anbar Province
Jim Soriano, Provincial Reconstruction Team Leader
Via Digital Videoconference
Anbar Province, Iraq
September 2, 2008

View Video

MODERATOR:  (Inaudible) is the PRT Anbar leader. And with that, I’ll throw it out to Anbar Province and he can begin.

MR. SORIANO: Good afternoon from Camp Ramadi. My name is Jim Soriano. I’m the leader of the Provincial Reconstruction Team in Anbar. I’ve been living in Ramadi for the past two years, and during that period of time there have been remarkable changes. The person you’re going to be speaking with in a few minutes is Governor Ma'amoun Sami Rasheed, who is sitting to my left. 

Yesterday, at a ceremony in Ramadi, Governor Ma’amoun signed an MOU with the commanding general of the Marines in Anbar Province for the transfer of security responsibilities from the Coalition forces to the Iraqi Government. The changes that I have seen anyway in the last two years have been absolutely remarkable. The general outline of the story of Anbar is pretty much well known. But two years ago when I arrived, the insurgency had disrupted economic and social life. Today, the markets throughout the province are flourishing, schools are open, and life has returned to normal. Two years ago, barely a dozen or so recruits answered the call for – in a police recruitment campaign. Today, there are 24,000 police in the province. They’re on the beat, and security and stability have been restored.

And two years ago, the local government, the structures of local government, were in disarray. City and town councils had disbanded and gone underground. Today, every city and town in the province has a mayor and a functioning council. 

That’s about all I’d want to say in terms of background. I think you pretty much know what has happened in Anbar Province, and there’s somebody with me tonight who can give you a much better insight than I can.

Governor Ma'amoun Sami Rasheed is the longest serving governor in Iraq. When I first met him two years ago, I made a call on him at his office in Ramadi and there was a gun battle, literally, outside on the street. He has, arguably, one of the most difficult jobs in the country. He is an incredibly brave man. He kept his office hours at his office at the government center in Ramadi during the height of the insurgency. I’ve known him to be a democratic reformer, a friend to the Coalition. He’s certainly a hero of this chapter of Iraq’s history.

He’s recently visited the United States twice and saw the President three times. But that’s enough from me. Let me turn this over to Governor Ma'amoun. We have an interpreter with us at our side. His name is Paul (inaudible). He’s working with – on the PRT as one of my colleagues. And let me ask Governor Ma’amoun to make an opening statement, and he’ll take your questions. 

GOVERNOR RASHEED: (Via interpreter) I am Governor Ma’amoun Sami Rasheed, governor of the Anbar. I took over that responsibility on June 1, 2005. The province at that time was divided and the terrorists were wandering around all over the province with the thoughts and the reality. Prior to my duties as governor, I was the deputy chairman of the Anbar Province Council and then chairman of the Council. After the assassination of the previous governor of Anbar, Mr. Raja Nawaf, by terrorist organizations, the Council nominated me to be the governor.

I took over the responsibility at times when there was chaos in the province, both administrative chaos and the terrorists were virtually controlling the entire province from Fallujah all the way to the (inaudible) region near the border. However, our determination and belief in democracy and freedom is what gave us the strength to continue to fight. And such were the situations at the time when we were in the Council. We challenged the event at the time and entered the election.

We entered into a new stage of rebuilding the province and working a province that is so vast and diverse, both in size and in tribes. After we started rebuilding relationship with the Coalition forces in the area and friendship with them, we were getting some good result that made us very happy. We were able with these efforts of cooperation with the Coalition forces to educate the people of the Anbar and show them how they can fight the insurgency. And we never missed an opportunity to encourage the tribes inside Iraq and out – and those who have left and were outside Iraq to return and fight. 

At the end of 2005 and the beginning of 2006, only very few of the tribes responded to that. And the action of the terrorists at the time were the reason for changing their minds. And after the terrorists start killing the heads of the tribe, it proved to the tribes what the terrorists were. Such sheikh as Sheikh (inaudible) and Sheikh (inaudible) were assassinated by the terrorists. And as I mentioned, these actions pushed the tribes to change their mind. After the tribes realized that the al-Qaida terrorists were nothing but killers and criminals, they started changing their mind.

After that, the tribes started responding to our pleas for them to return and help us fight, and in the lead was Sheikh (inaudible) was of this entire region. And other (inaudible) insisted that they were going to stand up and fight the insurgency. We entered a new stage of resisting the al-Qaida. Not only was it a defensive act, as we were in the past, but we were on the offensive. We went on the offensive against al-Qaida all over the province, from Ramadi all the way to Al Qaim. We can consider the year 2006 as the turning point where we changed from defensive actions into going on the offense against the al-Qaida. 

Many of the tribes all over the provinces and the different cities stood up and fought the terrorists. Thanks be to God that the sons of the tribes decided to join in with the police force to fight the insurgents and the criminals. This is how we were able to fight al-Qaida and they failed in different aspects. They failed religious-wise because we were able to prove that their actions has nothing to do with Islam’s and religion. They also failed socially because they were attacking schools, health centers and other social services in the – in the Anbar. Beside the two failures we mentioned, they failed economically because they terrorized the economic life and the trade life and the normal life of the people of the Anbar. They failed politically because the people of the Anbar realized that these – their agenda was foreign agenda and it was a stranger to the people of the Anbar.

These organizations failed because they tried to present themselves as a religious organization connected with the Sunni faith. They have nothing to do with the Sunni faith. All they are are gangs of criminals and atoners. All they believe in is the destruction of life. We can consider this the first round that we won when we were able to change the mentality of the people when they realized that what the al-Qaida was, and those same people who had embraced al-Qaida before for the same reasons. 

At the same time, we were building our armed forces, security forces, by having Anbaris volunteer for the army and the police force. We were working on two fronts (inaudible). One is to throw the al-Qaida out of Anbar, and the other one is to build the security forces in the area. We started reconstruction, although under difficult circumstances, after the central government starting allocating the funds at the end of 2006 to rebuild the province, so we started working on the infrastructures and health services and other services.

So as the citizens of the Anbar saw the progress of the three fronts we were working on – that is, to fight al-Qaida, to build the armed forces, and the reconstruction – they started believing that the belief in democracy and freedom is the right path for us, just like we would believe (inaudible).

We had great support from the American forces in the area in all three aspects. By 2007, we were able to contain the terrorists and contain al-Qaida in the Anbar. We started the great project in constructions, also in volunteers – for people volunteering to join with us, and we started training people in the Anbar area instead of them being trained outside, such as Jordan. All of these efforts encouraged the people of the Anbar and helping get their life back and among them was the allocation of 6,000 jobs by the Prime Minister for the people of the Anbar. This is how the police forces in the area expanded and became the supporting force for other security forces in the area. 

The people of the Anbar started volunteering more and more in that time, as they were in the past refusing to do so. As they started (inaudible) started life again, they started volunteering and insisting that they’re going to fight the insurgency. This is how things started in 2007, continued into 2008, and with the support of the central government we expanded our forces. The police force is now up to 26,000 people. Most of them are trained and willing to defend the people of the Anbar and the property of the Anbar. 

Many of our people fell as martyrs alongside the martyrs – the American martyrs, we fell alongside them, to defend the Anbar. Thanks be to God, life has improved in the Anbar in all aspects – economics, education, health-wise – and all the offices of the Anbar are functioning. All of our districts and subdistricts now have a mayor and a council that is running the business of the districts and subdistricts. Our markets are now functioning normally and they’re full of goods. 

As we improved our hospitals and supplied them with the newest modern equipment, and many of our people are being treated here locally rather than leaving the country and being treated somewhere else. 

Our economy is improving and due to many of the efforts that we did here such as the conventions we held and the seminars we held in scientific, religious, and economic aspects. 

This all culminated yesterday when the security file for the Anbar was transferred to the Anbaris. I cannot express the warm feeling of the joy that this is the happiest day in Anbar. It’s like a wedding, where the people of the Anbar are now capable of ruling themselves with the support of the police and security forces. 

This was always through the good efforts of the people of the Anbar who stood up and challenged terrorism over there out of love for life and love for their future and love for their children. 

MODERATOR: Can I –

GOVERNOR RASHEED: (Via interpreter) We were very happy with this day, and the great achievement we achieved due to all the cooperation and coordination of the tribes, the high authority and governments. They were all present yesterday, and grateful to the government – to the support of the central government.

We have -- we started building all the government organizations. Our judicial department started in 2007, our legislative was in 2005. And, in spite of all the obstacles they went through, they were able to function. Our security office -- operations with the police forces, now the people of the Anbar, they see prosperity. And we also made strides in education through the University of the Anbar.

And this shall continue in the province, and with the help of God, for the benefit of the people.

MODERATOR: Could I just jump in, just for a second, Anbar? We only have about five minutes for questions and answers before people have to move on to another briefing. So can we move on to a couple of questions from the reporters?

Any questions? 

GOVERNOR RASHEED: (Via interpreter)Yes.
MODERATOR: Please push the button to speak.

QUESTION: Hi. I am Susan Cornwell with Reuters. I wondered, based on your own experience, how soon do you think U.S. troops could leave all of Iraq? How soon do you think they should leave?

TRANSLATOR:  I didn't hear that. Are you asking how soon they should leave?

MODERATOR: Yes. All troops out of Iraq was the question.

GOVERNOR RASHEED: (Via interpreter)This question is a little bit out of my domain, because I am not expert (inaudible). But, based on my experience, as I see our security forces continuing to be rebuilt, and hopefully within two or three years they will be fully equipped to take over the security situation.

This is not just for the Anbar, but we want our forces to be fully equipped and ready to do -- to the fight against the terrorists, not only in the Anbar, but be prepared to go in other places, such as Mosul, as they did. Our police forces went there and helped in the operation there, and also our military forces that went to other areas and fought to help fight against terrorism. This is the way we want our forces to be ready. We want these forces to be ready in the service of all of Iraq, and not just the Anbar province.

MODERATOR: Anyone else? Go ahead, Samir.

QUESTION: Yes, Samir Nader with Radio Sawa. Now the police and army elements in Anbar, are they part of the national army, or there is problems between the prime minister and the elements of the Sons of the Awakening?

TRANSLATOR: Could you repeat that, please? It didn't come very clear.

QUESTION: Yes. Are the police, the members of the police and the army within the province, are they part of the national army and police, or there is difference with the prime minister about the Sons of the Awakening?

GOVERNOR RASHEED: (Via interpreter) There isno problem between us, between the police forces and the prime minister. They enjoy the full support of the prime minister. He has recently agreed to raise the number to 29,000, and also the armed forces.

When I spoke of the readiness of the forces, all I wanted to say is that they would be ready in the service, not only inside the province, but also be available to serve anywhere else in Iraq.

And, as we met repeatedly with President Bush, he always reminded us that he wanted to see the Anbar as the best example for not only for the Anbar, but for all of Iraq. And this is what we're striving -- and this is what we achieved.

MODERATOR: Samir, the last question.

QUESTION: So you see this development yesterday as an example about the good intentions of the United States toward the future of Iraq?

TRANSLATOR: What developments?

QUESTION: Transferring the responsibilities of security to the Iraqis in Anbar.

TRANSLATOR: Thank you.

GOVERNOR RASHEED: (Via interpreter)The memorandum of understanding is, as it's stated, allows the police to take charge of the cities of the Anbar, and the army to be in charge of the outside outlying areas.

Any time that the army enters a city in (inaudible) of a civil unrest, (inaudible) the province has been -- life in the province has been very normal, and we’ve had no problems. An indication of that is the fact that we were able to send some of the --our security forces from the Anbar to participate in operations outside of the Anbar.

Three days ago, before we took over the security files from the Americans, (inaudible) had asked us to send an entire battalion from Anbar to participate in operations in the Mosul, and we complied with that. This is an indication of our high trust in the ability of the security forces over here, and our belief that the security situation is very stable in the Anbar.

This order came through the interior minister, but it was ordered from the prime minister of Iraq. The interior minister called me late at night before he issued the order, to ask for the battalion to travel to Mosul, to inquire about the security situation in the Anbar, and I reassured him that the situation was under control and very stable, and we would be able to send that battalion, and we, indeed, have done that.

I need to amend that. The call came in actually right after we authorized the transfer of the battalion from here. But, nevertheless, the interior minister still called me to inquire about the security situation, and we are very confident that it is under control here in the Anbar. We were able to send a battalion to participate in operations somewhere else.

This is an undisputed proof that the Anbar enjoys a high level of security. Yesterday there was not a single incident from the enemies during the celebration. The authority in Iraq is all vested through the effort of our sons, our police, our army, and it's in our hands. And we will strive to be a prize for Iraq in this aspect.

MODERATOR: And with that we will have to end the briefing. We are out of time. I thank you, and good night.

2008/684



Released on September 3, 2008

  

© 2005 - 2006 Government Relations, LLC