Appointment of Yukiya Amano as the Next IAEA Director General

Hillary Rodham Clinton

Secretary of State

Washington, DC

July 3, 2009

I would like to offer my congratulations to Yukiya Amano of Japan on his appointment as the next Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). From its founding in 1957 to the present, the IAEA has benefited from wise leadership and generous U.S. support. For the American people, our investment in the IAEA is a way to ensure that atomic power is used prudently and appropriately for peaceful purposes. For the international community, the IAEA represents the premier international institution for promoting the safe and secure application of nuclear energy in the pursuit of prosperity, and working jointly on global challenges such as nuclear terrorism and proliferation.

In selecting Ambassador Amano, the member states of the IAEA reiterate their common resolve to collaborate on these pressing issues. As Director General Mohamed ElBaradei nears the completion of his twelve-year tenure, we thank him for his leadership. The United States stands ready to assist the next Director General in ensuring that the Agency is prepared to meet the growing challenges of the 21^st century and has the appropriate resources and the authorities it needs to fulfill its mandate.

Secretary Clinton's 4th of July Video Message to Posts Worldwide

Bureau of Public Affairs

Office of the Spokesman

Washington, DC

July 2, 2009

A video of Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton delivering a 4^th of July message, which was given to U.S. Missions worldwide to play at their 4^th of July celebrations, is available for viewing on the State Department YouTube site: http://www.youtube.com/user/statevideo.

Below is the transcript of Secretary Clinton’s statement on the occasion of 4^th of July:

Hello everyone. I am delighted to welcome you on behalf of President Obama and the people of the United States as we celebrate our nation’s 233^rd birthday.

For Americans, the 4^th of July is a day to reconnect with loved ones, to remember our history, and to renew our commitment to democracy, tolerance, and justice. As President Obama said in Cairo last month, these are not just American values, these are core principles we share with people everywhere. So it is fitting that we open our doors and share this day with our friends and neighbors around the world.

Our fates and our fortunes are intertwined like never before. No one nation can meet today’s global challenges alone. We all share responsibility for working together to ensure a more peaceful and prosperous future.

So I hope that today’s celebration will become tomorrow’s partnership. There’s nothing we can’t accomplish, no challenge we can’t meet, if we work together toward common goals and seek common ground.

Thank you so much for joining us and have a wonderful 4^th of July.

U.S. Delivers Police Vehicles to the Lebanese Internal Security Forces

Bureau of Public Affairs

Office of the Spokesman

Washington, DC

July 2, 2009

The United States Embassy in Beirut, Lebanon turned over 120 Dodge Charger police vehicles to the Lebanese Internal Security Forces (ISF) on July 1, 2009. The vehicles, purchased by the Bureau for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, officially were transferred to the ISF during a ceremony in Beirut that was attended by U. S. Assistant Secretary of State for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs David T. Johnson, U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon Michele J. Sison, and Lebanese Minister of Interior Ziad Baroud.

In addition to these vehicles, 60 police sports utility vehicles and 300 police cars were provided to the ISF in the past two years. This assistance will help the ISF expand policing operations throughout the country and protect the Lebanese people. The United States is steadfastly committed to helping the Government of Lebanon protect its citizens and territory as we continue to work together toward the rapid and full implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701.

This delivery is part of a larger Department of State initiative to assist legitimate, professional law enforcement institutions in Lebanon. It is a symbol of our unwavering support for the ISF, the Lebanese government, and the citizens of Lebanon. This assistance has included training for more than 2,000 ISF officers and the refurbishment of ISF training facilities. It will help to establish the full sovereignty of a Lebanese Government representing all of its people, and a Lebanese Internal Security Force capable of protecting Lebanon’s territory, sovereignty and dignity.

50th Anniversary of Charles Darwin Foundation and Galapagos National Park

Bureau of Public Affairs

Office of the Spokesman

Washington, DC

July 2, 2009

The Charles Darwin Foundation and the Galapagos National Park have completed 50 years of invaluable service to the global community. During the past half-century, these institutions and their dedicated employees have worked tirelessly to leave a better world for our children and grandchildren by protecting the unique ecosystem and natural wonders of the Galapagos Islands.

Since its creation, the Darwin Foundation has sponsored groundbreaking research on the evolutionary biology and ecology of the Galapagos that has changed our understanding of how ecosystems evolve all over the world. At the same time, both organizations have collaborated closely with the governments of Ecuador and the United States to help to promote sustainable, environmentally-friendly economic development that directly benefits the residents of the islands.

The United States has been behind these efforts from the beginning, contributing more than $30 million to a variety of programs managed by the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Agency for International Development, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the U.S. Department of Agriculture Foreign Agricultural Service, and other U.S. Government agencies that benefit the islands. The results of our collective efforts are a testimony to what can be achieved when private research and conservation organizations, agencies representing various governments, local businesses, and educational institutions work together to achieve a goal that benefits all of us. We look forward to continued cooperation with the Charles Darwin Foundation and the Galapagos National Park, and wish them continued future success.

Designation of Kata'ib Hizballah as a Foreign Terrorist Organization

Bureau of Public Affairs

Office of the Spokesman

Washington, DC

July 2, 2009

On June 24, 2009 Deputy Secretary of State James B. Steinberg designated Kata’ib Hizballah (KH) as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) under Section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended (INA). Deputy Secretary Steinberg also designated KH under section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as amended. Kata’ib Hizballah is an Iraqi terrorist organization responsible for numerous terrorist acts against Iraqi, U.S., and other targets in Iraq since 2007. The Department of State took these actions in consultation with the Attorney General, the Secretary of the Treasury, and other relevant U.S. agencies.

These designations play a critical role in our fight against terrorism and are an effective means of curtailing support for terrorist activities and pressuring groups to get out of the terrorism business. The consequences of these designations include a prohibition against U.S. persons providing material support or resources to, or engaging in other transactions with KH, and the freezing of all property and interests in property of the organization that are in the United States, or come within the United States, or the control of U.S. persons.

Kata’ib Hizballah is a radical Shia Islamist group with an anti-Western establishment and jihadist ideology that has conducted attacks against Iraqi, U.S, and Coalition targets in Iraq. Kata’ib Hizballah has ideological ties to Lebanese Hizballah and gained notoriety in 2007 with attacks on U.S. and Coalition forces designed to undermine the establishment of a democratic, viable Iraqi state. The organization has been responsible for numerous violent terrorist attacks since 2007, including improvised explosive device bombings, rocket propelled grenade attacks, and sniper operations. Kata’ib Hizballah also targeted the International Zone in Baghdad in a November 29, 2008 rocket attack that killed two UN workers. In addition, KH has threatened the lives of Iraqi politicians and civilians that support the legitimate political process in Iraq.

The Department of Treasury has also designated Kata’ib Hizballah under Executive Order 13438.

Secretary Clinton's Meeting with Bolivian Foreign Minister David Choquehuanca

Ian Kelly

Department Spokesman,  Office of the Spokesman

Bureau of Public Affairs

Washington, DC

July 2, 2009

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton met with Foreign Minister David Choquehuanca today. It was their second meeting this year.

Foreign Minister Choquehuanca conveyed the Bolivian government’s deep disappointment over the U.S. decision not to reinstate Bolivia's trade preferences under the Andean Trade Preference Act. Secretary Clinton welcomed the opportunity to listen to the Foreign Minister’s concerns and continue our efforts to redefine and deepen our relationship with Bolivia. These efforts underscore the United States’ commitment to be a good partner in Bolivia’s journey to a more just, inclusive, and prosperous future.

Secretary Clinton indicated her continuing support for the bilateral dialogue; the second round of talks will be held in Washington in coming weeks. In those discussions, both nations seek to redefine relations and enhance cooperation in areas such as economic development, health, education, access to justice, and counternarcotics.

# # #

Remarks to the Press

Ian Kelly

Department Spokesman

Washington, DC

July 1, 2009

QUESTION: Have you gotten a – can you give me a magnitude – the aid cutoff is so-called non-humanitarian aid, right? That’s the law?

QUESTION: It’s non-democratic aid. It’s not non-humanitarian, I think – I’m actually trying to call up the relevant part of the statute here, and if I can find it, I’ll be happy to read it out.

QUESTION: I’m just wondering what, in magnitude of millions of dollars, what does Honduras stand to lose if they make a determination.

MR. KELLY: Yeah.

QUESTION: That’s a good question.

MR. KELLY: Yeah, I mean, what the law says – this is under, as I say, Section 008 – none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available shall be obligated or expended for assistance to the government of any country. So I mean, that needs to be determined as well. It does not apply to assistance to promote democratic elections or public participation in democratic processes.

So again, let’s let this process play out and see what our lawyers say about it.

QUESTION: What about the delegation from the – from President Micheletti apparently coming to Washington? Are you going to meet with them?

MR. KELLY: You know, I’ve seen reports about that. But we just – we don’t have any specific details. And in any case, we don’t recognize that government, so nobody at the State Department would receive them and nobody at the White House would receive them either.

QUESTION: Do you have any update on the – Ambassador Goldberg’s trip?

MR. KELLY: I do. I do have an update, if you just give me a second.

He arrived – his delegation arrived today in China, but he’ll have meetings on July 2^nd and 3^rd in Beijing. The information we have now is that he’s going to meet with representatives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and other officials in the Chinese Government in other ministries. We don’t have a specific program that we can give you. I think what they’re going to discuss, of course, is our joint goal of implementing UN Security Council Resolution 1874.

The update that I have is that the delegation is going to go on to Kuala Lumpur and go on to Malaysia to talk to officials from the Malaysian Government on the same issue: implementing UN Security Council Resolution 1874. And then they’ll come back on July 6^th, come back to Washington.

And – yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: Why Malaysia?

MR. KELLY: Well, Ambassador Goldberg’s remit here, his mission, is to – not only to coordinate within the U.S. Government on implementing UN Security Council Resolution 1874, but also to coordinate with our partners and with other countries in the region. And so he plans to have similar – or his delegation plans to have similar meetings in Malaysia at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and other ministries on this – on the same issue of implementing Security Council Resolution 1874.

That’s not to preclude that later on he’s – of course, he’s going to consult with other countries as well, but on this trip it’s China and Malaysia.

QUESTION: One can understand China because China has – China is North Korea’s largest trading partner, has a long border, but I don’t get Malaysia.

MR. KELLY: Yeah. Well, that’s – that’s really all I have for you in this regard is that he’s – it’s not just – it’s not like the Steinberg-led delegation where they – where we consulted with the other four parties – oh, three, because they didn’t go to Russia. This, I think, is more of a regional approach. It’s not just the four parties, but it’s also – not just Northeast Asia, but also Southeast Asia.

QUESTION: Is he meeting officials from any other governments than the Malaysian one in Malaysia?

MR. KELLY: Not that I’m aware. I think it’s just with Malaysian Government officials.

QUESTION: Will he be there on the 5^th?

MR. KELLY: Sorry?

QUESTION: Will he be there on the 5^th?

MR. KELLY: He’s there on the 5^th. Yeah.

QUESTION: And the meetings are on the 5^th or --

MR. KELLY: Meetings are on the 5^th. Yeah.

QUESTION: And when does he go back?

MR. KELLY: He comes back to Washington on the 6^th.

QUESTION: Ian, is there --

QUESTION: (Inaudible) this mission from the U.S.?

MR. KELLY: Sorry?

QUESTION: Who joined his mission from the U.S.? I mean, Mr. (inaudible) or Sung Kim or other --

MR. KELLY: No, not – neither one of those particular – neither one of those individuals. It’s an interagency delegation. As I said before, it’s the National Security Council, Department of Treasury, and Department of Defense.

QUESTION: And is there any reason in particular that photo spray was suddenly closed to the press – the Bolivian foreign minister?

MR. KELLY: Yeah, I have to talk to P.J. because P.J. covered that.

QUESTION: Will the Fayyad spray be okay? Will that be on camera?

MR. KELLY: Sorry?

QUESTION: The Salam Fayyad spray – will that definitely be on camera?

MR. KELLY: Yeah. On camera, yeah.

QUESTION: Do you have any guidance on Fayyad? What’s the purpose of his visit?

MR. KELLY: I do. Fayyad.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR. KELLY: Well, I looked in the wrong section.

Well, as you know, the President and Secretary are firmly committed to achieving comprehensive peace and we’re devoting a lot of efforts to pursue that. We expect the Secretary and the prime minister to have a productive meeting that would cover a full range of issues related to fostering the kind of conditions that we need to start negotiations leading to a comprehensive peace between the Palestinian people and Israel. And of course, as you know, our goal is the creation of a Palestinian state living in peace side by side with Israel. And we, of course, support the Palestinian Authority as a partner for peace with Israel.

QUESTION: Now that Mitchell has successfully met with Barak, are they going to schedule a new meeting with Bebe Netanyahu, which was sort of the --

MR. KELLY: I don’t have any information on that. Of course, you know, we look forward to continuing our dialogue with Israel. We note as well that there are reports out of Israel that they have dismantled another checkpost – checkpoint. And of course, we welcome these kinds of moves and other moves that help the freer movement of people, of Palestinians within the region.

QUESTION: On North Korea. So yesterday, the announcement of a sanction on North Korea. Will it affect somewhat on your consideration of listing on terrorist sponsors countries list? I mean, technically, does it impact on your consideration?

MR. KELLY: You know, I’m just – I’m not aware that there would be necessarily a connection. What the purpose of that finding that the Department of Treasury, of course, is going to implement is to implement UN Security Council 1874 and, you know, as the press release said, to try and discourage North Korea from pursuing nuclear weapons.

QUESTION: On North Korea --

QUESTION: Is that (inaudible)?

MR. KELLY: (Inaudible) designation. That’s the word. Designation. Yeah.

QUESTION: The UN Food Agency said it’s concerned about a critical food situation as donations have dried up. Is the U.S. concerned, and what’s the status of U.S. food aid to North Korea?

MR. KELLY: If you’ll just hold on a second, I do have something on that. Here it is. I’ve got it.

Well, Lach, of course, we’re very concerned about the well-being of the North Korean people. Last year, we allocated over $4 million to NGOs. This is – this project – this $4 million project which was to implement an improvement of electrical supplies to the North Korean people, supply electricity to the North Korean people and also essential medical equipment to rural and provincial hospitals – this project is ongoing.

We, of course, have a longstanding goal of providing emergency humanitarian assistance to people all over the world. This is not linked to any political issues. We regret that, as requested by the DPRK, by the North Korean authorities, all NGO food monitors had to depart North Korea by March 31^st. At that time, we had about 22,000 metric tons in storage there. We’ve learned that the DPRK has distributed this food. The DPRK has said that the food was distributed to the intended beneficiaries, as has been previously agreed by the U.S. NGOs.

In terms of what kind of impact this would have on our future willingness to provide food, our policy on food aid is based on three factors: level of need; competing needs in other countries; and our ability to ensure that aid is reliably reaching the people in need. We currently have no plans to provide additional food to North Korea. Any additional food aid would have to have assurances that it would be appropriately used.

We remain very concerned about the well-being of the North Korean people, but we are very concerned because we need to have adequate program management in place, monitoring and access provisions, and we don’t have that right now.

QUESTION: So there’s a need, but you can’t be guaranteed that it’s going to be distributed to those who need it?

MR. KELLY: That’s right.

QUESTION: So does that mean that given that the aid workers had to leave by the end of March, that you cannot conceive of giving aid if the status quo continues, if there is no monitoring, no aid workers on the ground to make sure that it’s appropriately distributed?

MR. KELLY: Well, you know, there are two imperatives here: One is that we are very concerned about the well-being of the North Korea people; and the other is that we need to have adequate assurances that this food aid will end up with the people for whom it’s intended. We work very closely with the UN and other international organizations to provide food aid all over the world, but as I said, we need to have some assurances that this aid will reach the intended recipients, intended beneficiaries.

Having said that, I’m not going to say that we will never provide food aid to people in need. But as the situation stands right now, we don’t have the kind of assurances that we require.

QUESTION: Thanks.

Background Briefing on the Situation in Honduras

Teleconference Background Briefing by Two Senior Department Officials

Washington, DC

July 1, 2009

MR. KELLY: So let’s start. Thank you for joining us for this conference call. We have two Senior Administration Officials with us today to discuss the current situation in Honduras and our bilateral and multilateral efforts in that situation. And I think we’re going to start off with some opening remarks.

So, go ahead, Mr. Senior Administration Official.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Great. Thank you very much, and it’s a pleasure to be on with you all. I look forward to your questions.

Very briefly, as you know, last night, the OAS General Assembly, the special session of the General Assembly, met at OAS headquarters and approved a consensus resolution which tracked largely with previous resolutions in the Permanent Council of the OAS and also the UN General Assembly, but significantly also invoked the Inter-American Democratic Charter, in particular two articles of the charter – Article 20 and Article 21 – both of which refer to the interruption of constitutional and democratic order.

Article 20, in the event of an interruption of democratic and constitutional order, authorizes the Secretary General of the OAS to use his good offices to begin diplomatic initiatives to try to address the underlying causes of the interruption of democratic order and try to restore that order. And Article 21, in the event that such diplomatic initiatives fail, authorizes the General Assembly to suspend the member-state for an ongoing interruption of democratic and constitutional order.

This is the first time these two articles of the Inter-American Democratic Charter have been invoked since it was approved in Lima, Peru on September 11^th, 2001. This is a dramatic move by the OAS. It underscores its commitment to democracy, the importance of the Inter-American Democratic Charter as a tool to understand democracy in the region, but especially to respond to challenges that countries face, and in a worst-case scenario, threatens suspension. It’s important to underscore that this resolution was a consensus resolution. All 34 countries supported it, including the government, the legal and constitutional government of Honduras led by President Zelaya and his foreign minister.

Currently, President Zelaya is in Panama at the inauguration of the new Panamanian president, and the Secretary General is in the process of fashioning his diplomatic initiatives which will involve outreach to those in Panama who undertook this coup.

Let me stop there and --

QUESTION: In Honduras?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Yes, in Honduras.

MR. KELLY: Okay. We’re ready for your questions. Josh, you want to lead it off?

OPERATOR: Thank you. At this time, we are ready to take questions. If you would like to ask a question, please press *1. You will be announced prior to asking your question and will be prompted to record your name. Once in queue, you may withdraw a request by pressing *2.

Once again, at this time, to ask a question, please press *1, take yourself off of mute, and record your first and last name. One moment, please, for the first question.

Our first question is from Arshad Mohammed. You may ask your question.

QUESTION: Thanks very much for doing the call. Two things: One, can you give us a – earlier this week, Secretary Clinton gave us to understand that you were holding off on a determination on whether it was indeed a military coup. And there was the inference that this was to open up diplomatic space to reach a negotiated outcome. Is that still your stance, even though I know that you are – that the Legal Adviser’s Office has begun the process of determining whether it was a military coup and, therefore, whether the aid cutoff is triggered?

And secondly, beyond calling for the restoration of – you know, beyond calling for the restoration of President Zelaya, do you believe that any political solution that may be achieved must also address the misgivings of those Hondurans about the referendum that he had planned to hold on the possibility of allowing Honduran presidents to serve more than one four-year term?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: In regard to the first question, both the President and the Secretary have described events in Honduras as a coup, which they certainly were once the current claimant to the presidency swore – was sworn in before the congress after the forcible removal of the legal and constitutional president, Mel Zelaya.

In regard to assistance, obviously, we’re evaluating the impact of these actions on our assistance programs. The focus of our assistance programs is the well-being of the Honduran people. That remains our focus as we conduct this evaluation. But it’s important to note at this moment that we are working with our partners in the OAS, through the Inter-American Democratic Charter, to try to fashion a resolution of this interruption of democratic and constitutional order. And therefore, we have determined that we will wait until the Secretary General has finished his diplomatic initiatives and reports back to the General Assembly on July 6^th before we take any further action in relationship to assistance.

What was your second question again?

QUESTION: The second question was whether you thought that – I mean, the Administration, I think, has been fairly clear in calling for the restoration of President Zelaya, and please correct me if I’ve misinterpreted that. And the question is: Do you think a political solution needs to also address the concerns about – the concerns in many parts of the political elite about the referendum he planned to hold?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Yeah, there are two different things here. In regard to the illegal detention and expulsion of President Zelaya, this was an act which was unconstitutional and illegal and cannot be tolerated. And in the resolutions that we have associated ourselves with, or co-sponsored in the UN, we have called for the unconditional return of President Zelaya. In other words, concerns or doubts about the wisdom of his actions relating to his proposed non-binding referendum have – are independent of the unconstitutional act taken against him.

In that regard, obviously, as the Secretary General attempts to fashion diplomatic initiatives and outreach to those people who undertook the coup, there will be political discussions in which, obviously, the concerns that led them to take action against the president will be raised. And it would be reasonable to assume that the continuing viability of democratic government in Honduras would have to take those into account in some fashion.

MS. RESIDE: Next question?

OPERATOR: James Rosen, you may ask your question.

QUESTION: Hi, gentlemen. Thank you again for doing the call. I want to cover two areas: first are some of the actual events of the coup itself; and then the prospects for a favorable outcome.

First, with regard to the events of the coup itself, there were reports of gunplay involved. Do you know if there were any casualties or injuries, if anybody actually was shot? And also, the military flight that took President Zelaya to Costa Rica strikes me as intriguing, because I wonder if such a flight could have possibly been arranged without the complicity of the Costa Ricans. So first, just on those questions related to the coup.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: In regards to casualties, I’m not aware of any casualties during the detention and the expulsion of President Zelaya. There were reports of gunshots around the presidential residence, but we don’t have a clear understanding of everything that took place in that residence.

In regard to the flight itself, obviously, for a flight to leave Honduras and enter Costa Rican air space it would need over-flight authorization from the Costa Ricans. So, I mean, you’d have to speak to the Costa Ricans to get the facts on this case, but we would assume that the Hondurans asked for such authorization and received it.

QUESTION: And so this is properly classified as a military coup?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Well, I mean, it’s a golpe de estado. The military moved against the president; they removed him from his home and they expelled him from a country, so the military participated in a coup. However, the transfer of leadership was not a military action. The transfer of leadership was done by the Honduran congress, and therefore the coup, while it had a military component, it has a larger – it is a larger event.

QUESTION: And then where the prospects for a favorable outcome are concerned, you talked about how the Secretary General is fashioning diplomatic overtures. Give us a sense, if you would, what those might include. Everything we’re hearing out of Tegucigalpa right now from the interim administration is very hard-line; talk of arrests, talk of foreign invasion would be the only way he could come back. And obviously, there’s going to need to be, if this is resolved the way you’d like to see it, some face-saving way out for the members of that administration. So how do you see these overtures providing that?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Well, this is obviously a very delicate moment, and we don’t want to anticipate what the Secretary General will be attempting to do. But as you note, this is a highly charged environment right now on both sides and therefore requires caution and wisdom from both sides moving forward.

But we would note that in the 21^st century, these kinds of coups don’t last long. It is very hard for a country like Honduras to maintain this kind of position in the face of overwhelming rejection by the world, and especially by the region and its major trading partners.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: Sorry, and I’d also add it’s clear that the international consensus here, to which we form a part, is to find a peaceful resolution to this situation. And obviously, the kind of – no responsible party is talking about military intervention. I think that is a reflection of the level of tension, as Senior Administration Official One was referring to. But it is clear that the consensus position here, and what the President of the United States has called for, what the Secretary of State has called for, what leaders throughout the hemisphere have called for, is that this, through a peaceful diplomatic dialogue in accordance with the Inter-American Democratic Charter is the path to reestablishing democratic and constitutional order in Honduras.

QUESTION: Thank you.

OPERATOR: Ginger Thompson, you may ask your question.

QUESTION: Hi, guys, and thanks again for taking the call. I’m wondering if I could press a little more on the military aspect of what happened in Honduras. I’m still not sure I’m completely clear on whether you think the military played the leading role. I mean, they certainly committed the action in which he was arrested and removed from the country, but does that suggest to you all that they are the lead actors in this and that the civilian forces played sort of a supporting role? Have you all been able to kind of really figure out the powers behind this coup?

And then also, I understand that the military, the Pentagon, has suspended joint operations. Can you tell me a little bit more about what that means?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: In regard to the coup itself, I think it would just – it would be best to say that this was a coordinated effort between the military and some civilian political actors. Obviously, the military was the entity that conducted the forcible removal of the president and has acted as the securer of public order during this process. But for the coup to become more than an insurrection or a rebellion, you have to have an effort to transfer power. And in that regard, the congress – the congress’s decision to swear in its president, Micheletti, as the president of Honduras indicates that the congress and key members of that congress played an important role in this coup.

In regard to the military, since the swearing-in of the claimant to the presidency, the United States has cut off contact with those who have conducted the coup, and we have reduced, to the extent possible, all other contact. On the military side, we still maintain contact necessary for operational and safety issues and humanitarian affairs, but otherwise we’re standing down on our different cooperation programs.

QUESTION: Thank you.

OPERATOR: Mary Beth Sheridan, you may ask your question.

QUESTION: Thank you. If I could just clarify a little bit more on that latter question on the military aid. You mentioned since the coup, the U.S. has reduced, to the extent possible, all contact with those that conducted the coup and reduced the other contacts. So the announcement today, does that reflect something that happened sort of from Sunday, or is this a new, you know, different type of, you know, level of, you know, stopping certain activities or something?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Which announcement?

QUESTION: The Pentagon said today that they had ceased cooperation with the Honduran military. So I’m just a little bit confused because you said, you know, as – when the coup – since the swearing-in, rather –

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Yes.

QUESTION: -- the U.S. cut off contact with the coup guys --

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Right.

QUESTION: -- and, you know, reduced other contacts. So is the announcement today just acknowledging something that happened a few days ago, or is this – you know, is this something further affecting, you know, I guess we assume joint, you know, sort of anti-drug type activities, or regional, I guess, anti-drug activities, right, at Soto Cano and that kind of thing?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Yeah, I mean, this was – the announcement was a formalization --

QUESTION: I see.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: Right.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: -- of a decision that had already been made.

QUESTION: I see.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: But I would really direct you to U.S. Southern Command –

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: Right.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: -- and DOD for a kind of more precise definition or response to the question.

QUESTION: Okay. And could you just describe a little bit more – the other day in the conference call, you mentioned that there were calls made in the days preceding the coup. How much did you perceive a coup was, in fact, brewing? I mean, the former – or the – President Zelaya has talked about how the U.S., he thought anyway, had stopped a coup. I mean, did you have a sense that a coup was in the air?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Well, let me put it this way. This was a very difficult and tense several weeks in which the lack of trust between political actors and the growing political confrontation and conflict had created a tinder box inside of Honduras that was extremely dangerous. Our purpose and the purpose of the partners we were working with was to try to reduce those tensions, try to facilitate communication, and try to ensure that Honduran institutions found a peaceful, constitutional way to address the underlying problems that had brought Honduras to this level of confrontation.

We were obviously concerned about extra-constitutional actions, and because of that we were very clear in our communication with all political actors that the United States would not support any kind of extra-constitutional action. But in regards to whether or not we had precise knowledge about military actions, the answer is no.

QUESTION: Thank you.

OPERATOR: Santiago Tevada, you may ask your question.

QUESTION: Yes, I’d like to know if you have finished the formal review to declare officially the expulsion of President Zelaya as a coup d’état. And also, are you planning to withdraw the U.S. ambassador in Tegucigalpa?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: We are not planning on withdrawing the U.S. ambassador in Tegucigalpa. We believe that it’s important at this point in time to maintain a presence in Honduras at the ambassadorial level, to engage with Honduran civil society, and to be a symbol of our commitment to Honduran democracy and constitutionality.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: And on the first question, as I believe it was answered earlier, the review is ongoing.

QUESTION: Thank you.

OPERATOR: Maria Pena, you may ask your question.

QUESTION: Hi. Yes. It’s kind of rephrasing a question that was posed earlier. When you said that you were trying to avert this crisis, there’s a – you know, I’ve been talking to a lot of analysts this morning, and their sense is that perhaps the U.S. did not – or underestimated that this was brewing and that this was going to happen. So does that concern you that even though you kept these contacts up until the coup, that the U.S. may be losing influence because the coup did, in fact, happen?

And also, you know, what if – you’re saying that you think the Honduran Government is going to not be able to resist this for too long because it’s an overwhelming political international pressure, but what if they do resist? I mean, are you basically looking at a problem with an expiration date – you know, six months? What is the next step should the Secretary General
come back empty-handed?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Well, if the Secretary General comes back empty-handed, I think it’s pretty clear that the member-states of the OAS will suspend Honduras as a member, which is a significant move, because that would begin a cascade of events in which Honduras would find itself out of many of the different components of the inter-American system, components that are important to Honduras across the – all of its activities, whether it be security, political, economic, cultural or social.

So, I mean, one of the important things to remember here is just how interconnected our region is, and especially how interconnected Central America is. And when a country attempts to or takes an action that isolates itself, it really can hurt itself in a pretty dramatic way.

And again, in terms of how we attempted to address this issue, at the end of the day, this is a Honduran issue and a Honduran problem. And we and the OAS and other partners can work to try to create a context in which solutions are found, but we can’t compose those solutions. And this wasn’t a question of the United States having influence or not having influence. It is an issue of Hondurans making the wrong decision, of Hondurans allowing their fear and their concern to overwhelm their ability to see clearly what they need to do in order to preserve democratic and constitutional order in their own country.

And it was our effort to make it clear to Hondurans that there was a peaceful, democratic, constitutional pathway to resolve their political problems. But the individuals and institutions that undertook the coup decided not to take that pathway.

QUESTION: But, you know, even though you insist on not making it a bilateral issue, I mean, the U.S. is a huge component, is a huge part of the equation. I mean, here we are, Honduran Government is – the Honduran Government is risking losing at least $600 million in all kinds of aid and assistance. And so therefore, you know, I guess what a lot of people are asking now is how – what will the U.S. do to exert more influence so that there’s a peaceful resolution to this?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Well, we’re working with the OAS. We have a presence on the ground. We have a capability of assisting and enhancing what the OAS is attempting to do. And I think what we have over the next several days, until the Secretary General reports back to the OAS General Assembly, is an opportunity to see what we and our partners can accomplish.

QUESTION: Thank you.

OPERATOR: Paul Richter, you may ask your question.

QUESTION: Hello. Can you hear me?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Yes.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: Yes.

QUESTION: There’s been discussion about Zelaya returning but with limited powers. And I wonder if the U.S. would support that kind of solution since it would seem to be a breach of democratic process.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: By breach of democratic process, what do you mean?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: Yeah, what do you mean? Yeah.

QUESTION: In other words – in other words, Zelaya was elected, was duly elected, and given certain powers. If he goes back without those powers as a figurehead, wouldn’t that be a breach of process?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Well, again, we and all the countries of the region have called for an unconditional return – in other words, a return of President Zelaya and a restoration of the democratic and constitutional order, which means that President Zelaya is president of Honduras with all the powers and privileges that adhere to the presidency. However, in the course of fashioning this restoration, the OAS is also going to have to address the broader issue of governability within a system that has been badly damaged. And that’s obviously going to require negotiation among the different political actors.

I don’t think that that negotiation would affect the fundamental powers or authorities of the presidency of Honduras. But obviously, for this to be successful there has to be some kind of accord or agreement among the different players.

QUESTION: Can you elaborate any further on that? I mean, in what kind of change in the previous status quo might that entail?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Well, unfortunately, I can’t elaborate on it right now because this will be shaped in the course of negotiations if they’re successful. If they’re not successful, then the question’s moot.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR. KELLY: Josh, I think we have time for one more question.

OPERATOR: Our last question will be from Sergio Gomez.

QUESTION: Yes, hi. What – President Zelaya is still considering the possibility of a trip to Honduras on Saturday or Sunday if the attempts of a solution by Insulza fail. Do you think that a trip at this moment of President Zelaya backed by other leaders would be helpful for a peaceful resolution of this crisis?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: We think that President Zelaya’s decision to postpone his earlier decision to return to Honduras on Thursday was a wise one. It’s important that the OAS be given an opportunity to engage in its diplomatic initiative to try to create a space so that President Zelaya’s return brings with it a peaceful restoration of democratic and constitutional order.

QUESTION: Excuse me. Are you there yet?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Yes.

QUESTION: Yeah. Just to follow up, there is talk about taking this – the issue to the UN Security Council if the Insulza actions fail. Are you considering this at this moment?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: I’m not aware of that at this moment. However, our focus right now is on the Secretary General and his initiatives.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. KELLY: Okay. Well, Josh, I think that concludes it. I want to just remind everybody this was on background. Attribution: Senior Administration Officials.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: Thank you, Josh.

OPERATOR: Thank you. And thank you for your participation today. All lines will be disconnected at this time.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: Thank you very much for your help.

OPERATOR: You’re welcome. Have a great day.

MR. KELLY: Thanks.

# # #

Taken Question: U.S. Assistance to Honduras

Office of the Spokesman

Washington, DC

Question Taken at the June 29, 2009 Daily Press Briefing

July 1, 2009

Question: What is the total amount of U.S. assistance given to Honduras, including USAID and Millennium Challenge?

Answer: In fiscal years 2008 and 2009, USAID and the Department of State plans to provide more than $95 million in foreign assistance to Honduras. In fiscal year 2008, the United States provided $40.4 million in bilateral assistance, and an additional $11 million from regional or global accounts. In 2009, the United States is currently planning to provide more than $43 million in bilateral assistance, with additional planned regional and global funds to be allocated at a later date. Funds include bilateral development and health assistance, Merida Initiative, and support for Honduran capability to participate in global peacekeeping operations.

Further, Honduras has a five-year, $215 million Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) Compact, signed in June 2005. As of the end of June 2009, contract commitments under the Compact are expected to be over $190 million with over $76 million funds disbursed.

 

Special Briefing by Farah Pandith, Special Representative to Muslim Communities

Farah Anwar Pandith

Special Representative to Muslim Communities

Washington, DC

MR. WOOD: Good afternoon, everybody. Welcome. Sorry for the delay. I think you all know we had some technical difficulties. I’m very pleased to have with us today Special Representative to Muslim Countries [1] Farah Pandith. And Ms. Pandith’s going to brief you on her new position and the Administration’s efforts to create opportunities for dialogue with Muslims around the world.

So I’m going to turn it over to her in just a second. I just wanted to ask, before asking your questions, if you could identify yourselves and your news organizations, we would greatly appreciate it. Okay, so I’ll turn it over to Ms. Pandith.

MS. PANDITH: Good afternoon. Again, I’m sorry that you all had to wait. Technical difficulties are technical difficulties.

My name is Farah Pandith and I am the Special Representative to Muslim Communities. I thought what I’d do before we do Q&A is to take a couple of minutes and tell you a little bit about my background, because there were a lot of questions on that, and then tell you a little bit about the role that the Secretary envisions for me, and then open it up for questions if that’s all right.

I was born in India and grew up in Massachusetts. I did all my education in Massachusetts. I went to Milton Academy, I went to Smith College, and I went to the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy. I have had experience working in both the public and private sector. I was vice president of international business for a company outside of – in Boston and had a chance to really think about the international marketplace, so to speak, from a lot of different perspectives. And I think that’s important when you think about the way in which we’re looking at this role: How do you harness the different sectors and how do you think about things in a creative way?

This unique perspective has allowed me to think about what’s possible. And I have worked since 19 – excuse me, since 2003 in three different sectors, three different parts of the United States Government. I was in the U.S. Agency for International Development. I was at the National Security Council at the White House. And for the last two years, I’ve been at the Department of State working in the Europe Bureau.

The role that was created for me in the Europe Bureau was the first of its kind in U.S. history. And it was an opportunity for me to engage with our embassies with Muslims across Western Europe, and I did that for two years. And I’m mentioning it because I think it’s very important when we think about how we’re doing things globally now.

A strong part of thinking about engagement is to understand the nuances that are taking place in different regions. And while I did have a European portfolio, I did have an opportunity over the course of the last couple of years to work with our embassies in South Asia and Africa and in the Middle East. And what that brings to the table, I think, is an opportunity to think about the grassroots level, to think about what mainstream Muslims are thinking and doing and how they want to figure out ways to create dialogue. And that is where this leads us.

This new role is a historic role, and it’s the Secretary’s vision for engagement through our embassies overseas. I had the opportunity to brief her at the end of January on the work we had done in Europe. And in that briefing, she completely got it. She understood the nuances. She understood the need for our country to build relationships with Muslims overseas in Europe in that context.

She is somebody who has been doing engagement for a very long time. This is not just new to her. After all, when she was First Lady, she was the person who created the Iftar at the White House. So this is a long-term interest of hers, and it’s something that she got when we talked.

What she asked me to do is to leverage my experience in Europe and in other parts of the world, to think about how we could have the Department work on Muslim engagement in a way that is out of the box, that is innovative, that is dynamic, that works with embassies so that we’re getting to know the next generation of thinkers. And in this role, I’ll be doing that.

So the Office of the Special Representative to Muslim Communities is a way for us at the State Department to execute her vision. And certainly on the heels of Cairo, when we heard the President talk about the need and his commitment to engage with Muslims, this is our effort to work on that important agenda.

So that’s the history behind this. That’s a little bit about me. And I know that through the questions we have today, you’re going to ask far, far deeper questions than that. But I do want to say I hope that this is one of many briefings that we have. And you’re just getting to know me now, and I look forward to an opportunity to get to know you over the months and years ahead.

QUESTION: Can you take official wire, please?

MS. PANDITH: Certainly, certainly.

MR. WOOD: Arshad.

QUESTION: I’m Arshad Mohammed. I cover the State Department for Reuters. Can you sketch out how you hope to reach out to Muslims around the world – what concrete kinds of things you hope to do, whether it’s town halls or traveling or academic exchanges or whatever?

And secondly, can you – you talked about reaching out to mainstream Muslims around the world. In a certain sense, the much harder target are non-mainstream Muslims. Do you have any ideas on how to try to reach out to, and perhaps improve the image of the United States with Muslims who may be on the fringes, but have strongly held and perhaps negative views of the United States?

MS. PANDITH: I’m an American Muslim, and that’s part of the way in which I look at things, that’s the lens with which I look at things. And if you look at the diversity of Islam in America, it is – it’s multifaceted, it’s nuanced. Our mosques are in every state of our nation. Muslim Americans are from more than 80 different ethnic backgrounds.

And why do I mention this to you? Because I think when you think about approaches for engagement, I take that with me as I think about things. There is no one bullet that’s going to fix everything. There’s not one program that is going to be the magic program to engage with Muslims.

It’s really listening. It’s really understanding what’s taking place on the ground. It’s finding opportunities through our embassies to get to know what others are saying and thinking and dreaming and believing, and acting as a facilitator and a convener and an intellectual partner when we can. I think the might of the United States Government is not only one-way. It’s two-way, it’s how do you approach, how do you bring ideas together, how do you find initiatives that make sense?

I mean, certainly, my experience in Europe tells me how diverse Europe is. I mean, the first-generation Turkish German is not going to have the same kind of approach and thinking as a third-generation Turkish German in Berlin, or a fifth-generation ethnic German. How do you think about these differences even within what city? And I’m using a European example, but I can turn it to you for any other part of the world.

So I think it’s nuance. I think it’s respect. I think it’s listening. I think it’s being creative. And I think it’s creating many different types of initiative to be able to do that. So you mention a town hall, a fantastic mechanism, but it’s not the only way to do that. There are going to be large and small ways in which our embassies will want to engage. And I think our – I’ve been really honored to have a chance to work with our embassies overseas. They are creative people, they have super ideas, and they are looking at ways to actually do exactly what you said: engage. But to whom and how?

You asked another important question. Yes, I used the term “mainstream.” And as we think about the different demographics and the different types of communities in different parts of the world, I will be reaching out to a broad range of them. It isn’t just because they have to like America that I’m going to try to engage with them. What I’m trying to do is trying to foster more dialogue, to find ways to listen where we haven’t before, and to build opportunities for dialogue.

QUESTION: I’m sorry, can you just be a little more concrete other than the town hall example, which is the only one that you’ve sort of picked up? Can you be a little more concrete about other ideas that you may have for ways to actually do this?

MS. PANDITH: Well, there are – listen, you very well know that the public diplomacy arm of the State Department has for decades been engaging with ethnic communities around the world. They use a lot of different mechanisms, whether it’s exchanges or it’s town halls or it’s roundtables or it’s developing and convening meetings with likeminded thinkers that are innovators and entrepreneurs, whether it’s creating a community project to work on a specific event, whether it’s creating a network that didn’t exist before. I think it’s really – it really is important for us to listen to what is needed and to be the arm that actually helps facilitate.

Oh, sure. Absolutely. Please.

QUESTION: First of all, congratulations. I’m Raghubir Goyal from India Globe and Asia Today. Especially in India, it has been received very well by Muslims from around the globe, and so – was there a need for this position? Do you think there is a problem among or with the Muslims around the globe that this position was important? Or what you thinking will bring new (inaudible) in what we had already public diplomacy?

MS. PANDITH: I was actually very overwhelmed with the response in India, and I’m thankful that you’re raising it because I really have to say it was really very special for me as somebody of Indian heritage.

The way the Secretary is thinking about engagement, I mean, there are 1.2 billion Muslims around the world, and we understand that that is an important component for how we think about our actions overseas and how we facilitate dialogue. But the President has made it clear as well that this is a priority for him, and so we are – this is our effort to engage within the Department of State, through our embassies, with that demographic.

QUESTION: Are you traveling with the Secretary to India?

MS. PANDITH: I actually – no, I have no plan right now.

Yes, thank you.

QUESTION: Nina Donaghy Fox News. Is it possible to tell us where your first trip will be to and what you hope to achieve there?

MS. PANDITH: So I’ve been on the job not even a week, and I will – I promise I will tell you where I’m going. But where – I have to consult with my colleagues at the Department to figure out the first few steps.

QUESTION: Is that – can I just follow up? Is there any particular country where you feel there is a particular problem that you want to go to?

MS. PANDITH: No. I mean, I think that the important thing to do, frankly, is to really think about the right approach and what the – you know, what the right trip is going to be. And there’s no perfect place and no terrible place. It’s what’s going to make sense for the schedule and look – and I really look forward to being diverse about my visits, you know, and hitting all the regions of the globe, and the small and big countries.

Yes.

QUESTION: Nadia Bilbassy with MBC Television, Middle East Broadcasting Center. The previous administration Under Secretary Karen Hughes went to the listening tour to Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and some of us covered this story. And they also appointed a special envoy to the Organization of Islamic Conference. And soon they realized that the problem is not about opening dialogue with the Muslim world or the Arab world in particular, but it was about American foreign policy; unless you fundamentally change this, you’re not going to win hearts and minds.

Do you think that you’re going to run into the same problem and soon you’ll realize that that actually is the heart of the matter?

MS. PANDITH: You know, what I do know is that through the opportunity to facilitate a strategic and nuanced and multifaceted approach to engagement, there are going to be a wide range of questions that come up. And I know that because I did this on the ground in Europe. And certainly, foreign policy does come up, but the vast majority of young Muslims that I met were very interested in thinking about their futures and thinking about how to participate in their communities and thinking about what they need to do to engage in building a communication with other countries and with themselves and with the United States.

So I hope that the approach is going to be one in which a lot of questions will come up for sure, but it is – it’s going to be important for us to actually – I said the word “listen” and I said it meaningfully, respectfully listen. Respect and dignity are so important to me, and how we approach and the tone in which we talk and the way in which we think about what people are saying. When I meet the young person who’s 16 in Oslo who is talking about a very critical issue, or the young man that I met, you know, in Bangladesh or any of the countries in between, those issues are real issues, and they have – they’re young. They have decades ahead, and we have to be able to build bridges of dialogue. It’s critically important.

QUESTION: Just to follow up quickly. Some will say as well that you don’t have a problem with Indian Muslims, you don’t have a problem with Indonesian Muslims, but you have a problem with Arab Muslims, and that’s a focus. Will you give more consideration to the Arab world as opposed to the Muslim community as a whole?

MS. PANDITH: I’m going to be equally going across the world to engage.

Yes.

QUESTION: Yes. The most visible points of engagement so far by the new Administration, I guess, would be the visit by the Secretary to Indonesia and then, two, the President’s trip to Cairo for the speech. So how would you build on those specific visits, and would you see Indonesia as a great vehicle to build a network with Muslim countries and Muslim organizations since they are an example that the Secretary says is a budding democracy, something the U.S. likes?

MS. PANDITH: Indonesia is certainly a very important country. I would not deny that, of course. And I think that what you’ve seen in the priority of both the President and the Secretary is an interest in very old and very different and diverse. And we talked about the word “diversity.” How important is it to understand the diversity of Islam, that what is happening with Muslim communities in northern Africa is not the same as what’s happening to Muslim communities in Indonesia, nor is it the same as what’s happening to Muslim communities in Brazil? How do we think about that?

And so the engagement – you’re using Indonesia as a supermodel, and it is. It’s very important. But we have to be able to understand the breadth and the nuance.

Yes, sir.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) from Press Trust of India. South Asia has one of the largest concentrations of Muslims in the world – Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. How do you plan to engage the Muslims in that part of the world? Is it going to be different in different countries, or it’s one approach to entire South Asia?

MS. PANDITH: If we do our job right, of course, it is. And it’s not even just a country; it’s understanding the different regions within a country. I can’t hit the word “nuance” enough. I think that what I have understood about successful models of engagement and listening means that you just don’t take a one-stop shop and say I’m going to do it everywhere. It’s really, really taking the time to listen to what is taking place on the ground so that you understand even within cities what the differences are, even within generations and within ethnicities, so that you’re beginning to build dialogue in different ways and not just use one – you know, a one-phase approach to everything.

Yes.

QUESTION: Thank you. This is Tulin Daloglu with Haberturk. It’s a Turkish daily newspaper. I – you put a lot of emphasis on listening to the Muslims. What is it that you think that Muslims do misperceive about the United States? And when you try to reach out to them, what is it also that you want to give them as the message of the U.S.?

MS. PANDITH: You know, I would never say that Muslims are saying one thing, that there’s one misunderstanding, because there are so many different perspectives when you use that phrase. What I know is, depending on, again, what age group we’re talking about, what the background is of the communities we’re dealing with.

There are a lot – there are some misperceptions about our nation and there are some folks who have a misperception of history or a misperception, in fact, of young people in America. So it really depends, I mean, on what you’re talking about.

QUESTION: But if there is a need to have a special representative to reach out to Muslim communities, there has to be a concern that you perceive that Muslims do misunderstand the United States. So I’m basically asking if you have come up with a special historic representative position, what was the need for that?

MS. PANDITH: What we want to do is build dialogue, not because we think there is a misperception, okay? It is to offer an opportunity through different types of mechanisms to have a dialogue. And I think that that’s very important. If misperceptions come up, that can be addressed. But it’s not an approach that says you don’t understand these three things and we’re going to make sure you understand them. That’s not what – that’s not what this is about. This is about conversation. This is about communication.

QUESTION: Can I ask a question, ma’am?

MS. PANDITH: Yes, please.

QUESTION: Yes. This is Arshad Mahmud from Daily Prothom from Bangladesh. You used the word “nuances” at least 20 times in this, and I’m not quite sure exactly what you mean by that, you know. And in your special position to refer to a colleague’s question, because the perception of the Muslim world is that the Americans always support Israel, you know, to the hilt, and that’s the big problem, you know. And how you are going to change that? And what is your specific ideas about changing these kind of things?

MS. PANDITH: The opportunity to engage in dialogue means that you’re opening up an opportunity for conversation on a wide range of issues, and that may be one of the issues. But on the policy questions, you have an envoy to the Middle East that can actually address those particular things. That’s not what I’m doing. What I’m doing – and I want to go back to what this young woman was talking about. What I’m doing is working with embassies to find ways that we can approach a younger generation as well, in terms of listening to how they want to engage.

And when you talk about nuance, why I’m hitting it as hard as I am is because I think it’s very important to understand that it isn’t just one thing from Washington that’s going to be shoved into everybody’s faces. It’s us finding an opportunity through our embassies to listen to the diversity of thoughts and opinions and ideas, and find ways to actually engage in manners that make sense for a wide variety of communities within a country.

MR. WOOD: Guys, we only have time for really two more questions, unfortunately, because of scheduling.

MS. PANDITH: Yeah, please.

QUESTION: Yes, Samir Nader with Radio Sawa. Congratulations on your position. Will you be responsible in charge of contacts with the Organization of Islamic States, or will – or is the Secretary going to appoint a new representative to replace Ambassador Sada Cumber?

MS. PANDITH: The OIC is under the International Organizations Bureau of the State Department, and I think you’d have to ask that question to Esther Brimmer, the assistant secretary. I don’t know the answer to your question.

QUESTION: But you are not – it’s not part of your responsibilities?

MS. PANDITH: No, no.

Yes, sir.

QUESTION: You’ve focused also on the fact that you are trying to work in order to listen to the probably grievances of the Muslims or also trying to engage with the non-official, the organizations, the young people. And a very important conference, Islamic Christian Conference, has just concluded in Damascus was making a big case of what the fate of Jerusalem, and would President Obama’s promise in his speech to the Islamic world, that his policies are going to be built on international laws, UN resolutions, and not on ideological, self-serving interpretation of religious books of such a group. What can you assure – what kind of role are you going to play in the future talking to these people, non-official people, organizations, young people? How are you going to convince them that actually the United States is very serious about pursuing this kind of policy that President Obama has promised, that it is going to be built on UN resolutions, the illegitimacy of acquisition of land by force, Israeli force, and that the United States is going to stand against the eradication of the Palestinians out of Jerusalem and other Palestinian land?

MS. PANDITH: I think the President is the person who has made statements on these issues. I think that the ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, has also made statements on these issues. And I would ask you to refer to them.

I think I’ll take – I think I’ll – yeah, I think we’re actually – there’s one gentleman in the back – poor guy – who’s had his hand up. Yeah.

QUESTION: Excuse me. This is Alim. I’m from APP, Associated Press of Pakistan. I was wondering, how do you intend to approach the people in conflict zones like Afghanistan and Pakistan? Because the U.S. policy is not merely shaped by one approach; it is whole, kind of political, economic, and security issues that are taken into account when people perceive a country. And especially with the recent polls that the U.S. is not perceived favorably, how do you intend to approach people in those areas and come up with solutions?

MS. PANDITH: Well, I’ll be working very closely with my colleagues at the Department to develop ways to do that, so I’m not going to sit here and tell you right now. But definitely, it’s an important priority.

MR. WOOD: Thanks, guys. We’ll have Ms. Pandith back in the future when her schedule (inaudible).

MS. PANDITH: Thank you.