Category Archives: World News

USA: On Father’s Day:

From: President Barack Obama
The White House, Washington

Hi, everyone —

Today, I’m thinking about all the dads across the country, spending time with family and loved ones — and especially those fathers serving our country overseas, who can’t be home with their kids today.

But I’m also thinking about all the young people out there who don’t have a dad in their lives at all — or who don’t always enjoy the opportunities and support that come with having strong role models.

It reminds me why we started the “My Brother’s Keeper” initiative in the first place: because we need to do more to help young people go as far as their dreams and hard work will take them, no matter what they look like or where they grow up.

I know I’m only here because people took a chance on me, and believed in me when I didn’t always believe in myself. And I want to give more kids that chance. It’s an all-hands-on-deck effort, from the folks on my staff — to you.

You can invest in our young people, and help them be successful. You can commit to doing it right now.

Make a pledge to mentor a young person in your community here.
http://click.mail.whitehouse.gov/?qs=c16b7812fe9e827311530360390fa7dcdbd94b2154d5b458e64916d277df9562e1bd99a5a5a315c7

For me, this is personal.

And for millions of young Americans around the country, it just might be life-changing.

Thank you — and Happy Father’s Day.

President Barack Obama

This email was sent to octimotor@jaluo.com.
Unsubscribe | Privacy Policy
Please do not reply to this email. Contact the White House

The White House • 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW • Washington, DC 20500 • 202-456-1111

20 Things You Didn’t Know About…

From: Fakhi Karume

1. Modern Halloween celebrations focus on fun frights, but superstitions associated with the holiday’s ancestor, the Celtic festival of the dead, were no laughing matter. Families left “treats” for departed loved ones to discourage nasty “tricks” from beyond the grave.

2. On Halloween, 18th-century Scottish villagers drove sheep through hoops of rowan branches to protect them from ghostly mischief, including sickness.

3. The ritual may have arisen from observing that sheep nibbling rowanberries were healthier; the berries contain sorbic acid, which has anti-fungal properties.

4. Dowsers believe the forked rod or pendulum they hold vibrates as they pass over underground water, but there’s no science to support the notion. In fact, as early as the 19th century, dowsing doubters such as French chemist Michel Eugène Chevreul suggested the vibrations came from intentional muscle movements.

5. The German government tested 500 dowsers in the 1980s. Six “showed an extraordinarily high rate of success, which can scarcely if at all be explained as due to chance,” the study says.

6. In further tests, they could not replicate their “extraordinary” results. Oops.

7. Evolutionary biologist Kevin Foster defines superstitions as incorrect identifications of causal links.

8. Foster doesn’t consider “superstition” pejorative: You don’t need to understand cause to benefit from a behavior.

9. Believing that rustling grass always means a predator is approaching, for example, means you’ll hoof it whenever you hear the sound, whether it’s caused by wind or a hungry lion.

10. You’ll live to share your superstition with your children, they’ll tell their children and so on, protecting your progeny from grass-rustling lions. Foster believes that, among early humans, natural selection favored the superstitious.

11. Superstition can still be a plus — sort of. German researchers reported in 2010 that the more strongly participants believed in their good luck charms, the more confident they were.

12. The study also showed that the more confident superstitious participants were, the better they performed, perhaps due to self-efficacy — the belief in one’s ability to succeed at a specific challenge — which has been linked to how willing people are to persist at a given task.

13. Or maybe brains trump beliefs: In 1974, researchers in the state of Georgia found smart high school students were less superstitious than those of average intelligence.

14. Is superstition for the birdbrained? In the 1940s, B. F. Skinner gave eight pigeons food at fixed intervals. Between feedings, six repeated the behavior they were doing when the food first appeared, which Skinner likened to card players’ lucky rituals.

15. Charms or rituals may boost confidence, but an “unlucky” number can nix it. In 1993, researchers near London reported that, over a three-year period, highway traffic was lighter on Friday the 13th than on Friday the 6th. Yet, inexplicably, on the 13th, road accidents sent 52 percent more people to hospitals.

16. Superstition can be even uglier. In 2009, Interpol calculated the lifetime incidence of rape for South African women at 1 in 2, with nearly half of victims younger than 18, likely due to a myth that sex with a virgin can cure a man of AIDS.

17. Does stress create superstition? After the 1991 Gulf War, a Tel Aviv psychologist found that Israelis in cities attacked by SCUD missiles were more superstitious than residents of SCUD-free cities.

18. In 2008, an American study found participants more likely to perceive connections between unrelated events when first asked to recall a time when they lacked control.

19. In parts of Asia, many couples plan to have children during “lucky” years.

20. World Bank researchers found Vietnamese children born in “lucky” years are healthier and better educated, but possibly because they were born into families emotionally and financially prepared for them.“Luck” may have had nothing to do with it.

http://discovermagazine.com/2013/oct/23-20-things-you-didnt-know-about-superstition

WORLD: HIGH COMMISSIONERS AND AMBASSADORS – WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE?

From: Fakhi Karume

In international diplomacy the terms “Ambassador” and “High Commissioner” are both used to refer to diplomats of the highest rank representing either a sovereign state or international organisation who is accredited to another sovereign state and or international organisation.

Since the 1815 Congress of Vienna, the status of Ambassadors has been defined and protected under international law as the recognized representatives of their respective heads of state who generally are also invested with “plenipotentiary powers”, meaning the full authority to represent their governments.

Their status as sovereign representatives explains why they are formally addressed as “His” or “Her Excellency” when at their external postings, as well as the need for them to present their credentials to the heads of state in the countries they are accredited to.

The term High Commissioner is reserved for those diplomats of Ambassador rank who are the head of a diplomatic mission of one Commonwealth government, such as Pakistan and Uganda, to another, such as Botswana. The use of the term “High Commission” as opposed to “Embassy” is in this context the proper designation for any Commonwealth nation’s diplomatic mission to another member state of the Commonwealth.

Africa: U.S. Foreign Policy in Somalia

From: U.S. Department of State
Remarks
Wendy R. Sherman
Under Secretary for Political Affairs
United States Institute of Peace
Washington, DC
June 3, 2014

UNDER SECRETARY SHERMAN: Well, it’s really wonderful to be here, and I must say it’s great to see Kristin Lord who’s acting as president – she acts at it quite well. But it’s also a real pleasure for me to be here with three of my Africa mentors – Ambassador George Moose, Ambassador Princeton Lyman, and Ambassador Johnnie Carson, and my current mentor, Assistant Secretary Linda Thomas-Greenfield. I am really privileged to have worked with all of these extraordinary public servants, and very much look forward to their reflections on what we are discussing today, because they are extraordinarily knowledgeable and among the most deft and skilled diplomats I have ever known in my life. So thank you all. I’m honored by your presence here today.

I also – my colleagues were teasing with me about whether the liability insurance was paid up here at USIP. It seems that it’s not just – when I went to Somalia, everything went fine. It was a difficult trip, but extraordinarily wonderful. But it seems I don’t have much success elsewhere. When I was up on Capitol Hill, as you may have read by a David Sanger piece, I managed to rupture my pinkie finger, which will never be the same again, going to give a secure briefing to members of Congress. And then when I was recently in Vienna on Iran negotiations, I sprained my ankle, which is why I am in flat shoes. And so I’m hopeful today will be all about the promise of Somalia and nothing will be fractured or broken in the process. (Laughter.)

My purpose today is to discuss American policy towards Somalia. Within the context of the Administration’s partnership with Africa and U.S. leadership more generally, something the President’s been speaking about of late, some of you may be asking: Why Somalia? Why a speech on Somalia? My answer is that 20 years ago – and I was at the State Department at the time – the United States essentially withdrew from this country. And now we are back working in close collaboration with the international community and bearing fervent hopes, tempered of course by ongoing concerns.

Our approach Somalia is distinctive for the simple reason that Africa today defies generalization. While parts of the continent remain mired in poverty and held back by conflict, seven of the world’s ten fastest growing economies are in Africa. Domestic markets are expanding rapidly in such urban hubs as Cape Town, Addis Ababa, and Lagos. Across the region examples abound of civil society thriving, health care improving, access to education growing, and life expectancy rising.

Under the President’s leadership, U.S. policy in Africa corresponds to this diversity. The African Growth and Opportunity Act promotes free markets, attracts investment, encourages trade, and facilities integration into the global economy. The Feed the Future program harnesses the power of the private sector to help small landholders and farmers learn business skills. The African Women’s Entrepreneurship program is accelerating the growth of women-owned businesses, and the President’s Young African Leaders initiative, one that I was able to join a couple of years ago. My staff said, “You need to go do this early in the morning.” I said, “Really?” I said, “Leave the building? Not go to the morning meetings? Go do this?” I want to tell you, as soon as I was in the room, I never wanted to leave again. The energy, the vibrancy, the vitality, the promise, the possibility was simply extraordinary. This Young African Leaders initiative is helping some of the continent’s most promising young people to fulfill their potential. These measures and much, much more will be on the agenda when in early-August President Obama welcomes nearly 50 African leaders to Washington for a historic summit.

Also under discussion at that time will be the efforts of African nations themselves with support from the United States and other partners how they are responding to an array of security challenges. With African states in the lead, America is backing initiatives to return safely more than 200 girls kidnapped in Nigeria, eradicate the loathsome Lord’s Resistance Army and disarm militias, end fighting, and support peace operations in strife-torn lands across the continent.

Last week in his commencement address at West Point, President Obama said he will ask Congress to create a new, $5 billion counterterrorism partnerships fund that will help build the capacity of our international partners to respond effectively to the terrorist threat. In his remarks, the President emphasized that the nature of this threat has evolved, and our strategy must keep pace with it.

The core of al-Qaida, the force responsible for 9/11, has been weakened. Danger remains, however, because of the emergence of groups with links to al-Qaida that have embraced the same destructive agenda. One such group is al-Shabaab, the Somali-based organization that continues to carry out attacks on innocent civilians both within and beyond Somalia’s borders.

In Somalia, as elsewhere, defeating a terrorist force requires a multi-faceted approach that makes clear not only what we are against, but also what we are for. And that is the subject I want to highlight today.

As members of this audience know, Somalia is both blessed and cursed by geography. Much of its territory is arid and inhospitable for farming and grazing. But the country’s strategic location and natural harbors have long made it a focus of international interest. In the modern era, it drew the attention first of colonial powers and then, after gaining independence, became embroiled in the Cold War chess game between East and West.

In the early 1990s, disaster arrived. Internal conflicts led to the closing of the U.S. and many other foreign embassies, a devastating shortage of food, the deployment of a UN peacekeeping force, the harrowing Battle of Mogadishu, and the dissolution of organized government. Almost overnight, the very word “Somalia” became a synonym for chaos.

During this period, hundreds of thousands of people were forced to flee, factories were torn apart and sold as scrap, patriotic monuments were torn down, schools were closed, and gangs of armed thugs roamed the streets.

Calling home, famed Somali writer Nuruddin Farah was warned by his brother not to return. “Forget Somalia,” he was told, “consider it buried, dead.” Wrote Farah: “How full of tragedy is the instant when it dawns on one that one’s country does not exist anymore, either as an idea or as a physical reality.”

Not long ago, at the Dadaab refugee camp in northern Kenya, I met a young twenty year old man. He told me he had spent his entire life in the camp – his entire life. He was born there and he was still there. Think about how narrow an experience that is, especially in this, the so-called age of globalization.

The depth of Somalia’s trauma should bring home to us the distance and the difficulty of the long road back, the precious nature of the opportunity now before us, the magnitude of what has already been achieved, and the staggering amount of hard work still ahead. To be clear, tomorrow, disaster could arrive again. But today, there are tangible reasons for hope.

In a campaign that started in 2011, African Union and government forces liberated the capital and a number of major cities and towns, some of which had been under al-Shabaab’s control for as long as seven years. In 2012, a new provisional constitution was adopted and a parliament sworn in. In September of that year, the legislators chose professor and civic activist Hassan Sheikh Mohamud as President. Meanwhile, a determined effort by governments and the shipping industry put many of Somalia’s pirates out of business. In Mogadishu, real estate prices are on the rise, seaport activity is increasing, once-shuttered businesses are re-opening, and new solar-powered lights have lifted spirits and lightened streets. Returning from overseas, former Somali expatriates are now serving as cabinet ministers and re-establishing themselves as entrepreneurs.

To borrow Achebe’s phrase, in Somalia twenty years ago, all things had fallen apart. But today, the outlook is improving because Somalis themselves have taken on the responsibility for reclaiming what was lost and rebuilding what was destroyed. They are the ones who have assumed the lead.

In response to this welcome trend, the United States in January 2013 recognized Somalia’s Government for the first time in 22 years. And in September international donors pledged over $2 billion in reconstruction aid to implement – excuse me – to implement the Somalia New Deal Compact, which in President Hassan Sheikh’s words, “will lay a strong foundation for building reliable, transparent, and accountable state institutions.”

At the same time, African countries have stepped up by supporting Somali security through AMISOM, the African Union Mission in Somalia. This is the type of robust regional action we have seen more and more – in South Sudan and the Great Lakes, where diplomatic initiatives are African-led; in Nigeria, where the depredations of Boko Haram recently prompted five African leaders to link arms in Paris in a resolute show of solidarity; and in the Central African Republic and other countries where AU – African Union peacekeepers have been deployed.

In Somalia, the national authorities have begun to take charge with help and support of their neighbors. The role of the world community, including the United States, is to encourage and nurture this process, and that is exactly what we are doing. As I speak, American officials are working closely with Somali leaders, civil society representatives, and a variety of international partners to help the nation come together and move ahead.

The reasons for our involvement are straightforward. First, we have an interest in helping all of Africa sustain its economic momentum and lengthen the roster of countries that contribute to stability, prosperity, and peace. Second, a secure and united Somalia would weaken the forces of extremism and terror that feed off one another and that threaten citizens in almost every country, including the United States. Third, an increasingly stable Somalia would enable two million refugees and internally displaced persons to begin returning to their homes, thus fueling growth domestically and easing political pressures in neighboring lands. Fourth, all maritime nations will benefit if the recent decline in piracy becomes permanent. Fifth, a stable and economically viable Somalia would reduce the intense strain put on Africa’s peacekeeping resources, thus making it easier over time for the region to respond to crises elsewhere.

And finally, there is a more personal element. Some 130,000 Americans are of Somali heritage, and of these many are deeply committed to the recovery and prosperity of their homeland. They show this commitment by advocating for Somalia and by sending money back to their loved ones. Today, an estimated one-third of the country’s total income is derived from remittances – one-third of the total income of the country. This reminds us how bleak the economic picture in Somalia remains. An estimated three million citizens lack secure supplies of food and 860,000 are in need of emergency help. One baby in ten dies at birth and, of the survivors, one in seven is severely malnourished. Of the adults, fewer than half are literate.

For too long, the people of Somalia have suffered from clan-based violence and civil strife. For too long, they have been scattered and unable to establish roots. Now is the best time, the best chance in a quarter century for them to realize the promise that accompanied their nation’s independence. In that quest, the United States is right where it should be: on Somalia’s side. And as we support the country’s progress, our strategy is centered on three key elements: security, governance, and development.

In our view, these topics are not separate, but reinforcing. Development is harder in a climate of fear and so is effective governance. Terrorism both generates anarchy and thrives within it. There is no direct correlation between poverty and extremism, but people engaged in building strong communities are usually too busy to hate. And in Somalia, hate is another name for al-Shabaab.

Al-Shabaab originated less than a decade ago as a militant youth group opposed to any effort to move Somalia toward stability and democracy. Its obstruction of humanitarian aid deliveries deepened the horror of a famine that, between 2010 and 2012, claimed more than a quarter million lives. As Somalis have rejected al-Shabaab’s radical ideas, the group has sought notoriety beyond the country’s borders – orchestrating a bombing that killed 74 soccer fans in Kampala and the murder of 67 men and women at a shopping mall, Westgate, in Nairobi.

The job of degrading and defeating al-Shabaab belongs jointly to the Somali National Army and AMISOM, with support from the United States and other international partners. Over the past three years, these forces made impressive gains in driving al-Shabaab from its strongholds in Mogadishu and numerous towns in south and central Somalia. These victories caused a shift in momentum that must now be sustained.

But as daily headlines attest, al-Shabaab is still a potent threat. It continues to target government officials and humanitarian staff and to hinder the provision of basic services. Last month it carried out bombings in Mogadishu and Baidoa, and just a week ago Saturday launched a multipronged attack on the nation’s parliament, a strike that failed due to the efforts of AMISOM and Somali forces.

Our strategy for helping Somalia defend itself begins with our firm support for AMISOM’s stabilizing role. Last year we endorsed wholeheartedly a UN Security Council decision to enlarge the mission by more than 4,000 troops, thus enabling it and the Somali Army to resume offensive operations. Overall, since 2007 we have contributed more than half a billion dollars in training, equipment, and logistical support. The many African countries that participated in the mission deserve enormous credit. It is a long and wonderful list, and Somali leaders are deeply appreciative of the sacrifices they have made. The UN also plays a central role in backing AMISOM, but every stakeholder agrees that the mission cannot continue indefinitely. Our shared goal is to help Somalia develop more capable security forces of its own.

To that end, the United States is assisting the Somali National Army. In recent years, the State Department has obligated more than $170 million to help recruit and train forces that will be able to protect the country’s institutions and citizens, operate under civilian control, fairly represent Somalia’s population, and respect human rights and international law. In this connection, I note that the army recently approved a code of conduct that prohibits employing soldiers under the age of 18. I note as well that some 1,500 women are now members of that force.

As one element of our support, a small contingent of U.S. military personnel – including some special operations forces – have been present in parts of Somalia for several years. In the past, their activities focused primarily on information sharing and advising AMISOM in its efforts to counter the threat from al-Qaida and al-Shabaab. Today these personnel continue that mission but have also begun to work with the Somali National Army. In addition, last fall the Department of Defense established a small team in Mogadishu to coordinate with related efforts by the international community to help AMISOM and Somali forces.

The aid we provide includes training support for the Somali advanced infantry company, also known as “Danab” – the Lightning Force. This is a 150-person unit that we believe can become a source of future leadership for the entire army. I know from my own conversations with Somali leaders that it makes a difference to the army’s morale that the United States cares enough to assist them, and I know for a fact that there is no better source of instruction for any armed force than the U.S. military.

Additionally, as President Obama noted in his speech, our partnerships do not altogether eliminate the need for direct action to protect American lives. From time to time the U.S. military has conducted such action in Somalia against a limited number of targets, who, based on information about their current and historical activities, have been determined to be part of al-Qaida. And in the future, we may take action against threats that pose a continuing imminent threat to U.S. persons. These strikes will be conducted under the highest operational standards, including the requirement of near certainty that civilians will not be injured or killed by our actions. The goal of our military assistance to Somalia is to enhance the country’s security, and by so doing contribute to its political and economic development. The campaign against al-Shabaab is an essential part of Somalia’s struggle to recover. Equally critical, however, is progress in establishing governing institutions that are capable and credible. The good news is that Somalis have a clear idea of what they would like to achieve. This is laid out in their Vision 2016 document and in the New Deal Compact developed jointly with the international community.

Somalia now has an interim parliament, a president, and a prime minister, and a roadmap calling for a permanent constitution and national elections. Despite this, it is true that its federal governing institutions remain in their infancy. This is all quite new. Virtually every component of public administration must be rebuilt. That is why the United States is furnishing assistance to the Somali parliament and to key ministries for the purpose of professionalizing operations and training personnel, why AMISOM recently conducted an executive leadership and management course for 80 senior civil servants, and why the UN has established a strong political presence in Somalia.

Since the United States recognized the new government, we have given more than $315 million in bilateral aid. Our contributions are designed to strengthen both the public and private sectors, create jobs, increase access to modern technology, and improve the climate for key industries such as agriculture, livestock, and energy. USAID is working to increase opportunities for women and it has rehabilitated markets in 16 towns, turning unsanitary eyesores into clean, comfortable, and orderly commercial stalls. We are also collaborating with our partners to prevent the resurgence of polio and to reinvigorate the justice sector, including the Somali national police and courts.

In addition, our assistance is helping to equip 160,000 young Somalis with education and skills they will need to participate in the workforce. This is vital because, like many African countries, Somalia is remarkably young. The median age is less than half that of the United States. We are at 35 years of age; Somalia’s median is 17. Because the median age is less than half that of the United States, this creates an imperative for the nation’s leaders that can be understood by any parent – how to channel youthful energy in a positive direction.

Make no mistake, the list of challenges Somalia must address is long. As in any place where government institutions are underdeveloped, crime and corruption are severe problems. Political infighting and clan disputes have caused the country to lag behind its own timetable for reform. There’s also a pressing requirement for transparency and financial management so the government can earn trust both domestically and globally. The recent appointment of a financial governance committee and also of central bank officials are significant and important first steps.

Another priority is to ensure that when al-Shabaab is pushed out of an area, it is replaced by a governing presence that can protect citizens and instill optimism. This task is complicated by the fact that when local populations return to such areas, they often find that terrorists have stripped them of infrastructure, food, and supplies. The United States is supporting quick impact projects in these areas. But although external assistance is essential, so is inclusive government and local participation in setting priorities. If the Somali nation is to come together, the newly liberated towns must be part of it, not islands unto themselves.

Yet a further challenge to Somalia’s development is posed by its regional fragmentation. Although the country’s population is less ethnically diverse than many in Africa, its people still possess strong local affinities and clan loyalties. Somaliland in the north, for example, sought to distance itself from the tumult elsewhere by establishing its own governing structures. Neighboring Puntland also has a high degree of autonomy. Moving forward, leaders must preserve the strengths of these regional administrations while also reconciling them with Somalia’s national identity.

The appropriate means for accomplishing this include dialogue, the ballot box, and the judicial process. The United States believes that a stable federal Somalia with a credible national government in Mogadishu is in the best interest of all Somalis, but to achieve this, there must be a willingness to compromise on every side. It is critical that issues of authority and jurisdiction be settled because investors will be reluctant to make commitments if there is confusion about who is in charge. One possible model is the method by which an agreement was reached last year between the national government and the interim administration in Jubaland. This pact delineates federal and state authorities and provides a framework for managing resources and controlling revenue.

The United States will remain actively engaged with both national and regional leaders to strengthen institutions and promote cooperation on every level. Looking ahead, the pivotal test for Somalia will not be procuring more assistance from the world community or even defeating al-Shabaab. The truly defining test will be an internal one. Somalis have to decide whether they want to exist as disparate clans isolated from the world and in conflict with one another, or as a united country with all the attributes, benefits, and responsibilities that such unity brings. None of us can make that choice for Somalia.

But Somalis should know if they choose to continue to come together, they will have enthusiastic and substantial international support. Currently, America’s diplomatic team in Somalia is led by U.S. Special Representative Jim – James McAnulty. I said Jim because that’s what I think of him as – an ambassador equivalent based in Nairobi, who along with other U.S. personnel travels back and forth frequently to Somalia. The United States has not had a formal ambassador to Mogadishu since we closed our mission on January 5th, 1991. I can tell you today that this will be changing. As a reflection both of our deepening relationship with the country and of our faith that better times are ahead, the President will propose the first U.S. ambassador to Somalia in more than two decades. We indeed look forward to the day when both nations have full-fledged diplomatic missions in the capital of the other.

I said earlier that U.S. policy towards Somalia was based not solely on what we are against, but more importantly, what we are for. So in closing, let me just say that America is for a Somalia where children are born healthy and immunized against deadly disease; a Somalia where families are able to eat more than a single meal each day and where the water they drink won’t harm them; a Somalia where every boy and girl has access to an education; a Somalia where women and men are able to walk without fear; and where citizens have faith in their government because freedom has meaning and the rights of all are respected.

In his memoir, Nuruddin Farah wrote of the high value Somalis put on having a home, a place that, in his words, “affords a greater sense of privacy, of self-honor, and dignity.” Friends and colleagues, the path ahead remains rocky and uphill, but let us all have faith that the day will arrive when the people of Somalia are able to fully reclaim their home and to know once again the honor and dignity that comes with that sense of ownership.

Thank you very much. (Applause.)

AMBASSADOR CARSON: Ambassador Sherman, let me be the first to congratulate you on a excellent speech on Somalia, and also for what appears to be the announcement of a new U.S. ambassador to that country for the first time in two decades.

I’ll start by asking one or two questions but quickly move to the audience. In the last several days, the UN Food and Agricultural Organization has issued a report that states that Somalia is once again on the threshold of a major famine. My question is: How serious do you think this is likely to be? What is the U.S. doing right now to avert it? And would such a famine, if it gets out of control, undermine some of the confidence in the current government and undermine some of the stability in Somalia that has been achieved?

UNDER SECRETARY SHERMAN: A very simple question from Ambassador Carson. (Laughter.)

Of course we are concerned, and we have been concerned forever about famine in Somalia because, as I said, there is a great deal of Somalia that is arid – that food cannot be grown, and food security is enormously important. And in places, as I mentioned in the speech, where al-Shabaab has been, often whatever food was available has been stolen, taken, consumed, gone. The United States gives a fair amount of aid to Somalia, is looking at ways that we can further address the food security issues. Feed the Future program is very active in Somalia both in terms of funds and helping to build capacity, which is critical, because we all know that the real solution is a growing economy where you can’t grow food; you can import food. And as I said, agriculture is one of the areas in which we are putting a lot of our efforts to grow that sector and to grow that capacity.

There is no doubt that a true famine will further increase the insecurity of Somalia, and so the United States, which is the single largest contributor to the World Food Program, hopes that all of those appeals are met by the international community, and we are doing whatever we can to ensure that the international community responds and responds to FAO’s recent report, and that we help in whatever way we can to meet this demand. It is quite crucial.

And it is indeed, I think – if I make no other point in the remarks today, it is that all of these elements are integrated. I think that is what the President was trying to convey in his speech at West Point, which is when you have situations of a country like Somalia which is plagued by so much that is difficult and has been really nonexistent for two decades, one has to work in every sector in every way to deal with governance, to deal with terrorism, to deal with security, to deal with political development. And it is a long and complicated and difficult process, but what I found most extraordinary in my visit to Somalia was it has gotten underway, it is happening – with great difficulty, two steps forward and maybe three steps backwards from time to time, but it is proceeding forward, and it is no easy task.

AMBASSADOR CARSON: Ambassador Sherman, before we go to the audience, I’d like to raise a regional question and ask: What has been the impact of the Kenyan decision to crack down on illegal Somalis in that country, the impact in Kenya and the impact in Somalia?

UNDER SECRETARY SHERMAN: First I want to say that Kenya has welcomed hundreds of thousands of refugees from Somalia. I’ve been to Dadaab; I’m sure many of the people in this audience have been. I know you have, Ambassador Carson. And none of us would want to be that 20-year-old who has only known a refugee camp. But I think we all have to be grateful for what Kenya has done to welcome refugees into Kenya and to provide – try to provide a home until there can be a full repatriation to Somalia on a voluntary basis.

We of course would urge Kenya to continue its long history of treating refugees with dignity, within the rule of law, and to ensure their security. And the Kenyan police are a very, in many ways, sophisticated force. We rely on them in our Embassy in Nairobi for security and they are always there to help. And we would urge that the Kenyans look at any incident that has come to fore – we’ve seen all of these reports – take it seriously as they have done in the past, and try to ensure that refugees are given the most dignity possible. No one wants to be a refugee. No one chooses to be one.

AMBASSADOR CARSON: Thank you. We’re going to move to the audience, and we do have a very tight window. Questions should be short and specific, not long commentary. One question here, sir. You’ve had your hand up. Identify yourself, please.

QUESTION: Mark Tavlarides with the Podesta Group. The President’s launched a go-to-school initiative to put a million kids in school. Just wondering if you could just tell us a little bit about the importance the U.S. attaches to that initiative and what we’re doing to help them in that area.

UNDER SECRETARY SHERMAN: I think education is absolutely critical. We think access to education is critical; we have supported educational support as part of our programming through USAID, and I think that we all know everywhere in the world education is critical for the development of a country. I think what horrified everyone about what happened to the schoolgirls in Nigeria – and I think most of you in this audience know that Boko Haram has been killing and kidnapping people for some time and the world had not quite caught on to what was happening, and painfully and horrifically it took over 200 schoolgirls being kidnapped for the world to understand the risks and what was occurring in northern Nigeria. And I think what horrified all of us who have children is to imagine that the simple act of going to school – the simple act of going to school, of a girl getting an education – would mean that she should be kidnapped and in essence put into slavery is horrifying. And so education is critical for every country across the continent, and obviously in Somalia very much so.

MODERATOR: Sir.

QUESTION: Morning. My name is Mohamed Ali, Somali American Peace Council. It was a beautiful speech. We appreciate what you did and what my new country is doing for Somalia.

My question is: Why don’t we empower Somali Americans like our organization and others all over the country, because we have good projects and we are willing to go back and help the country? For instance, we have a project called Sports for Peace, and the idea is to counterbalance the terrorists. As an ex-basketball coach myself when I was a teenager back home, I’m planning to go back this summer and trying to help. We get the approval by the IRS, the tax exempt, but the USAID rules working the – like our project, but the red tape of the government is still there. So if there’s way you can empower us, maybe even waive those red tapes so we can go and help Somalia? Thank you.

UNDER SECRETARY SHERMAN: Well, I think it’s terrific that you have an organization that is working in Somalia and working with Somalis; that as an expatriate, folks have come together to see what they can do. I know that every nongovernmental organization thinks there’s too much U.S. red tape. I think that’s a given. But we have that red tape for transparency, for good governance; for ensuring how things are happening, make sure it fits into an integral program, supports the objectives of the Somali Government. So I apologize for the red tape, but it is there for a reason, and I’m sure that we’re doing whatever we can.

But I want to say that it takes all of us in whatever role we’re in – the private sector – that means companies, investors – non-governmental organizations that do their own philanthropy, as well as governments like the United States to support the primary leader, which is the Somalis themselves.

QUESTION: Thank you, Under Secretary Sherman, for a very substantive presentation. My question goes to the issue of timing. I’m Bernadette Paolo from the Africa Society. We’ve seen recently that African governments – their response to terrorism has either been ineffective or ill-timed, and waiting for the African Union and the United Nations often – that delay causes additional problems. So with the African heads of state summit coming, do you think it’s possible for preventative mechanisms to be put in place, or a security response – an early response so that we don’t have this lag time, and better cooperation and coordination among the international community and African countries? Thank you.

UNDER SECRETARY SHERMAN: Well first of all, let me say I think things have come a very long way from where they once were. There is capacity in Africa that has never existed before, and I tried to give some examples where you have African-led regional organizations that have stepped up – whether that was in Mali; whether that is in CAR; whether that is in Sudan, South Sudan; in Somalia – really throughout five heads of state. I was in Paris for the Nigerian summit – five heads of states joining arms for border security and for trying to take on a task collectively and bring each of their strengths to the table.

So I think there’s been enormous progress. And what our job should be is to nurture the development of those regional organizations to develop the capacity of Africa themselves. There have been a lot of creative ideas about that, about how to build an African force that would be permanent on the continent and able to respond quickly to crises. And I think all of these ideas I’m sure will be in discussion at sessions at the Africa summit. But I think the most important thing we can do is build the capacity of Africans themselves, because they are right there and then can do the job, as opposed to wait for a Security Council resolution getting troops to come. All of that takes time and there’s no way to cut that time short, because people do it on a voluntary basis – troop-contributing countries.

QUESTION: Thank you so much, Ambassador Sherman. My name is Cindy Waite) and I’m a Charles B. Rangel fellow, and will be entering the Foreign Service in the summer of 2016.

UNDER SECRETARY SHERMAN: Congratulations.

QUESTION: Thank you so much. Thank you again for your remarks. And I’m really interested – you made a huge announcement that the President will propose the first ambassador in over 20 years to Somalia. I’m interested —

UNDER SECRETARY SHERMAN: You interested? (Laughter.)

QUESTION: I’m sorry. I’m interested if you could just say a few remarks to those of us who will be entering the diplomatic corps and are so excited to serve worldwide, what it might look like in a few years – I know you can’t tell the future, but what that region – what it might look like to serve there, how many people are currently serving there, what a small embassy would look like in the beginning stages, et cetera. Thank you so much.

UNDER SECRETARY SHERMAN: Probably either Ambassador Carson or Assistant Secretary Greenfield can tell you how many people are serving there. I don’t know. Do either of you know off the top of your head how many people serve in Africa?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY THOMAS-GREENFIELD: (Off-mike.)

UNDER SECRETARY SHERMAN: Yeah. And Somalia?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY THOMAS-GREENFIELD: Nigeria?

UNDER SECRETARY SHERMAN: Well, Somalia we don’t have a permanent presence.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY THOMAS-GREENFIELD: (Off-mike.)

UNDER SECRETARY SHERMAN: Gosh, we have thousands of people serving in Africa.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY THOMAS-GREENFIELD: (Off-mike.)

UNDER SECRETARY SHERMAN: So – did you hear? Thirty-seven – because I don’t know – Linda doesn’t have a microphone on. Thirty-seven hundred serving overseas. And Assistant Secretary Greenfield was also the director general of the State Department, so she knows about personnel. And about a dozen in Nairobi who serve our efforts in Somalia, as well as people who come in and out on what we call TDY, which you will come to understand means when people from Washington and elsewhere come to serve a particular mission for a period of time.

I think serving in Africa is a tremendously exciting proposition. As I said, seven of the 10 largest and fastest growing economies – fastest growing, not largest – but fastest growing economies are in Africa. The youth population in Africa is both a challenge, but it also is energy that beats the band. I think we had something like – I forget – 500 slots and 50,000 people, young people apply by email to have one of those Young African Leader Initiative slots. So it is filled with energy and excitement and possibility, also is filled with conflict and danger and difficulty and painstaking and sometimes way-too-slow progress. But that is life as we all know it. So congratulations, you’ve got a great future ahead of you.

AMBASSADOR CARSON: The gentleman in the back on the left.

QUESTION: My name is Stephen Druhot. I’m a business person. I do business both in Somaliland and in Somalia. And you mentioned, Ambassador Carson, the impending possibility of a famine in that area again. Currently, the United States does have a pre-positioning warehouse in Djibouti and they have funding in the farm bill. And if this is going to happen, which is being predicted to happen, you could easily begin to move the cargo out of Djibouti towards Mogadishu at the same time you move the cargo from the United States into Djibouti because neither will be able to quell the impending disaster. It’s a solution, not a question. (Laughter.)

UNDER SECRETARY SHERMAN: Well, thank you very much for your expertise, and thank you for the work that you do. As I said, the private sector is a critical partner, so thank you for what you do in Somaliland and Somalia as a whole. Thank you.

QUESTION: Hi, I’m Dana Hughes from ABC News. I have two questions. One, if you could give any kind of a timeline for when the President plans to name this ambassador, and will that ambassador be part of the team in Nairobi?

The second question I have is: When Shabaab fell in Kismayo and Mogadishu, intelligence analysts had a real fear that they would simply spread out. With the attacks in Westgate and the continued attacks in Kenya, the attacks in Djibouti, has that fear been realized? And how does that influence U.S. security policy not just in Somalia but in the region as a whole? Thank you.

UNDER SECRETARY SHERMAN: So for your – in answer to your first question, when will the U.S. ambassador be named, I will give you government speak: Soon. (Laughter.) And that ambassador will begin working out of Nairobi. We have an office in Mogadishu in the airport compound, and I would hope that in the years ahead, as I said, that we will see a full presence both in Somalia and by the Somalis here in Washington. It’ll take some time, but we take this in a step-by-step approach.

Secondly, in terms of al-Shabaab, yes, many analysts were concerned that as they were pushed out of not only Kismayo and Mogadishu but in villages, they would bleed into the community and then just wait for the next opportunity or go someplace else, which they clearly have done. It’s why this has to be a regional approach. Terror is not about a location. It is about really a regional response that is not just country specific, because it has to do with the security of borders, it has to do with economic development, it has to with growth, it has to do with basic security and government services. There’s a whole cavalcade of integrated efforts that have to go forward to put terror on its back foot for the long term and allow the good forces of people being able to live their daily lives to come forward.

There has been a step taken in the right direction – more than one step – by Somalis themselves. But as I’ve said, this is still an uphill struggle, and I cannot tell you that tomorrow, the day after I’ve given this speech, some awful event will not happen, because al-Shabaab is clearly still present not only in Somalia but in the neighboring countries. So this is an effort that we are taking on collectively in support not only of the Somalis but of the Kenyans, the Djiboutians, and everyone else in the region and in the continent.

AMBASSADOR CARSON: Ambassador Sherman, we have a hard stop at —

UNDER SECRETARY SHERMAN: Yes, we do.

AMBASSADOR CERSON: — 12 o’clock and we have reached that moment. I, on behalf of the acting president of USIP, on behalf of the institution itself , want to thank you enormously for coming here this morning to talk about Somalia and Africa. It has been a pleasure to listen to you and to hear the progress that has been made in our policy in that country. And it’s a pleasure to see you again as well.

UNDER SECRETARY SHERMAN: Thank you all very much, and do whatever you can – every single one of you in this audience – to support the Somalis in the journey they are taking themselves and the progress they have made and all of the progress that must be yet to come. I thank you all for however you can contribute to that. Your government can do only so much. It really will take everyone in support of the Somali Government for them to do what they are trying to do for themselves. Thank you very much.

AMBASSADOR CARSON: Thank you. (Applause.)

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

Stay connected with the State Department:
http://www.state.gov/

Five steps to take India’s education system from mediocre to world class

\From: Fatima Husenali

Dear HRD minister,

Congratulations on BJP’s victory in the general elections. We now eagerly await the measures that your government will take to drive socio-economic prosperity for the country. As the government prepares for such measures, it is important to note that for any growth model to be successful we need an educated and skilled population. That’s why PM Narendra Modi placed skills at the head of his “skill, scale and speed” formula to transform India.

As you assume your newly assigned responsibilities, we take this opportunity to share our perspective on five big reforms that could transform India’s education system from a mediocre to a world-class system.

First, our education system currently suffers from an apparent ‘Licence Raj’ that restricts entry and operation of private players. Even policies such as RTE neglect that private schools are a large part of the education ecosystem (already 40% of school students and 60% of college students are enrolled in private institutions). These norms have led to the shutdown of a large number of affordable private schools that serve low-income students. The government must deregulate school education and treat government and private schools as equal partners in solving India’s education crisis.

Second, it is important not only to invest more in education but to do so more strategically. Central government should invest more resources in teacher education and development, principal training, ICT in education and assessments. It is also critical for the ministry of human resource development to rework its results framework document (RFD) to include student learning outcomes. Furthermore, a portion of the budget allocation to states should be contingent upon the adoption of progressive education policies and improvement of outcomes. There is an opportunity to create version 2.0 of the central education budget that shifts focus from inputs and outlays to outcomes and impact, while holding states accountable.

Third, improve quality standards through nationwide assessments. Assessments need to be at the core of any planning exercise for improving India’s education system. The government should introduce statewide learning assessments that are undertaken at regular periods during a child’s school journey, which can also contribute to remediation and improvement in teaching. Additionally, a school rating system should be instituted to set targets for school level improvements. The National Achievement Survey (NAS) should be revamped such that it becomes a barometer for student learning and the de facto benchmark for state performance.

Modi’s government in Gujarat has already taken a lead in this regard with the Gunotsav programme, an accountability framework for quality of primary education that includes learning outcomes of children as well as co-scholastic activities, optimal use of financial resources and community participation. This model can be replicated in other states.

(HRD minister Smriti Irani greets the audience after taking the oath of office at the Rashtrapati Bhavan in New Delhi on May 26, 2014)

Fourth, equip school principals to become efficient school leaders. Great leaders make great institutions, in every sphere. In schools principals are the highest point of leverage, yet their role is often restricted to administrative functions. There is a need to reimagine the role of the principal — as an instructional leader, rather than an administrator. Moreover, we need to institute stricter guidelines for recruitment of school leaders that prioritise merit over seniority. Gujarat has again taken the lead by establishing the headmaster eligibility test for selection of its principals. The government should set up centres for school leadership in every state and mandate induction as well as ongoing training for all principals.

Fifth, improve teacher quality for better learning outcomes. It is unfortunate that teaching today does not attract the best talent. We need public awareness campaigns in India that are able to effectively project teaching as a rewarding and meaningful profession. Centres of excellence need to be created for teacher education in prestigious universities across India. Our Teacher Education Institutes (TEI) capacity is extremely fragmented with over 11 lakh seats in 14,000 TEIs. Most of this capacity is of poor quality that has been created through non-transparent, poorly formulated TEI recognition procedures. Government should build and scale high-quality institutes at top 10 central universities and strengthen SCERTs and DIETs.

We believe that every child in India deserves excellent education. We also believe that given the vastness and diversity of our country we can only succeed with thorough experimentation and analysis, rather than a mere adoption of predefined rules. Our country needs bold reforms and focused implementation with clear targets for learning outcomes to achieve this goal.

Our emerging market peers — China, Brazil and Poland, among others — have made education reform a priority as they recognise it as the surest path to sustained economic development. In the run-up to elections we circulated a letter signed by leading citizens — Cyrus Mistry, Kumar Birla, Anand Mahindra, Gurcharan Das and 30 others — that highlighted the need for prioritising education in the policy agenda and suggested reforms. The future of 240 million children is at stake, and as concerned citizens we urge your attention to these bold steps that can truly improve their lives.

Thank you.

Anu Aga is a Rajya Sabha MP and Chairperson, Thermax; Ashish Dhawan is Founder of Ashoka University; Amit Chandra is Board Member of Akanksha Foundation.

Africa: Counselor Shannon and Special Envoy Booth To Attend IGAD Summit on South Sudan

From: U.S. Department of State
06/09/2014 07:21 PM EDT

Counselor Shannon and Special Envoy Booth To Attend IGAD Summit on South Sudan

Media Note
Office of the Spokesperson
Washington, DC
June 9, 2014

Counselor of the Department Thomas A. Shannon Jr. and Special Envoy to Sudan and South Sudan Donald E. Booth will attend the Heads of State Summit for the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) on Tuesday, June 10, in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. The summit will follow a meeting between South Sudan President Salva Kiir and opposition leader Riek Machar and will focus on the next steps toward ending the conflict in South Sudan. The summit is being held in advance of the resumption of IGAD-led negotiations later this week to find a political solution to the ongoing conflict.

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

Stay connected with the State Department:
http://www.state.gov/

Help repair Gaza’s Ark after the sabotage

From: Gaza’s Ark

When our marine engineer first sent us the list of repairs needed for Gaza’s Ark as a result of the sabotage* of April 29, we were shocked at how long it was. The amount of extra work to be done is huge. In addition, the price of materials is now much higher than it was before Egypt closed the border with Gaza and destroyed the tunnels. Fiberglass, for example, is now four times the price.

Not once, however, have we heard the boat builders complain. Palestinians have the most extraordinary ability to endure. Their steadfastness in the face of adversity and their ability to start over every time their homes, their orchards, or their boats are destroyed is amazing.

Repairs start by removing damaged wood

We now need to assist the boat builders to repair the damage so they can carry on from where they were before the sabotage. We are asking you to help us with this. Repairs are estimated at $30,000. If you want to support a specific repair item, here is the list. Or you can donate to the general funds. http://www.gazaark.org/donate/

Estimated costs of repairs:
Clean and cut and remove all damaged parts: $1,200
Add hull ribs, transverses and longitudinals: $4,500
Replace two damaged bulkheads: $3,600
Repair damage to the main cabin: $800
Grind and remove part of fiberglass and anti-fouling from hull: $350
Apply fiberglass and paint: $8,800
Replace cable conduits and fix new ones, including replacing some cables: $2,400
Remove and replace plumbing parts as well as some valves, pipes, outlets and intakes: $2,800
Take out fuel, fresh water & sewage tanks for cleaning, change gaskets where needed: $1,100
Take main engine to workshop to clean, change filters and gaskets: $1,200
Replace engine base and fix back in place: $250
Fix new exhaust pipe at the engine part: $280
Remove the clutch, clean, replace flange and fix back in place: $400
Add steel reinforcements inside the hull: $2,200
Check shaft, replace if damaged: TBD

Total: $29,880 http://www.gazaark.org/donate/

Thank you for your continuing support
Gaza’s Ark steering committee

* See http://www.gazaark.org/2014/04/28/gazas-ark-attacked.

Governments have direct access to eavesdrop in some countries – Vodafone Disclosure Report

From: Abdalah Hamis

World’s second-biggest mobile phone company, Vodafone, said government agencies in a small number of countries in which it operates have direct access to its network, enabling them to listen in to calls.

Vodafone on Friday published a “Disclosure Report” which said that while in many of the 29 countries in which it operates, government agencies need legal notices to tap into customers’ communications, there are some countries where this is not the case.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-xbM3U6tKB7Q/U5GRLftLOLI/AAAAAAAAWwM/NI6vfFeCwLU/s1600/Screenshot_1.png

In this report we provide an overview of some of the legal powers under the law of Tanzania that government agencies have to order Vodafone’s assistance with conducting real-time interception and the disclosure of data about Vodafone’s customers.

PROVISION OF REAL-TIME LAWFUL INTERCEPTION ASSISTANCE

The Electronic and Postal Communication Act The Electronic and Postal Communication Act, 2010 (the “EPOCA”) does not specifically make provision for interception of customer communications. However, the existence of intercept powers can be implied from section 120 of the EPOCA which provides that
no person, without lawful authority under the EPOCA or any other written law can intercept, attempt to intercept, or procure any other person to intercept or attempt to intercept any communications. An application must be made under ‘any other law’ to the director of public prosecution (the “DPP”) for authorisation to intercept or listen to any customer communication transmitted or received.

Only public officers or an officer appointed by the Tanzania Telecommunications Regulatory Authority (the “TCRA”) and authorised by the Ministry of Science and Technology and the Ministry of Home Affairs may be permitted to intercept such communications.

Section 120 of the EPOCA provides that any person who, without lawful authority under the EPOCA or any other written law:

a. intercepts, attempts to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or attempt to intercept any communications; or

b. discloses, or attempts to disclose to any otther person the contents of any communications, knowingly or having reason to believe that the information was obtained through the interception of any communications in contravention of this section; or
c. uses or attempts to use the contents of any communications, knowingly having reason to believe that the information was obtained through the interception of any communications in contravention of this section, commits an offence. This section therefore implies that any person with lawful authority may intercept customer communications.

Tanzania Intelligence and Security Service Act The Tanzania Intelligence and Security Service Act [Cap 406 R.E. 2002] (the “TISSA”) provides that the Tanzania Intelligence and Security Service (the “Service”) has a duty to collect by investigation or otherwise, to the extent that it is strictly necessary, and analyse and retain, information and intelligence in respect of activities that may on reasonable grounds be suspected of constituting a threat to the security of Tanzania or any part of it. Section 15 of TISSA further provides that the Service has the power to investigate any person or body or persons whom or which it has reasonable cause to consider a risk, or source of risk, of a threat to state security and that the Service may conduct any investigations which are required for the purposes of providing security assessments. Section 10 of TISSA provides that the Director-General of the Service shall have the command, control, direction, superintendence and management of the Service and all matters connected with it and that all orders and instructions to the Service shall be issued by the Director-General subject to any orders issued by the President of the United Republic of Tanzania, unless the Minister responsible for intelligence and security directs otherwise in writing.

Tanzania Intelligence and Security Service Act The Tanzania Intelligence and Security Service Act [Cap 406 R.E. 2002] (the “TISSA”) provides that the Tanzania Intelligence and Security Service (the “Service”) has a duty to collect by investigation or otherwise, to the extent that it is strictly necessary, and analyse and retain, information and intelligence in respect of activities that may on reasonable grounds be suspected of constituting a threat to the security of Tanzania or any part of it. Section 15 of TISSA further provides that the Service has the power to investigate any person or body or persons whom or which it has reasonable cause to consider a risk, or source of risk, of a threat to state security and that the Service may conduct any investigations which are required for the purposes of providing security assessments. Section 10 of TISSA provides that the Director-General of the Service shall have the command, control, direction, superintendence and management of the Service and all matters connected with it and that all orders and instructions to the Service shall be issued by the Director-General subject to any orders issued by the President of the United Republic of Tanzania, unless the Minister responsible for intelligence and security directs otherwise in writing.

Criminal Procedure Act

Section 10 of the Criminal Procedure Act [Cap 20 R.E. 2002] (the “CPA”) provides/grants the powers to police officer(s) to investigate the facts and circumstances of a case where a police officer has reason to suspect the commission of an offence. Further, section 10(2) of the CPA specifically provides for the police officers’ powers, by order in writing, to require the attendance of any person (natural or legal) who from information given or in any other way appears to be acquainted with the circumstances of a case, or who is in possession of a document or any other thing relevant to the investigation of a case to attend or to produce such document or any other thing.

DISCLOSURE OF COMMUNICATIONS DATA

The Electronic and Postal Communication Act

Section 91 of the EPOCA provides that there shall be a database kept with the TCRA in which all subscriber information will be stored. Every application services licensee must submit to the TCRA a monthly list containing its subscribers information.

Further, Regulation 4(2)(b) of the the Electronic and Postal Communication (Telecommunications Traffic Monitoring System) Regulations 2013 (the “TTMS Regulations”) provide that the TCRA shall acquire, install, operate and maintain
traffic monitoring and measurement devices at the operator’s premises. Moreover, regulation 8 of the TTMS Regulations provides, inter alia, that the Traffic Monitoring System shall collect call detail records without any interception of contents of communications such as voice or SMS. Call detail records have been defined as information generated by telephone exchanges which contain details of calls originating from, terminating at or passing through the exchange. In addition,
regulation 13(4) of the TTMS Regulations provides that the TCRA must ensure that call detail records data are collected for the exclusive purpose of monitoring compliance with the TTMS Regulations; they are encrypted and stored with the
last three digits of the calling numbers hashed in order to protect confidentiality; and call detail records collected are not transmitted or given to third parties, public or private, except as permitted by law.

The EPOCA provides that information may only be disclosed by an authorised person where it is required by any law enforcement agency, court of law or other lawfully constituted tribunal authority with respect to subscriber information.
However, pursuant to the Electronic and Postal Communications (Licensing) Regulations, 2011 (the “Licensing Regulations”) a licensee may collect and maintain
information on individual consumers where it is reasonably required for its business purposes. It further provides that the collection and maintenance of information on individual consumers must be: (a) fairly and lawfully collected and
processed; (b) processed for identified purposes; (c) accurate; (d) processed in accordance with the consumer’s other rights; (e) protected against improper or accidental disclosure; and (f) not transferred to any party except as permitted by any terms and conditions agreed with the consumer, as permitted by any permission or approval of the Authority, or as otherwise permitted or required by other applicable laws or Regulations.

Under section 99 of the EPOCA a person shall not disclose any information received or obtained in exercising his powers or performing his duties in terms of the EPOCA except:

(a) where the information is required by any law enforcement agency, court of law or other lawfully constituted tribunal;

(b) notwithstanding the provision of this section, any authorized person who executes a directive or assists with execution thereof and obtains knowledge or information of any communication may;

(i) disclose such information to another law officer to the extent that such disclosure is necessary for the proper performance of the official duties of the
authorised person making or the law enforcement officer receiving the disclosure; or
(ii) use such information to the extent that such use is necessary for the proper performance of official duties.

NATIONAL SECURITY AND EMERGENCY POWERS

The National Security Act

The National Security Act [Cap 47 R.E. 2002] (the “NSA”), which makes provisions relating to state security, states in section 15 that where the DPP is satisfied that there is reasonable ground for suspecting that an offence under the NSA has been or is about to be committed, and that some person may be able to furnish information with regard thereto, he may, by writing under his hand, authorise a named officer to require that person to give a police officer any information in his power relating to such suspected or anticipated offence.

Tanzania Intelligence and Security Service Act Section 5 of TISSA gives authority to the Service to obtain, correlate, and evaluate intelligence relevant to security, and
to communicate any such intelligence to the Minister and to persons whom, and in the manner which, the Director-General considers it to be in the interests of security. In doing so the Service shall cooperate as far as practicable and necessary with such other organs of state and public authorities within or outside Tanzania as are capable of assisting the Service in the performance of its functions.

Constitution of United Republic of Tanzania The Constitution of United Republic of Tanzania 1977 as amended from time to time (the “Constitution”) provides
the Parliament with the power to enact and enable measures to be taken during a state of emergency or in normal times in relation to persons who are believed to engage in activities which endanger or prejudice the security of the nation.
Article 31 of the Constitution provides that any law enacted by Parliament shall not be void for the reason only that it enables measures to be taken during a state of emergency or in normal times in relation to persons who are believed to engage in
activities which endanger or prejudice the security of the nation, which measures derogate from the right to life.

OVERSIGHT OF THE USE OF POWERS

Other than as outlined above there is no judicial oversight over these powers. However, section 114 of the EPOCA provides that the TCRA may take enforcement measures against any person who contravenes licence conditions, regulations and
provisions of the EPOCA.

USA, D.o.State: Detention of Human Rights Lawyer and Journalist in Swaziland

From: U.S. Department of State
Press Statement
Marie Harf
Deputy Department Spokesperson, Office of the Spokesperson
Washington, DC
June 6, 2014

The United States is deeply concerned by the continued detention of human rights lawyer Thulani Maseko and journalist Bheki Makhubu in the Kingdom of Swaziland. Maseko and Makhubu were first arrested in March and are being held on charges of contempt of court for publishing an article critical of the High Court of Swaziland.

The United States urges the judiciary of the Kingdom of Swaziland to recognize its obligation to uphold the rule of law and provisions regarding the protection and promotion of fundamental rights and freedoms enshrined in the Constitution of the Kingdom of Swaziland. We call upon the Government of Swaziland to swiftly resolve the cases of Maseko and Makhubu in accordance with the law, including international obligations entitling them to trial within a reasonable time or release and setting forth the minimum requirements for a fair trial without undue delay.

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

Stay connected with the State Department:
http://www.state.gov/

Africa: Detention of Human Rights Lawyer and Journalist in Swaziland

From: U.S. Department of State
Press Statement
Marie Harf
Deputy Department Spokesperson, Office of the Spokesperson
Washington, DC
June 6, 2014

The United States is deeply concerned by the continued detention of human rights lawyer Thulani Maseko and journalist Bheki Makhubu in the Kingdom of Swaziland. Maseko and Makhubu were first arrested in March and are being held on charges of contempt of court for publishing an article critical of the High Court of Swaziland.

The United States urges the judiciary of the Kingdom of Swaziland to recognize its obligation to uphold the rule of law and provisions regarding the protection and promotion of fundamental rights and freedoms enshrined in the Constitution of the Kingdom of Swaziland. We call upon the Government of Swaziland to swiftly resolve the cases of Maseko and Makhubu in accordance with the law, including international obligations entitling them to trial within a reasonable time or release and setting forth the minimum requirements for a fair trial without undue delay.

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

Stay connected with the State Department:
http://www.state.gov/

Don’t let internet companies hoard the wealth of big data

From: Yona Maro

WHAT is a tweet worth? Not a lot, but it stacks up. Twitter, which has yet to turn a profit, was valued at an eye-watering $18.1 billion when it made its stock market debut last week – far more than many tried and tested companies.

What underpins this value? As Twitter users were quick to point out, it is their contributions. An online gizmo allowing tweeters to estimate how much they had personally generated went viral: New Scientist staff reported credits from a measly $1 to a handy $847.
That was mostly a joke. But it highlights the gulf between the value people place on their own information – and the value that others do. Most individual bits of data are worthless; it’s only in the aggregate that they become valuable. And we get valuable online services in exchange for handing over our data.

But this transaction is starting to feel more myopic than pragmatic. Twitter’s investors may be betting on advertising revenue, but the company’s trove of data can be used to analyse everything from the stock market (including, perhaps, its own share price) to food safety. That may, in the long run, prove more lucrative.

So far, much of this data has been relatively accessible. But it may not stay that way. Internet companies have started giving users greater control over their personal data. But they may start to restrict access as it grows more valuable: after all, they have their sky-high valuations to defend.
Link:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22029431.400-dont-let-internet-companies-hoard-the-wealth-of-big-data.html#.UpRZe7RJiJQ

Yona Fares Maro

Institut d’études de sécurité – SA

A Stronger Role of the Private Sector in Achieving Inclusive and Sustainable Growth in Developing Countries

From: Yona Maro

Having a decent job is widely recognised as the best way out of poverty. The private sector provides some 90 per cent of jobs in developing countries, and is thus an essential partner in the fight against poverty. It is also needed as an investor in sustainable agricultural production if the world is to meet the challenge of feeding 9 billion people by 2050. And through innovation and investment in low-carbon and resource-efficient solutions, it will have a major role to play in the transformation towards an inclusive green economy. Given the private sector’s potential for generating inclusive and sustainable growth in developing countries, private stakeholders including businesses, financial intermediaries, associations and workers and employers organisations are emerging as ever more active in the development field, both as a source of finance and as partners for governments, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and donors.
Link
http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/what/economic-support/private-sector/documents/psd-communication-2014_en.pdf

Yona Fares Maro

Institut d’études de sécurité – SA

USA: Great Society Speech By Pres Lyndon B. Johnson, 1964

From: Yona Maro

LBJ “Great Society” Speech (ORIGINAL)

President Hatcher, Governor Romney, Senators McNamara and Hart, Congressmen Meader and Staebler, and other members of the fine Michigan delegation, members of the graduating class, my fellow Americans:

It is a great pleasure to be here today. This university has been coeducational since 1870, but I do not believe it was on the basis of your accomplishments that a Detroit high school girl said (and I quote), “In choosing a college, you first have to decide whether you want a coeducational school or an educational school.” Well, we can find both here at Michigan, although perhaps at different hours. I came out here today very anxious to meet the Michigan student whose father told a friend of mine that his son’s education had been a real value. It stopped his mother from bragging about him.

I have come today from the turmoil of your capital to the tranquility of your campus to speak about the future of your country. The purpose of protecting the life of our Nation and preserving the liberty of our citizens is to pursue the happiness of our people. Our success in that pursuit is the test of our success as a Nation.

For a century we labored to settle and to subdue a continent. For half a century we called upon unbounded invention and untiring industry to create an order of plenty for all of our people. The challenge of the next half century is whether we have the wisdom to use that wealth to enrich and elevate our national life, and to advance the quality of our American civilization.

Your imagination and your initiative and your indignation will determine whether we build a society where progress is the servant of our needs, or a society where old values and new visions are buried under unbridled growth. For in your time we have the opportunity to move not only toward the rich society and the powerful society, but upward to the Great Society.

The Great Society rests on abundance and liberty for all. It demands an end to poverty and racial injustice, to which we are totally committed in our time. But that is just the beginning.

The Great Society is a place where every child can find knowledge to enrich his mind and to enlarge his talents. It is a place where leisure is a welcome chance to build and reflect, not a feared cause of boredom and restlessness. It is a place where the city of man serves not only the needs of the body and the demands of commerce but the desire for beauty and the hunger for community. It is a place where man can renew contact with nature. It is a place which honors creation for its own sake and for what is adds to the understanding of the race. It is a place where men are more concerned with the quality of their goals than the quantity of their goods.

But most of all, the Great Society is not a safe harbor, a resting place, a final objective, a finished work. It is a challenge constantly renewed, beckoning us toward a destiny where the meaning of our lives matches the marvelous products of our labor.

So I want to talk to you today about three places where we begin to build the Great Society — in our cities, in our countryside, and in our classrooms.

Many of you will live to see the day, perhaps 50 years from now, when there will be 400 million Americans — four-fifths of them in urban areas. In the remainder of this century urban population will double, city land will double, and we will have to build homes and highways and facilities equal to all those built since this country was first settled. So in the next 40 years we must re-build the entire urban United States.

Aristotle said: “Men come together in cities in order to live, but they remain together in order to live the good life.” It is harder and harder to live the good life in American cities today. The catalog of ills is long: there is the decay of the centers and the despoiling of the suburbs. There is not enough housing for our people or transportation for our traffic. Open land is vanishing and old landmarks are violated. Worst of all expansion is eroding these precious and time honored values of community with neighbors and communion with nature. The loss of these values breeds loneliness and boredom and indifference.

And our society will never be great until our cities are great. Today the frontier of imagination and innovation is inside those cities and not beyond their borders. New experiments are already going on. It will be the task of your generation to make the American city a place where future generations will come, not only to live, but to live the good life. And I understand that if I stayed here tonight I would see that Michigan students are really doing their best to live the good life.

This is the place where the Peace Corps was started.

It is inspiring to see how all of you, while you are in this country, are trying so hard to live at the level of the people.

A second place where we begin to build the Great Society is in our countryside. We have always prided ourselves on being not only America the strong and America the free, but America the beautiful. Today that beauty is in danger. The water we drink, the food we eat, the very air that we breathe, are threatened with pollution. Our parks are overcrowded, our seashores overburdened. Green fields and dense forests are disappearing.

A few years ago we were greatly concerned about the “Ugly American.” Today we must act to prevent an ugly America.

For once the battle is lost, once our natural splendor is destroyed, it can never be recaptured. And once man can no longer walk with beauty or wonder at nature his spirit will wither and his sustenance be wasted.

A third place to build the Great Society is in the classrooms of America. There your children’s lives will be shaped. Our society will not be great until every young mind is set free to scan the farthest reaches of thought and imagination. We are still far from that goal. Today, 8 million adult Americans, more than the entire population of Michigan, have not finished 5 years of school. Nearly 20 million have not finished 8 years of school. Nearly 54 million — more than one quarter of all America — have not even finished high school.

Each year more than 100,000 high school graduates, with proved ability, do not enter college because they cannot afford it. And if we cannot educate today’s youth, what will we do in 1970 when elementary school enrollment will be 5 million greater than 1960? And high school enrollment will rise by 5 million. And college enrollment will increase by more than 3 million.

In many places, classrooms are overcrowded and curricula are outdated. Most of our qualified teachers are underpaid and many of our paid teachers are unqualified. So we must give every child a place to sit and a teacher to learn from. Poverty must not be a bar to learning, and learning must offer an escape from poverty.

But more classrooms and more teachers are not enough. We must seek an educational system which grows in excellence as it grows in size. This means better training for our teachers. It means preparing youth to enjoy their hours of leisure as well as their hours of labor. It means exploring new techniques of teaching, to find new ways to stimulate the love of learning and the capacity for creation.

These are three of the central issues of the Great Society. While our Government has many programs directed at those issues, I do not pretend that we have the full answer to those problems. But I do promise this: We are going to assemble the best thought and the broadest knowledge from all over the world to find those answers for America.

I intend to establish working groups to prepare a series of White House conferences and meetings — on the cities, on natural beauty, on the quality of education, and on other emerging challenges. And from these meetings and from this inspiration and from these studies we will begin to set our course toward the Great Society.

The solution to these problems does not rest on a massive program in Washington, nor can it rely solely on the strained resources of local authority. They require us to create new concepts of cooperation, a creative federalism, between the National Capital and the leaders of local communities.

Woodrow Wilson once wrote: “Every man sent out from his university should be a man of his Nation as well as a man of his time.”

Within your lifetime powerful forces, already loosed, will take us toward a way of life beyond the realm of our experience, almost beyond the bounds of our imagination.

For better or for worse, your generation has been appointed by history to deal with those problems and to lead America toward a new age. You have the chance never before afforded to any people in any age. You can help build a society where the demands of morality, and the needs of the spirit, can be realized in the life of the Nation.

So, will you join in the battle to give every citizen the full equality which God enjoins and the law requires, whatever his belief, or race, or the color of his skin?

Will you join in the battle to give every citizen an escape from the crushing weight of poverty?

Will you join in the battle to make it possible for all nations to live in enduring peace — as neighbors and not as mortal enemies?

Will you join in the battle to build the Great Society, to prove that our material progress is only the foundation on which we will build a richer life of mind and spirit?

There are those timid souls that say this battle cannot be won; that we are condemned to a soulless wealth. I do not agree. We have the power to shape the civilization that we want. But we need your will and your labor and your hearts, if we are to build that kind of society.

Those who came to this land sought to build more than just a new country. They sought a new world. So I have come here today to your campus to say that you can make their vision our reality. So let us from this moment begin our work so that in the future men will look back and say: It was then, after a long and weary way, that man turned the exploits of his genius to the full enrichment of his life.

Thank you. Good-bye.

Source: The speech above was delivered by President Johnson as a commencement (graduation) speech at the University of Michigan on May 22, 1964.

Yona Fares Maro
Institut d’études de sécurité – SA

Africa: Cameroon National Day

From: U.S. Department of State
Press Statement
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
May 19, 2014

On behalf of President Obama and the American people, I congratulate the people of Cameroon as you celebrate your national day on May 20.

The United States and Cameroon have enjoyed a productive relationship since we first established diplomatic relations in 1960. Our bond has strengthened over the years, in part through our shared commitment to support peace and stability in central Africa.

Our governments work together on many fronts. We are working to curtail illicit trafficking. We are working to protect the environment. We are working to improve maritime security. We are working to address the threat posed by terrorism. And we are working to support the stabilization of the Central African Republic through the provision of U.S. equipment and training to Cameroonian troops deployed there as peacekeepers.

Our trade and economic relationship continues to grow as U.S. investment in Cameroon steadily rises. As Cameroon prepares to celebrate 42 years of unity, we welcome the opportunity to strengthen our partnership. Together, we can help bring greater security and greater prosperity to the entire continent.

I offer you my best wishes on this important anniversary. The United States looks forward to continued cooperation to promote democracy, human rights, and shared prosperity in Cameroon and across the region.

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

Stay connected with the State Department
http://www.state.gov/

Africa: Violence in Northern Mali

From: U.S. Department of State
Press Statement
Jen Psaki
Department Spokesperson
Washington, DC
May 18, 2014

In recent days, the outbreak of violence in Kidal, Mali, has killed at least one government security official, injured civilians and UN peacekeepers, and resulted in the seizure of government buildings and the taking of hostages. We condemn these acts, which undermine the fragile peace in northern Mali and efforts to bring peace, security, and development to all of its citizens.

We call for the immediate release of all hostages, and urge all parties to refrain from violence and from any acts that place civilians at risk. The way to resolve these issues is through an inclusive and credible negotiation process, not through violence and intimidation.

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

Stay connected with the State Department:
http://www.state.gov/

Conclusions of the Paris Summit for Security in Nigeria (17 May 2014)

From: Yona Maro

PARIS, France, May 17, 2014/African Press Organization (APO)/ — Paris Summit for Security in Nigeria (17 May 2014)

CONCLUSIONS

The Heads of State of Benin, Cameroon, Chad, France, Niger and Nigeria, as well as representatives of the European Union, the United Kingdom and the United States, participated on 17 May 2014 in a Summit in Paris dedicated to security in Nigeria. This Summit has helped intensify regional and international mobilization to combat the terrorism of the Boko Haram group.

The Summit concluded with several decisions that will strengthen cooperation between regional States, both to enable the liberation of the abducted school girls and more generally to combat Boko Haram. The partners present (the European Union, France, the United States and the United Kingdom) are committed to supporting this regional cooperation and strengthening the international means to combat Boko Haram and protect victims. All these States reaffirm their commitment to human rights and particularly the protection of girls who are victims of violence and forced marriage or threatened with slavery.

– Regional Cooperation

Nigeria and its neighbours will build analysis and response capabilities that will contribute to enhancing the security of all populations and the rule of law in the areas affected by Boko Haram’s terrorist acts.

To combat the Boko Haram threat, which has recently manifested itself through several murderous attacks and the abduction of more than 270 school girls,

Nigeria and its neighbours have decided to immediately:

1. On a bilateral basis

– Implement coordinated patrols with the aim of combating Boko Haram and locating the missing school girls

– Establish a system to pool intelligence in order to support this operation

– Establish mechanisms for information exchange on trafficking of weapons and bolster measures to secure weapons stockpiles

– Establish mechanisms for border surveillance;

2. On a multilateral basis

– Establish an intelligence pooling unit

– Create a dedicated team to identify means of implementation and draw up, during a second phase, a regional counter-terrorism strategy in the framework of the Lake Chad Basin Commission.

This approach is consistent with the 2012 Summit of the Lake Chad Basin Commission. The United States, the United Kingdom, France and the European Union will coordinate their support for this regional cooperation through technical expertise, training programmes and support for border-area management programmes.

– Efforts at international level:

The participants commit to accelerating the implementation of international sanctions against Boko Haram, Ansaru and their main leaders, within the United Nations framework as a priority.

– Mobilization to support marginalized areas and their fragile populations, and particularly women exposed to violence

The P3 and the EU pledge to mobilize donors in support of programmes fostering the socio-economic development of the regions concerned, with particular emphasis on gender equality, the rights of women and girls and in particular their right to education, increasing women’s participation in all decision-making processes, and supporting victims of sexual violence, including through legal assistance, medical care and psychosocial support. The EU will dedicate a certain number of its programmes to these aspects and will strengthen its efforts to combat radicalization.

The participants agreed that the United Kingdom would host a follow-up meeting next month at Ministerial level to review progress on this action plan.

– See more at:
http://newsofafrica.org/22652.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook#sthash.zVO53nc2.dpuf

Yona Fares Maro
Institut d’études de sécurité – SA

Africa: U.S. Policy and Response to Recent Refugee Crises in Africa

From: U.S. Department of State
Remarks
Simon Henshaw
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration
Ethiopian Community Development Council
Washington, DC
May 1, 2014

Good morning and thank you for that kind introduction. It is an honor to be here. The best part of my job is the chance to meet people like you who dedicate their lives to helping refugees get a fresh start. Congress may have passed the Refugee Act of 1980, but it is your efforts, and those of local communities, that have helped implement the resettlement program – by opening hearts and homes to refugees from around the world. I understand that some of you may have once been refugees yourselves, facing the same obstacles and challenges your clients do today.

Millions of refugees depend on the expertise and dedication of organizations like ECDC. We at the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration depend on you as well. As you know, our resettlement program is the largest in the world and has welcomed more than 3 million refugees to the United States since 1975.

Last year was a remarkable one for refugee resettlement; in 2013, the President set the ceiling for arrivals at 70,000. When the year was over, our final total included 69,927 refugees from 65 countries. I don’t have to tell you, but that represents 69,927 lives on the path to a new beginning in the United States.

Increasing resettlement of African refugees is a major priority for the Obama Administration. Last fiscal year we resettled nearly 16,000 Africans to the U.S., and this year we are looking to resettle at least 15,000. PRM is working hard with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to raise the number of referrals and to improve our own processes so we can admit the refugees they refer more efficiently. We are expanding resettlement infrastructure such as medical clinics and interview facilities throughout the continent and interviewing refugees in countries including Mauritania and Namibia where we haven’t worked in previous years. We have also begun offering resettlement to populations such as Eritrean Afaris in Ethiopia and Somalis in Eritrea, who lacked these opportunities before.

When the Government of Chad recently resumed the resettlement of Sudanese, the Department of Homeland Security immediately returned and just completed its first series of refugee interviews in Eastern Chad in four years. We hope that refugees from Darfur will begin departing from Chad and arriving in the United States later this year. PRM is also determined to see the Congolese resettlement strategy come to fruition. We and our partners are expanding our program to resettle Congolese refugees from Uganda, Rwanda, Tanzania, Burundi and Southern Africa. And whereas most other resettlement countries have closed their doors to resettling additional Somalis, our commitment to admitting Somali refugees remains strong. In fact, we admitted more Somalis last year than in any year since 2006.

Of course PRM works not just to resettle those who flee, but also to respond to crises, save lives, ease suffering and support voluntary return and local integration when possible.

In a crisis, our first priority is ensuring a rapid and coordinated humanitarian response. The United States is the world’s single largest donor to humanitarian causes. In fiscal year 2013, PRM provided almost $2.4 billion to protect, shelter, and care for people forced to flee their homes. The organizations we support handle the acute and protracted phases of an emergency, provide life-saving assistance and help lay the groundwork for recovery and reconciliation when the conflict is over.

We also engage in humanitarian diplomacy, exerting the influence of the world’s most powerful nation on behalf of the world’s most vulnerable people. We advocate with governments to keep their borders open to those fleeing conflict in neighboring countries. We urge other nations – behind closed doors and in public – to join us and contribute their resources to humanitarian appeals. This humanitarian diplomacy is every bit as crucial to our mission as the dollars we donate and it’s a unique part of my bureau’s mission.

As the principal humanitarian advisor within the State Department, PRM strives to make sure our foreign policy stresses respect for humanitarian principles and protection for vulnerable populations. And we work with other governments, the United Nations, U.S. government agencies, and our refugee officers at U.S. embassies to protect and assist refugees, internally displaced persons, stateless people and migrants on the ground. Our outreach is sometimes quiet, but it can have a huge impact. It can ensure that refugees are not forcibly returned, that undocumented migrants are protected from abuse and exploitation, and unaccompanied children are reunited with their parents.

Another priority for PRM is protecting women and children caught in crisis. Conflict leaves them more vulnerable to sexual and domestic violence, human trafficking, forced and early marriage, and other forms of gender-based violence. Too often, gender-based violence is recognized as a problem too late, after major humanitarian response efforts are underway. To close this gap, in 2013, the United States launched a new multimillion dollar initiative called ‘Safe from the Start’. Its aim is to equip the humanitarian system to prevent and respond to gender-based violence around the world in the earliest days of an emergency, which is often when such needs are most critical.

We are working to apply these priorities in the major emergencies to which we are responding today. Syria, of course, is the biggest one so I will say a word about that before turning to situations in Africa.

Syria is one of three “level three” emergencies the global community faces today. That is the UN’s highest level of humanitarian emergency. And the situation there is getting worse. The United States is the largest single donor to humanitarian relief efforts there and PRM helps to protect and feed more than 2.7 million Syrian refugees throughout the region. And we will continue to press all parties to the conflict, particularly the regime, to expand humanitarian access to reach more than 9.3 million inside Syria in desperate need of food, shelter, and health care.

The other two ongoing “level three” emergencies are the ones unfolding in South Sudan and the Central African Republic (CAR). And since we are focusing here on U.S. policy responses to crises in Africa, I will discuss these emergencies in some detail.

In CAR we are in a race against time to save lives. One million Central Africans have been displaced. Nearly two thirds are displaced within CAR while one-third have fled to neighboring countries and are now living as refugees. They have gone to Chad, Cameroon, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and the Republic of Congo.

We are deeply troubled by the escalating violence and lawlessness, the attacks by ex-Seleka rebels and anti-Balaka militias, and the fact that communities are being targeted because of their religion. The danger is so grave that UNHCR has taken the extraordinary step of evacuating certain Muslim populations under siege, relocating some to other parts of the country and some to neighboring Chad, essentially helping them become refugees. Gunmen have attacked not only innocent civilians but also international peacekeepers and humanitarian workers. Victims include three workers for the aid organization Doctors Without Borders who were killed in Nanga Boguila this past weekend. Among those who have fled the violence in the CAR are over 100,000 nationals of the neighboring countries – or even countries as far away as Mali – who had been living and working in the CAR for many years, even generations. We commend the African Union and French forces in CAR for leading the effort to quell the violence and save lives, and we welcome the UN Security Council’s April 10 decision to deploy a UN peacekeeping operation. The United States has committed up to $100 million to support the African Union and French forces, in addition to the humanitarian aid we provide for civilians.

In late March and early April, Assistant Secretary Anne Richard visited southern Chad and Bangui where she witnessed first-hand the misery spawned by the violence. She met with both those affected and those striving to help them. She saw how host countries, UN agencies, and NGOs are providing shelter, food, and protection and what enormous challenges they face.

Following this visit, our Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power announced $22 million in additional U.S. Government funding for humanitarian assistance to help people affected by the CAR crisis, bringing the total to more than $91 million in FY 2013 and FY 2014. We anticipate adding to this in the near future to support the latest funding appeals from humanitarian agencies.

In addition, the United States is providing $7.5 million for conflict mitigation, peace messaging, and human rights programs in CAR. We have also sponsored high-level inter-religious dialogues to help establish a basis for national reconciliation in CAR. And we are urging all parties to end the violence, establish judicial mechanisms to punish human rights abusers, and work toward an inclusive political process leading to democratic elections in February 2015.

The situation in South Sudan is equally alarming. Approximately one-tenth of South Sudan’s population has been displaced by the violence that began on December 15. Close to 1 million people have been displaced internally. And nearly a quarter of them have fled to insecure and underserved areas where food and assistance could be cut off. More than 293,000 new refugees have been forced to flee to neighboring countries, including Uganda, Ethiopia, Kenya, and Sudan. As the conflict drags on, the condition of these refugees is worsening, and more and more of them arrive suffering malnutrition. Like civilians in CAR, South Sudanese are being targeted based on their ethnicity and with shocking brutality. Just last week, for instance, anti-government forces massacred several hundred civilians in the northern city of Bentiu.

We are also disturbed by the hurdles aid groups are facing as they seek to reach people in need. Humanitarian workers—both international and South Sudanese—are working at great personal risk to save lives. They have been physically attacked and targeted for harassment. Their relief supplies have been looted or delayed in customs, and their vehicles stolen, blocked, or hijacked. In Bor, as you may know, gunmen forced their way into a United Nations Mission to South Sudan (UNMISS) compound and opened fire on civilians who had taken shelter inside. Around the country there are currently 87,000 IDPS, including nearly 80,000 civilians seeking protection at eight UNMISS bases.

The Executive Order (E.O.) signed by President Obama sends a clear message to the Government of South Sudan and Riek Machar’s forces: those who threaten the peace, security, or stability of South Sudan, obstruct the peace talks and processes, undermine democratic institutions, or commit human rights abuses will be at risk of U.S. sanctions.

The only solution to this crisis is for the parties to the conflict to adhere to the cessation of hostilities agreement they signed on January 23, and cease the violence immediately. President Obama’s Envoy, Ambassador Donald Booth, is in Ethiopia now working to bring the warring parties to the negotiating table for peace talks set to resume later this month.

We are calling all parties to immediately and fully cooperate with the United Nations and humanitarian organizations, as they carry out the urgent task of protecting civilians and providing life-saving assistance. Humanitarian groups must be able to do their jobs without the threat of violence, taxation, or arbitrary impediments. The Government of South Sudan should cease all negative messaging about UNMISS and fulfill its duty to restore law and order. We also urge those countries that have committed additional forces to UNMISS to work with the United Nations to deploy to South Sudan and immediately reinforce this Mission.

The United States is the leading donor of humanitarian assistance to South Sudan. We are providing more than $411 million in fiscal years 2013 and 2014, including $83 million announced just last month, to aid displaced persons both inside and outside the country. Last month, USAID, and the EU and UN humanitarian agencies jointly issued an urgent “Call for Action” on South Sudan, calling for more international support for the people of South Sudan. Neighboring countries are helping by keeping their borders open to those fleeing the violence. Ethiopia is providing land for new refugee camps. Kenya is expanding the Kakuma) refugee camp. Uganda is expanding transit centers and settlements as well.

Still, the needs are tremendous. According to the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, the crisis response plan is only thirty percent funded. With the rainy season in South Sudan already upon us, the humanitarian situation will likely grow worse in the coming months. Insecurity has prevented humanitarians from doing normal, vital dry season prepositioning. The risk of famine in South Sudan is quite real, as many South Sudanese have not been able to plant their crops and have lost their livestock as a result of the conflict.

These so-called “mega-crises” are not the only problems that demand our attention. For instance, we are worried about the treatment of African migrants and asylum seekers in Egypt—especially those who have been kidnapped, detained, and subjected to severe abuse by smuggling networks. In addition to ongoing reports of abuse in the Sinai, we are also following trends suggesting that routes are shifting westward toward Libya.

The plight of urban refugees is also worrying. This is one reason I traveled last year to Kenya and Uganda. Both countries have large populations of refugees living in urban environments. In Kenya, the government is rounding up urban Somali refugees from Nairobi and Mombasa and either moving them into camps if they are registered or deporting them to Somalia. We are concerned that refugees relocated to camps lose the right to move about freely and the ability to earn money and become self-reliant. We are also disturbed about reports that some urban refugees are being deported without adequate protection screening and that some have even been abused in the process. We are urging the Government of Kenya to accord UNHCR full access to those detainees so that UNHCR and the government can review refugee claims together. At the same time, we are funding programs to improve services for urban refugees in Nairobi, Kampala and elsewhere. Programs we are piloting in Egypt offer legal services, child protection, counseling, education, and opportunities for employment for African refugees.

We are also prioritizing the needs of especially vulnerable populations, such as lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. In Uganda, for example, the recent passage of a strict anti-homosexuality law has made LGBT refugees and those defending the human rights of LGBT individuals even more vulnerable. We will continue to fund partners that address the legal, medical, and psychosocial needs of this population and others facing similar discrimination, and we are also working with our partners in neighboring countries to ensure that Ugandans that flee from persecution find support.

My bureau can provide humanitarian assistance in Africa and around the world because of the generous support we receive from Congress, on behalf of the American people. These funds have also allowed us to bolster resettlement programs. In 2010, as the economic crisis strained local governments and charities, PRM doubled per capita funding for receiving and placing refugees. We have provided modest but steady increases since then and hope to continue doing so. But it is the work of groups like ECDC that helps to turn our nation’s promise to welcome refugees into a reality. Meeting you keeps those of us who are often caught up in the policy details motivated and focused on the human face of the important work we all share. Thank you for the part you play in letting refugees turn their stories of tragedy into ones of triumph.

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

Stay connected with the State Department
http://www.state.gov/

World: 05/07/14 Putin press conference

From: Yona Maro

Press statements and replies to journalists’ questions
May 7, 2014, 17:45 The Kremlin, Moscow

PRESIDENT OF RUSSIA VLADIMIR PUTIN: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

I want to start by welcoming once more our guest, the President of Switzerland and current head of the OSCE, and I want to thank him for the attention he is giving to settling this acute crisis in Ukraine. None of us are indifferent to what is happening there. The situation has us all very concerned.

Let me repeat once more that in Russia’s view, the blame for the crisis that emerged in Ukraine and is now taking the worst direction in its developments lies with those who organised the coup d’etat in Kiev on February 22-23, and have not yet taken the trouble to disarm right-wing radical and nationalist groups.

But no matter what the case, we must look for ways out of the situation as it is today. We all have an interest in ending this crisis, Ukraine and its people above all. Thus I say that we all want the crisis to end as soon as possible and in such a way that takes into account the interests of all people in Ukraine no matter where they live. The discussion with Mr President showed that our approaches to possible solutions to the crisis have much in common.

Russia urgently appeals to the authorities in Kiev to cease immediately all military and punitive operations in southeast Ukraine. This is not an effective means of resolving internal political conflicts and, on the contrary, will only deepen the divisions.

We welcome the release of Mr [Pavel] Gubarev, but we hope to see all the other political prisoners released too. We think the most important thing now is to launch direct dialogue, genuine, full-fledged dialogue between the Kiev authorities and representatives of southeast Ukraine. This dialogue could give people from southeast Ukraine the chance to see that their lawful rights in Ukraine really will be guaranteed.

In this context, we appeal too, to representatives of southeast Ukraine and supporters of federalisation to hold off the referendum scheduled for May 11, in order to give this dialogue the conditions it needs to have a chance.

Let me stress that the presidential election the Kiev authorities plan to hold is a step in the right direction, but it will not solve anything unless all of Ukraine’s people first understand how their rights will be guaranteed once the election has taken place.

In this respect, I hold the same position as Mr President, because we both believe that direct dialogue between the Kiev authorities and representatives of southeast Ukraine is the key to settling this crisis.

But one of the essential conditions for getting dialogue underway is an unconditional end to the use of force, whether with the help of the armed forces, which is completely unacceptable in the modern world, or through the use of illegal armed radical groups. Russia is ready to contribute as it can to resolving the Ukrainian crisis and playing an active and positive part in the Geneva process.

QUESTION: President Putin,

The Ukrainian government has made recent statements to the effect that they are ready to begin broad decentralisation in the country. First of all, does this decentralisation suit you?

Second, we hear that the violence must end and we must settle the conflict. We already heard similar words in Geneva.

My question therefore is what concrete steps can you take, because the experts all say that Moscow holds the key to resolving the conflict. How can you influence people in eastern Ukraine, the so-called separatists? What concrete steps are needed to de-escalate the conflict?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: First, the idea that Russia holds the key to resolving the problem is a trick thought up by our Western partners and does not have any grounds in reality. No sooner do our colleagues in Europe or the US drive the situation into a dead end, they always say that Moscow holds the keys to a solution and put all the responsibility on us.

The responsibility for what is happening in Ukraine now lies with the people who carried out an anti-constitutional seizure of power, a coup d’etat, and with those who supported these actions and gave them financial, political, information and other kinds of support and pushed the situation to the tragic events that took place in Odessa. It’s quite simply blood-chilling to watch the footage of those events.

Russia will take every necessary step of course and do everything within its power to settle the situation. I can understand the people in southeast Ukraine, who say that if others can do what they like in Kiev, carry out a coup d’etat, take up arms and seize government buildings, police stations and military garrisons, then why shouldn’t they be allowed to defend their interests and lawful rights?

As for whether proposed measures suit Russia or not, we are not a party to this conflict; the parties to the conflict are in Ukraine itself. We were told repeatedly that our forces by the Ukrainian border were a source of concern. We have withdrawn our forces and they are now not on the Ukrainian border but are carrying out their regular exercises at the test grounds. This can be easily verified using modern intelligence techniques, including from space, where everything can be seen. We helped to secure the OSCE military observers’ release and I think also made a contribution to defusing the situation.

You asked what we can do now. As I said, what is needed is direct, full-fledged and equal dialogue between the Kiev authorities and the representatives of people in southeast Ukraine.

I spoke recently with German Federal Chancellor Angela Merkel, who proposed organising this dialogue in the form of a round table. We support this. I think it is a good idea and we will do everything we can to help make it happen. We must do everything possible to ensure that people in southeast Ukraine understand, feel and believe that after the Ukrainian presidential election on May 24 or 25 their lawful rights will be reliably guaranteed.

This is the real issue, not the presidential election, but ensuring that people in the southeast know that they won’t be abandoned and deceived. This is the crux of the matter, and it is for this that we need the dialogue we have been talking about today.

QUESTION: How realistic is a second round of talks in Geneva, Geneva-2? And how realistic is it to launch internal talks between the different groups in Ukraine in a situation when the parties have diametrically opposed positions to a degree never seen before in Ukraine’s history?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: I don’t know how realistic a Geneva-2 round of talks or even internal political talks in Ukraine itself would be. I simply believe that if we want to find a long-term solution to the crisis in Ukraine, open, honest and equal dialogue is the only possible option.

Thank you.

Yona Fares Maro

Institut d’études de sécurité – SA

Country Reports on Terrorism 2013

From: Yona Maro

Executive Summary
Bureau of Counterterrorism
Country Reports on Terrorism 2013
Report
April 30, 2014

Definitions used in Country Reports on Terrorism 2013:

Section 2656f(d) of Title 22 of the United States Code defines certain key terms used in Section 2656f(a) as follows:

(1) the term “international terrorism” means terrorism involving citizens or the territory of more than one country;

(2) the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents; and

(3) the term “terrorist group” means any group practicing, or which has significant subgroups which practice, international terrorism.

Interpretation and Application of Key Terms. For purposes of this report, the terms “international terrorism,” “terrorism,” and “terrorist group” have the definitions assigned to them in 22 USC 2656f(d) (see above). The term “non-combatant,” which is referred to but not defined in 22 USC 2656f(d)(2), is interpreted to mean, in addition to civilians, military personnel (whether or not armed or on duty) who are not deployed in a war zone or a war-like setting.

It should be noted that 22 USC 2656f(d) is one of many U.S. statutes and international legal instruments that concern terrorism and acts of violence, many of which use definitions for terrorism and related terms that are different from those used in this report. The interpretation and application of defined and related terms concerning terrorism in this report is therefore specific to the statutory and other requirements of the report, and is not intended to express the views of the U.S. government on how these terms should be interpreted or applied for any other purpose. Accordingly, there is not necessarily any correlation between the interpretation of terms such as “non-combatant” for purposes of this report and the meanings ascribed to similar terms pursuant to the law of war (which encapsulates the obligations of states and individuals with respect to their activities in situations of armed conflict).

Contextual Reporting. Adverse mention in this report of individual members of any political, social, ethnic, religious, or national population is not meant to imply that all members of that population are terrorists. Indeed, terrorists rarely represent anything other than a tiny fraction of such larger populations. It is terrorist groups–and their actions–that are the focus of this report.

Furthermore, terrorist acts are part of a larger phenomenon of violence inspired by a cause, and at times the line between the two can become difficult to draw. This report includes some discretionary information in an effort to relate terrorist events to the larger context in which they occur, and to give a feel for the conflicts that spawn violence.

Thus, this report will discuss terrorist acts as well as other violent incidents that are not necessarily “international terrorism” and therefore are not subject to the statutory reporting requirement.

CONTENTS

Definitions

Strategic Assessment

Africa Overview

East Asia and Pacific Overview

Europe Overview

The Middle East and North Africa Overview

South and Central Asia Overview

Western Hemisphere Overview

State Sponsors of Terrorism

Terrorist Safe Havens

Programs and Initiatives Designed to Counter Terrorist Safe Havens

Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations

Please note that the complete Country Reports on Terrorism 2013 can be found at: http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/crt/index.htm.

STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT

Al-Qa’ida (AQ) and its affiliates and adherents worldwide continue to present a serious threat to the United States, our allies, and our interests. While the international community has severely degraded AQ’s core leadership, the terrorist threat has evolved. Leadership losses in Pakistan, coupled with weak governance and instability in the Middle East and Northwest Africa, have accelerated the decentralization of the movement and led to the affiliates in the AQ network becoming more operationally autonomous from core AQ and increasingly focused on local and regional objectives. The past several years have seen the emergence of a more aggressive set of AQ affiliates and like-minded groups, most notably in Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Northwest Africa, and Somalia.

AQ leadership experienced difficulty in maintaining cohesion within the AQ network and in communicating guidance to its affiliated groups. AQ leader Ayman al-Zawahiri was rebuffed in his attempts to mediate a dispute among AQ affiliates operating in Syria – al-Nusrah Front and al-Qa’ida in Iraq (AQI), now calling itself the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) – which resulted in the expulsion of ISIL from the AQ network in February 2014. In addition, guidance issued by Zawahiri in 2013 for AQ affiliates to avoid collateral damage was routinely disobeyed, notably in attacks by AQ affiliates against civilian religious pilgrims in Iraq, hospital staff and convalescing patients in Yemen, and families at a shopping mall in Kenya.

Terrorist violence in 2013 was fueled by sectarian motivations, marking a worrisome trend, in particular in Syria, Lebanon, and Pakistan, where victims of violence were primarily among the civilian populations. Thousands of extremist fighters entered Syria during the year, among those a large percentage reportedly motivated by a sectarian view of the conflict and a desire to protect the Sunni Muslim community from the Alawite-dominant Asad regime. On the other side of the conflict, Iran, Hizballah, and other Shia militia continued to provide critical support to the Asad regime, dramatically bolstering its capabilities and exacerbating the situation. Many of these fighters are also motivated by a sectarian view of the conflict and a desire to protect the Shia Muslim community from Sunni extremists.

The relationship between the AQ core and its affiliates plays out in the financial arena as well. As was the case for the last few years, the affiliates have increased their financial independence through kidnapping for ransom operations and other criminal activities such as extortion and credit card fraud. Al-Qa’ida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) and al-Qa’ida in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) are particularly effective with kidnapping for ransom and are using ransom money to fund the range of their activities. Kidnapping targets are usually Western citizens from governments or third parties that have established a pattern of paying ransom for the release of individuals in custody.

Private donations from the Gulf also remained a major source of funding for Sunni terrorist groups, particularly for those operating in Syria.

In 2013, violent extremists increased their use of new media platforms and social media, with mixed results. Social media platforms allowed violent extremist groups to circulate messages more quickly, but confusion and contradictions among the various voices within the movement are growing more common. Increasingly, current and former violent extremists are engaging online with a variety of views on tactics and strategy, including admitting wrongdoing or recanting former beliefs and actions.

Key Terrorism Trends in 2013

–The terrorist threat continued to evolve rapidly in 2013, with an increasing number of groups around the world – including both AQ affiliates and other terrorist organizations – posing a threat to the United States, our allies, and our interests.

–As a result of both ongoing worldwide efforts against the organization and senior leadership losses, AQ core’s leadership has been degraded, limiting its ability to conduct attacks and direct its followers. Subsequently, 2013 saw the rise of increasingly aggressive and autonomous AQ affiliates and like-minded groups in the Middle East and Africa who took advantage of the weak governance and instability in the region to broaden and deepen their operations.

–AQ leader Ayman al-Zawahiri experienced difficulty in maintaining influence throughout the AQ organization and was rebuffed in his attempts to mediate a dispute among AQ affiliates operating in Syria, with ISIL publicly dissociating its group from AQ. Guidance issued by Zawahiri in 2013 for AQ affiliates to avoid collateral damage was routinely disobeyed, notably in increasingly violent attacks by these affiliates against civilian populations.

–Syria continued to be a major battleground for terrorism on both sides of the conflict and remains a key area of longer-term concern. Thousands of foreign fighters traveled to Syria to join the fight against the Asad regime – with some joining violent extremist groups – while Iran, Hizballah, and other Shia militias provided a broad range of critical support to the regime. The Syrian conflict also empowered ISIL to expand its cross-border operations in Syria, and dramatically increase attacks against Iraqi civilians and government targets in 2013.

–Terrorist violence in 2013 was increasingly fueled by sectarian motives, marking a worrisome trend, particularly in Syria, but also in Lebanon and Pakistan.

–Terrorist groups engaged in a range of criminal activity to raise needed funds, with kidnapping for ransom remaining the most frequent and profitable source of illicit financing. Private donations from the Gulf also remained a major source of funding for Sunni terrorist groups, particularly for those operating in Syria.

–“Lone offender” violent extremists also continued to pose a serious threat, as illustrated by the April 15, 2013, attacks near the Boston Marathon finish line, which killed three and injured approximately 264 others.

–Many other terrorist groups not tied to AQ were responsible for attacks in 2013, including the People’s Liberation Party/Front (DHKP/C), which carried out a number of high-profile attacks last year, including a February 1 suicide plot targeting the U.S. Embassy in Ankara, Turkey.

* * *

While AQ core leadership in Pakistan is much diminished, Ayman al-Zawahiri remains the recognized ideological leader of a jihadist movement that includes AQ-affiliated and allied groups worldwide. Along with AQ, the Afghan Taliban, the Haqqani Network, Tehrik-e Taliban Pakistan (TTP), and other like-minded groups continue to conduct operations against U.S., Coalition, Afghan, and Pakistani interests from safe havens on both sides of the Afghanistan/Pakistan border, and in Pakistan, terrorist groups and AQ allies, such as TTP, have executed armed assaults not only on police stations, judicial centers, border posts, and military convoys, but also on polio vaccination teams and aid workers. Other South Asian terrorist organizations, including Lashkar e-Tayyiba (LeT), cite U.S. interests as legitimate targets for attacks. LeT, the group responsible for the 2008 Mumbai attacks, continues to pose a threat to regional stability.

AQAP carried out approximately one hundred attacks throughout Yemen in 2013, including suicide bombings, car bombings, ambushes, kidnappings, and targeted assassinations, regaining the initiative it had lost through 2012 as a result of sustained Yemeni government counterterrorism efforts. Of the AQ affiliates, AQAP continues to pose the most significant threat to the United States and U.S. citizens and interests in Yemen. AQAP has demonstrated a persistent intent to strike the United States, beginning in December 2009 when it attempted to destroy an airliner bound for Detroit, and again the following year with a plot to destroy several U.S.-bound airplanes using bombs timed to detonate in the cargo holds. In 2013, AQAP’s leader, Nasir Wahishi, was designated by AQ leader Zawahiri as his deputy, and the group continued to maintain a focus on Western targets.

Some of the thousands of fighters from around the world who are traveling to Syria to do battle against the Asad regime – particularly from the Middle East and North Africa, Central Asia, and Eastern and Western Europe – are joining violent extremist groups, including al-Nusrah Front and ISIL. A number of key partner governments are becoming increasingly concerned that individuals with violent extremist ties and battlefield experience will return to their home countries or elsewhere to commit terrorist acts. The scale of this problem has raised a concern about the creation of a new generation of globally-committed terrorists, similar to what resulted from the influx of violent extremists to Afghanistan in the 1980s.

The violence and disorder in Syria extended to the various violent extremist groups operating amongst the Syrian opposition. In late 2013 and early 2014, violent infighting occurred between al-Nusrah Front and ISIL, resulting in the February death of Ayman al-Zawahiri’s envoy to Syria Abu Khalid

al-Soury, who was a member of Ahrar al Sham. Despite this infighting, ISIL is the strongest it has been since its peak in 2006; it has exploited political grievance among Iraq’s Sunni population, a weak security environment in Iraq, and the conflict in Syria to significantly increase the pace and complexity of its attacks. ISIL continues to routinely and indiscriminately target defenseless innocents, including religious pilgrims, and engages in violent repression of local inhabitants.

In 2013, AQIM remained focused on local and regional attack planning, and concentrates its efforts largely on kidnapping-for-ransom operations. While a successful French and African intervention countered efforts to overrun northern Mali by AQIM and several associate groups, these factions continued to pursue attacks against regional security forces, local government targets, and westerners in northern Mali, Niger, and the broader Sahel region in 2013.

Originally part of AQIM, the al-Mulathamun Battalion (AMB), also known as al-Murabitoun, became a separate organization in late 2012 after its leader, Mokhtar Belmokhtar, announced a split from AQIM. AMB claimed responsibility for the January 2013 attack against the Tiguentourine gas facility near In Amenas, in southeastern Algeria. Over 800 people were taken hostage during the four-day siege, which led to the deaths of 39 civilians, including three U.S. citizens. AMB was also involved in terrorist attacks committed in Niger in May 2013, targeting a Nigerien military base and a French uranium mine.

Groups calling themselves Ansar al-Shari’a in Tunisia and the Libyan cities of Benghazi and Darnah also operated in the North Africa space. The three share some aspects of AQ ideology, but are not formal affiliates and generally maintain a local focus. In Libya, the terrorist threat to Western and Libyan government interests remains strong, especially in the eastern part of the country. Libya’s porous borders, the weakness of Libya’s nascent security institutions, and large amounts of loose small arms create opportunities for violent extremists. In Tunisia, Ansar al-Shari’a in Tunisia attempted suicide attacks against two tourist sites in late October 2013 and killed a political oppositionist in July that same year, suggesting the group remains intent on attacking Western and Tunisian interests.

In East Africa, al-Shabaab continued to pose a significant regional threat despite coming under continued pressure by African forces operating under the African Union’s AMISOM command and steady progress in the establishment of Somali government capability. Perhaps because of these positive steps, al-Shabaab targeted its attacks on those participating in the effort to bring stability to Somalia. In September 2013, al-Shabaab struck outside of Somalia (its first external attack was in July 2010 in Kampala, Uganda), attacking the Westgate Mall in Nairobi, Kenya. The assault resulted in the death of at least 65 civilians, including foreign nationals from 13 countries outside of Kenya and six soldiers and police officers; hundreds more were injured. Al-Shabaab’s attacks within Somalia continued in 2013, and resulted in the deaths of hundreds of people, including innocent women and children.

Boko Haram (BH) maintained a high operational tempo in 2013 and carried out kidnappings, killings, bombings, and attacks on civilian and military targets in northern Nigeria, resulting in numerous deaths, injuries, and destruction of property in 2013. The number and sophistication of BH’s attacks are concerning, and while the group focuses principally on local Nigerian issues and actors, there continue to be reports that it has financial and training links with other violent extremists in the Sahel region. Boko Haram, along with a splinter group commonly known as Ansaru, has also increasingly crossed Nigerian borders to neighboring Cameroon, Chad, and Niger to evade pressure and conduct operations.

Palestinian terrorist organizations in the Hamas-controlled Gaza continued rocket and mortar attacks into Israeli territory. The number of rocket and mortar launchings on Israel from Gaza and the Sinai was the lowest in 2013 in more than a decade, with 74 launchings compared to 2,557 in 2012. According to Israeli authorities, 36 rocket hits were identified in Israeli territory in 2013, compared to 1,632 in 2012. Of the 74 launchings on southern Israel, 69 were launched from the Gaza and five from the Sinai Peninsula.

Sinai-based groups, such as Ansar-Beit al Maqdis, also continued to pose a serious threat, conducting attacks against both Israeli and Egyptian targets in 2013.

Since 2012, the United States has also seen a resurgence of activity by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ Qods Force (IRGC-QF), the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS), and Tehran’s ally Hizballah. On January 23, 2013, the Yemeni Coast Guard interdicted an Iranian dhow carrying weapons and explosives likely destined for Houthi rebels. On February 5, 2013, the Bulgarian government publicly implicated Hizballah in the July 2012 Burgas bombing that killed five Israelis and one Bulgarian citizen, and injured 32 others. On March 21, 2013, a Cyprus court found a Hizballah operative guilty of charges stemming from his surveillance activities of Israeli tourist targets in 2012. On September 18, 2013, Thailand convicted Atris Hussein, a Hizballah operative detained by Thai authorities in January 2012. On December 30, 2013, the Bahraini Coast Guard interdicted a speedboat attempting to smuggle arms and Iranian explosives likely destined for armed Shia opposition groups in Bahrain. During an interrogation, the suspects admitted to receiving paramilitary training in Iran.

On June 22, 2013, the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) declared it would treat Hizballah as a terrorist organization. On July 22, 2013, the EU designated the “military wing” of Hizballah as a terrorist organization, sending a strong message to Hizballah that it cannot operate with impunity. Both Hizballah and Iran issued public statements to denounce the EU, demonstrating the impact of the designation. The EU designation will constrain Hizballah’s ability to operate freely in Europe by enabling European law enforcement agencies to crack down on Hizballah’s fundraising, logistical activity, and terrorist plotting on European soil.

Iran remained one of the chief external supporters of the Asad regime in Syria and continued to help ensure the regime’s survival. The IRGC-QF, Hizballah, and Iraqi Shia terrorist groups have all increased the number of their personnel in Syria since the start of the conflict. Iran also continued to send arms to Syria, often through Iraqi airspace, in violation of the UN Security Council prohibition against Iran selling or transferring arms and related materials.

While terrorism by non-state actors related to AQ and state-sponsored terrorism originating in Iran remained the predominant concern of the United States, other forms of terrorism undermined peace and security around the world. In Turkey, the DHKP/C was responsible for a number of high-profile attacks in 2013, including exploding a suicide vest inside the employee entrance to the U.S. Embassy in Ankara on February 1. Anarchists in Greece launched periodic attacks, targeting private businesses, foreign missions, and symbols of the state. In Colombia, there were still hundreds of terrorist incidents around the country. In Northern Ireland, dissident Republican groups continued their campaigns of violence. “Lone offender” violent extremists also remain a concern, as we saw on April 15, 2013, in the United States, when two violent extremists exploded two pressure cooker bombs near the Boston Marathon’s finish line, killing three people and injuring an estimated 264 others.

* * *

To meet the challenges described herein, our response to terrorism cannot depend on military or law enforcement alone. We are committed to a whole of government counterterrorism effort that focuses on countering violent extremism; building the capacity of partner nation security forces to address threats within their own borders and participate in regional counterterrorism operations; and strengthening relationships with U.S. partners around the world to make the rule of law a critical part of a broader, more comprehensive counterterrorism enterprise. See Chapter 5, Terrorist Safe Havens (7120 Report) in this report for further information on these initiatives, which also include designating foreign terrorist organizations and individuals, countering violent extremist narratives, strengthening efforts to counter the financing of terrorism, and furthering multilateral initiatives such as the Global Counterterrorism Forum.

AFRICA OVERVIEW

The Africa region experienced significant levels of terrorist activity in 2013. In East Africa, the Somalia-based terrorist group al-Shabaab remained the primary terrorist threat. Somali security forces and the AU Mission in Somalia (AMISOM) continued to make gains against al-Shabaab in 2013, but an inability to undertake consistent offensive operations against the group allowed al-Shabaab to develop and carry out asymmetric attacks, including outside of Somalia. Most notably, al-Shabaab launched an attack against the Westgate Mall in Nairobi, Kenya on September 21 that left at least 65 people dead. The attack, which targeted innocent civilians, was claimed by al-Shabaab as a response to the involvement of Kenyan armed forces units in Somalia, who in late 2012 expelled al-Shabaab from the port city of Kismayo, a major revenue source for al-Shabaab. Al-Shabaab issued persistent threats to other countries contributing troops to AMISOM. Driven out of major urban areas, al-Shabaab has returned to a strategy focused on asymmetric attacks intended to discredit and destabilize the nascent Federal Government of Somalia. In 2013, the United States continued to support AMISOM and the establishment of a stable Somali government, and worked to enhance counterterrorism capacity in Somalia and throughout the broader region.

Various East African countries continued to detect, deter, disrupt, investigate, and prosecute terrorist incidents; enhance domestic and regional efforts to bolster border security; and create integrated and dedicated counterterrorism strategies. Counterterrorism cooperation across the region picked up following the Westgate attack and nations began to examine their procedures for responding to attacks on soft targets.

In West Africa, conflict in Nigeria continued throughout the northern part of the country, with Boko Haram and related actors committing hundreds of attacks, reportedly resulting in over a thousand casualties in 2013 alone. This violence reportedly spilled over into neighboring Cameroon, Chad, and Niger.

French and allied African forces successfully disrupted and pushed back efforts by al-Qa’ida in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) and other violent extremist groups to control northern Mali. In August, successful elections took place in Mali and a regional African peacekeeping force was installed with Western support to restore stability and governance to the country. France and other international partners continue to contribute forces to the region to assist the Malian government to rebuild and to deter terrorist threats. Western efforts to increase counterterrorism capacity in the region were focused in 2013 on enhanced border security, regional information sharing and cooperation, and countering violent extremism.

EAST ASIA AND PACIFIC OVERVIEW

Overall, countries in the East Asia and Pacific region continued to weaken the ability of terrorist groups to operate and constrain the activities of large terrorist organizations such as Jemaah Islamiya (JI), Jemaah Anshorut Tauhid (JAT), and the Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG). Ongoing concerns remained, however, notably in Indonesia, where terrorist attacks on police continued, and in the southern Philippines, where improvised explosive device (IED) attacks occurred on several occasions in Mindanao and rogue elements of the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) conducted a violent three-week siege of Zamboanga City that killed dozens of Philippine Security Force members and displaced thousands. The tri-border region of the Sulu Sea remained an area of concern for cross-border weapons smuggling and kidnapping for ransom.

The Philippine government moved closer to a peace agreement with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) by signing three of the four annexes to the 2012 Peace Framework Agreement on the Bangsamoro (FAB), but terrorist incidents such as bombings and raids were more frequent in 2013 than in the years preceding the signing.

The trend of violent extremists focusing on domestic targets continued in Indonesia, with numerous attacks on police, including a series of separate high-profile attacks in which four Indonesia law enforcement officials were killed and seven were wounded. Indonesia also experienced its first suicide bombing in two years when a motorcycle-riding bomber targeted a police facility in Poso, Central Sulawesi. Challenges presented by overcrowded prisons and weaknesses in correctional facility management and security were highlighted when inmates, including convicted terrorists, escaped in a series of prison breaks.

Malaysia continued its legal reform efforts in 2013, bringing charges under the new Security Offenses (Special Measures) Act of 2012 (SOSMA). Malaysia arrested former al-Qa’ida operative Yazid Sufaat, who was the first to be charged under SOSMA. In Thailand, two Iranians behind a failed 2012 plot, in which explosives were accidentally set off that allegedly were targeting Israeli diplomats in Bangkok, were convicted.

Australia maintained its position as a regional leader in the fight against terrorism and worked to strengthen the Asia-Pacific region’s counterterrorism capacity through a range of bilateral and regional initiatives in organizations such as ASEAN, the ASEAN Regional Forum, and the Pacific Island Forum. The Japanese government continued to participate in international counterterrorism efforts at multilateral, regional, and bilateral levels through the ASEAN-Japan Counterterrorism meeting and the Japan-China Counterterrorism Consultations.

EUROPE OVERVIEW

Terrorist incidents, including deadly attacks, continued to plague Europe in 2013. Some attacks were apparently perpetrated by “lone offender” assailants while others were organized by groups claiming a range of extremist ideological motivations, from nationalism to right-wing and left-wing political theories to various religious beliefs, including violent Islamist extremism. In some cases the boundaries between ideologies were blurred.

A major challenge to Europe was the increasing travel of European citizens – mostly young men – to and from Syria seeking to join forces opposing the Asad regime. Many of them ended up in the ranks of violent extremist groups such as al-Nusrah Front or the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). These “foreign fighters” sparked increasing concerns, and actions to address them, by European countries worried about the growing number of their citizens traveling to the battlefield and possibly returning radicalized. European governments, in particular the EU and several member states affected by this phenomenon, took action to assess the problem and to devise an array of responses to discourage their citizens from going to Syria to take part in the conflict. These efforts ranged from new administrative procedures to prevent travel to Syria, to steps to counter recruitment and facilitation efforts, and programs to investigate and/or reintegrate persons returning from conflict zones. In the western Balkans, governments in EU candidate states and aspirants were also committed to responding effectively to the foreign fighter problem, and sought assistance to fill gaps in their capacity to do so from the United States, the EU, and others. European governments also worked with the United States and other international partners in various fora, including the Global Counterterrorism Forum, to respond to the foreign fighter problem and strengthen general counterterrorism cooperation.

The Bulgarian government continued its investigation of the July 2012 attack in Burgas which left five Israelis and one Bulgarian citizen dead. In February 2013, the government publicly implicated Hizballah in the bombing. A court in Cyprus convicted a Lebanese Hizballah operative of various criminal offenses after he was apprehended surveilling potential Israeli targets on the island. Recognizing the threat posed by Hizballah, the EU in July 2013 agreed to designate what it termed the “military wing” of Hizballah as a terrorist group, a notable step forward.

Europe was the scene of several significant terrorist attacks in 2013. In Turkey, the most significant such incident in the country’s modern history took place in May when 52 people died in a bombing in Reyhanli, on the border with Syria. In the Russian city of Volgograd, an attack on a city bus in October and two more attacks at the end of December claimed a total of 41 lives. The U.S. Embassy in Ankara was the target of a suicide bomb attack by a member of the Revolutionary Liberation People’s Party/Front in February, in which a Turkish citizen on the Embassy guard force was killed. In January, three Kurdish women activists were murdered in Paris, allegedly by a Turkish Kurd now in French police custody, in a crime linked to terrorism although the motive of the killer remains unclear.

Disclosures about alleged U.S. “spying” on European partners sparked concern but did not have a major effect on long-standing and close transatlantic cooperation in combating terrorist threats.

THE MIDDLE EAST AND NORTH AFRICA OVERVIEW

The Near East region experienced significant levels of terrorist activity in 2013, with instability and weak governance in North Africa, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen continuing to have ramifications for the broader region. Al-Qa’ida and its affiliates exploited opportunities to conduct operations amid this fragile political and security climate.

In Libya, lack of countrywide security coverage contributed to a high threat environment. Libya’s weak security institutions, coupled with ready access to loose weapons and porous borders, provided violent extremists significant opportunities to act and plan operations.

Reflecting its greater regional ambitions, al-Qa’ida in Iraq changed its name in 2013 to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and stepped up its attacks across Iraq. Iraqi security forces demonstrated some ability to confront this challenge in terms of protecting larger installations and events, and finding and arresting terrorist suspects. ISIL also took advantage of the permissive security environment in Syria. The Syrian government historically had an important role in the growth of terrorist networks in Syria through the permissive attitude the Asad regime took towards al-Qa’ida’s foreign fighter facilitation efforts during the Iraq conflict. Syrian government awareness and encouragement of violent extremists’ transit through Syria to enter Iraq for many years, for the purpose of fighting Coalition Troops, is well documented – Syria was a key hub for foreign fighters en route to Iraq. Those very networks were the seedbed for the violent extremist elements that terrorized the Syrian population in 2013.

Shia militants continued to threaten Iraqi security in 2013, and were alleged to have been responsible for numerous attacks against Mujahadin-e Khalq members that continued to reside at Camp Hurriya near Baghdad. Hizballah provided a wide range of critical support to the Asad regime – including clearing regions of opposition forces, and providing training, advice, and logistical assistance to the Syrian Army – as the regime continued its brutal crackdown against the Syrian people.

Al-Qa’ida in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) has also taken advantage of the instability in the region, particularly in Libya and Mali. In January, an AQIM offshoot led by Mokhtar Belmokhtar attacked an oil facility near In Amenas, Algeria, resulting in the deaths of 39 foreign hostages including three Americans. Kidnapping for ransom operations continued to yield significant sums for AQIM, and it conducted attacks against members of state security services within the Trans-Sahara region.

In Tunisia, the terrorist group Ansar al-Shari’a in Tunisia (AAS-T) precipitated a government crisis by assassinating, among others, two secular politicians in February and July 2013. Ansar al-Shari’a was designated a Terrorist Organization by the Tunisian government in August.

The Government of Yemen continued its fight against al-Qa’ida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), although struggling somewhat in this effort due to an ongoing political and security restructuring within the government itself. AQAP continued to exhibit its capability by targeting government installations and security and intelligence officials, but also struck at soft targets, such as hospitals. President Hadi continued to support U.S. counterterrorism objectives in Yemen, and encouraged greater cooperation between U.S. and Yemeni counterterrorism forces.

Despite these persistent threats, governments across the region continued to build and exhibit their counterterrorism capabilities, disrupting the activities of a number of terrorists. Although AQ affiliate presence and activity in the Sahel and parts of the Maghreb remains worrisome, the group’s isolation in Algeria and smaller pockets of North Africa grew as partner efforts in Algeria, Morocco, and Tunisia increased.

In Egypt, significant political instability presented various security challenges for the government, leading to an increase in violent extremist activity in the Sinai and parts of lower Egypt, including Cairo. Government security forces aggressively targeted violent extremist activity in these areas.

In Gaza, sporadic rocket attacks launched by Hamas and other Gaza-based terrorist groups continued, as well as ongoing and related smuggling activity by these groups along the Gaza-Sinai border region. Israeli officials expressed concerns about the smuggling of long-range rockets from the Sinai Peninsula through tunnels into Gaza, but also recognized the positive impact of increased Egyptian government efforts to fight smuggling through such tunnels in preventing weapons and dual-use materials from reaching Gaza.

In 2013, Iran’s state sponsorship of terrorism worldwide remained undiminished through the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force (IRGC-QF), its Ministry of Intelligence and Security, and Tehran’s ally Hizballah, which remained a significant threat to the stability of Lebanon and the broader region. The U.S. government continued efforts to counter Iranian and proxy support for terrorist operations via sanctions and other legal tools. The United States also welcomed the EU’s July 2013 designation of Hizballah’s military wing as a terrorist organization.

SOUTH AND CENTRAL ASIA OVERVIEW

South Asia remained a front line in the battle against terrorism. Although al-Qa’ida’s (AQ) core in Afghanistan and Pakistan has been seriously degraded, AQ’s global leadership continued to operate from its safe haven in the region and struggled to communicate effectively with affiliate groups outside of South Asia. AQ maintained ties with other terrorist organizations in the region, such as Tehrik-e Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and the Haqqani Network (HQN). These alliances continued to provide the group with additional resources and capabilities. In 2013, terrorists in South Asia carried out operations in heavily populated areas and continued to target regional governmental representatives and U.S. persons. On numerous occasions, civilians throughout South Asia were wounded or killed in terrorist events.

Afghanistan, in particular, continued to experience aggressive and coordinated attacks by the Afghan Taliban, HQN, and other insurgent and terrorist groups. A number of these attacks were planned and launched from safe havens in Pakistan. Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) are now providing security across all of Afghanistan as the transition to full Afghan leadership on security continues in anticipation of the 2014 drawdown of U.S. and Coalition Forces (CF). The ANSF and CF, in partnership, took aggressive action against terrorist elements in Afghanistan, especially in Kabul, and many of the eastern and northern provinces.

Pakistan continued to experience significant terrorist violence, including sectarian attacks. The Pakistani military undertook operations against groups that conducted attacks within Pakistan such as TTP, but did not take action against other groups such as Lashkar-e-Tayyiba (LeT), which continued to operate, train, rally, and fundraise in Pakistan during the past year. Afghan Taliban and HQN leadership and facilitation networks continued to find safe haven in Pakistan, and Pakistani authorities did not take significant military or law enforcement action against these groups.

Levels of terrorist violence were similar to previous years. India remained severely affected by and vulnerable to terrorism, including from Pakistan-based groups and their affiliates as well as left-wing violent extremists. The Government of India, in response, continued to undertake efforts to coordinate its counterterrorism capabilities more effectively and expanded its cooperation and coordination with the international community and regional partners.

Bangladesh, an influential counterterrorism partner in the region, continued to make strides against international terrorism. The government’s ongoing counterterrorism efforts have made it more difficult for transnational terrorists to operate in or use Bangladeshi territory, and there were no major terrorist incidents in Bangladesh in 2013. The United States and Bangladesh signed a Counterterrorism Cooperation Initiative on October 22, 2013, to enhance bilateral cooperation.

The potential challenges to stability that could accompany the changes of the international force presence in Afghanistan in 2014 remained a significant concern for the Central Asian leaders. Additionally, terrorist groups with ties to Central Asia – notably the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan and the Islamic Jihad Union – continued to be an issue even as they operated outside of the Central Asian states. The effectiveness of some Central Asian countries’ efforts to reduce their vulnerability to perceived terrorist threats was difficult to discern in some cases, however, due to failure to distinguish clearly between terrorism and violent extremism on one hand and political opposition, or non-traditional religious practices, on the other.

WESTERN HEMISPHERE OVERVIEW

In 2013, governments in Latin America made modest improvements to their counterterrorism capabilities and their border security. Corruption, weak government institutions, insufficient interagency cooperation, weak or non-existent legislation, and a lack of resources remained the primary causes for the lack of significant progress in some of the countries. Transnational criminal organizations continued to pose a more significant threat to the region than transnational terrorism, and most countries made efforts to investigate possible connections with terrorist organizations.

Iran’s influence in the Western Hemisphere remained a concern. However, due to strong sanctions imposed on the country by both the United States and the EU, Iran has been unable to expand its economic and political ties in Latin America.

The United States continued to work with partner nations to build capacity to detect and address any potential terrorist threat.

There were no known operational cells of either al-Qa’ida or Hizballah in the hemisphere, although ideological sympathizers in South America and the Caribbean continued to provide financial and ideological support to those and other terrorist groups in the Middle East and South Asia. The Tri-Border area of Argentina, Brazil, and Paraguay continued to be an important regional nexus of arms, narcotics, and human trafficking; counterfeiting; pirated goods; and money laundering – all potential funding sources for terrorist organizations.

Despite the peace negotiations throughout the year, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia committed the majority of terrorist attacks in the Western Hemisphere in 2013.

STATE SPONSORS OF TERRORISM

To designate a country as a State Sponsor of Terrorism, the Secretary of State must determine that the government of such country has repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism. Once a country is designated, it remains a State Sponsor of Terrorism until the designation is rescinded in accordance with statutory criteria. A wide range of sanctions are imposed as a result of a State Sponsor of Terrorism designation, including:

–A ban on arms-related exports and sales;

–Controls over exports of dual-use items, requiring 30-day Congressional notification for goods or services that could significantly enhance the terrorist-list country’s military capability or ability to support terrorism;

–Prohibitions on economic assistance; and

–Imposition of miscellaneous financial and other restrictions.

This report provides a snapshot of events during 2013 relevant to countries designated as State Sponsors of Terrorism; it does not constitute a new announcement regarding such designations. More information on State Sponsor of Terrorism designations may be found online at http://www.state.gov/j/ct/c14151.htm.

CUBA

Cuba was designated as a State Sponsor of Terrorism in 1982.

Cuba has long provided safe haven to members of Basque Fatherland and Liberty (ETA) and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). Reports continued to indicate that Cuba’s ties to ETA have become more distant, and that about eight of the two dozen ETA members in Cuba were relocated with the cooperation of the Spanish government. Throughout 2013, the Government of Cuba supported and hosted negotiations between the FARC and the Government of Colombia aimed at brokering a peace agreement between the two. The Government of Cuba has facilitated the travel of FARC representatives to Cuba to participate in these negotiations, in coordination with representatives of the Governments of Colombia, Venezuela, and Norway, as well as the Red Cross.

There was no indication that the Cuban government provided weapons or paramilitary training to terrorist groups.

The Cuban government continued to harbor fugitives wanted in the United States. The Cuban government also provided support such as housing, food ration books, and medical care for these individuals.

IRAN

Designated as a State Sponsor of Terrorism in 1984, Iran continued its terrorist-related activity, including support for Palestinian terrorist groups in Gaza, and for Hizballah. It has also increased its presence in Africa and attempted to smuggle arms to Houthi separatists in Yemen and Shia oppositionists in Bahrain. Iran used the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force (IRGC-QF) and its regional proxy groups to implement foreign policy goals, provide cover for intelligence operations, and create instability in the Middle East. The IRGC-QF is the regime’s primary mechanism for cultivating and supporting terrorists abroad.

Iran views Syria as a crucial causeway in its weapons supply route to Hizballah, its primary beneficiary. In 2013, Iran continued to provide arms, financing, training, and the facilitation of Iraqi Shia fighters to the Asad regime’s brutal crackdown, a crackdown that has resulted in the death of more than 100,000 civilians in Syria. Iran has publicly admitted sending members of the IRGC to Syria in an advisory role. There are reports indicating some of these troops are IRGC-QF members and that they have taken part in direct combat operations. In February, senior IRGC-QF commander Brigadier General Hassan Shateri was killed in or near Zabadani, Syria. This was the first publicly announced death of a senior Iranian military official in Syria. In November, IRGC-QF commander Mohammad Jamalizadeh Paghaleh was also killed in Aleppo, Syria. Subsequent Iranian media reports stated that Paghaleh was volunteering in Syria to defend the Sayyida Zainab mosque, which is located in Damascus. The location of Paghaleh’s death, over 200 miles away from the mosque he was reported to be protecting, demonstrated Iran’s intent to mask the operations of IRGC-QF forces in Syria.

Iran has historically provided weapons, training, and funding to Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist groups, including the Palestine Islamic Jihad (PIJ) and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (PFLP-GC), although Hamas’s ties to Tehran have been strained due to the Syrian civil war. Since the end of the 2006 Israeli-Hizballah conflict, Iran has also assisted in rearming Hizballah, in direct violation of UNSCR 1701. Iran has provided hundreds of millions of dollars in support of Hizballah in Lebanon and has trained thousands of its fighters at camps in Iran. These trained fighters often use these skills in support of the Asad regime in Syria.

Despite its pledge to support Iraq’s stabilization, Iran trained, funded, and provided guidance to Iraqi Shia militant groups. The IRGC-QF, in concert with Hizballah, provided training outside of Iraq as well as advisors inside Iraq for Shia militants in the construction and use of sophisticated improvised explosive device technology and other advanced weaponry. Similar to Hizballah fighters, many of these trained Shia militants then use these skills to fight for the Asad regime in Syria, often at the behest of Iran.

On January 23, 2013, Yemeni authorities seized an Iranian dhow, the Jihan, off the coast of Yemen. The dhow was carrying sophisticated Chinese antiaircraft missiles, C-4 explosives, rocket-propelled grenades, and a number of other weapons and explosives. The shipment of lethal aid was likely headed to Houthi separatists in Northern Yemen. Iran actively supports members of the Houthi movement, including activities intended to build military capabilities, which could pose a greater threat to security and stability in Yemen and the surrounding region.

In late April 2013, the Government of Bosnia declared two Iranian diplomats, Jadidi Sohrab and Hamzeh Dolab Ahmad, persona non grata after Israeli intelligence reported they were members of Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence and Security. One of the two men had been spotted in India, Georgia, and Thailand, all of which were sites of a simultaneous bombing campaign in February 2012, according to Israeli intelligence. Both diplomats were subsequently expelled from Bosnia.

On December 29, 2013, the Bahraini Coast Guard interdicted a speedboat filled with weapons and explosives that was likely bound for Shia oppositionists in Bahrain, specifically the 14 February Youth Coalition (14 FYC). Bahraini authorities accused the IRGC-QF of providing opposition militants with explosives training in order to carry out attacks in Bahrain. The interdiction led to the discovery of two weapons and explosives cache sites in Bahrain, the dismantling of a car bomb, and the arrest of 15 Bahraini nationals.

Iran remained unwilling to bring to justice senior al-Qa’ida (AQ) members it continued to detain, and refused to publicly identify those senior members in its custody. Iran allowed AQ facilitators Muhsin al-Fadhli and Adel Radi Saqr al-Wahabi al-Harbi to operate a core facilitation pipeline through Iran, enabling AQ to move funds and fighters to South Asia and also to Syria. Al-Fadhli is a veteran AQ operative who has been active for years. Al-Fadhli began working with the Iran-based AQ facilitation network in 2009 and was later arrested by Iranian authorities. He was released in 2011 and assumed leadership of the Iran-based AQ facilitation network.

Iran remains a state of proliferation concern. Despite multiple UNSCRs requiring Iran to suspend its sensitive nuclear proliferation activities, Iran continued to violate its international obligations regarding its nuclear program. For further information, see the Report to Congress on Iran-related Multilateral Sanctions Regime Efforts (November 2013), and theReport on the Status of Bilateral and Multilateral Efforts Aimed at Curtailing the Pursuit of Iran of Nuclear Weapons Technology (September 2012).

SUDAN

Sudan was designated as a State Sponsor of Terrorism in 1993. In 2013, the Government of Sudan remained a generally cooperative counterterrorism partner and continued to take action to address threats to U.S. interests and personnel in Sudan.

Elements of al-Qa’ida (AQ)-inspired terrorist groups remained in Sudan. The Government of Sudan has taken steps to limit the activities of these elements, and has worked to disrupt foreign fighters’ use of Sudan as a logistics base and transit point for terrorists going to Mali, Syria, and Afghanistan. However, groups continued to operate in Sudan in 2013 and there continued to be reports of Sudanese nationals participating in terrorist organizations. For example, regional media outlets alleged one Sudanese national was part of an al-Shabaab terrorist cell that attacked the Westgate Mall in Nairobi in September. There was also evidence that Sudanese violent extremists participated in terrorist activities in Somalia and Mali.

In 2013, Sudan continued to allow members of Hamas to travel, fundraise, and live in Sudan.

The UN and NGOs reported in 2013 that the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) is likely operating in the disputed Kafia Kingi area, claimed by Sudan and South Sudan, in close proximity to Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF). At year’s end, the United States continued to engage the Government of Sudan, the AU, and the UN to evaluate these reports.

The kidnapping of foreigners for ransom in Darfur continued, although no U.S. citizens were kidnapped in 2013. These kidnappings have hindered humanitarian operations in Darfur. Abductees have been released unharmed amid rumors of ransoms having been paid.

In 2013, the United States continued to pursue justice for the January 1, 2008 killing of two U.S. Embassy employees. At the end of the year, the Sudanese Supreme Court was deliberating on an appeal filed by defense attorneys of the three remaining men convicted of the two murders, requesting that their death sentences be commuted. In February 2013, one of five men convicted of aiding the 2010 escape attempt by the four convicted killers received a presidential commutation of his remaining sentence. Government of Sudan authorities explained his release was part of a broad administrative parole affecting 200 other prisoners who had served some portion of their sentences with good behavior. U.S. officials protested the commutation and urged the Government of Sudan authorities to imprison the convicted accomplice for the full 12 years of his sentence.

In 2013, the U.S. Department of State designated three of the individuals who participated in the January 1, 2008 killings – Abdelbasit Alhaj Alhasan Haj Hamad, Mohamed Makawi Ibrahim Mohamed, and Abd Al-Ra’Ouf Abu Zaid Mohamed Hamza – as Specially Designated Global Terrorists under Executive Order 13224.

In 2013, Sudanese authorities continued to prosecute 25 individuals detained during a raid in December 2012 on what the Government of Sudan described as a terrorist training camp operating in Dinder National Park. The so-called “Dinder cell” as of December was still awaiting trial on charges of terrorism and murder stemming from the deaths of several police involved in the December 2012 raid. At least one fringe party, Just Peace Forum, has called upon President Bashir to pardon members of the “Dinder Cell,” but the court cases were still ongoing at the end of the year. One trial judge from the country’s terrorism court remanded several cases back to the attorney general for additional interrogations.

The Government of Sudan has made some progress in opposing terrorist financing, although members of Hamas are permitted to conduct fundraising in Sudan. The Central Bank of Sudan and its financial intelligence unit circulate to financial institutions a list of individuals and entities that have been included on the consolidated list of the UNSC 1267/1989 (al-Qa’ida) Sanctions Committee, as well as the U.S.-designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations and E.O. lists. The financing of terrorism per UNSCR 1373 (2001) was criminalized in Sudan pursuant to Sudan’s Money Laundering Act of 2003.

Sudan is generally responsive to international community concerns about counterterrorism efforts. Sudan’s vast, mostly unmonitored borders with Libya, Chad, the Central African Republic, South Sudan, Ethiopia, and Eritrea hampered counterterrorism efforts. Nonetheless, in recent years Sudan has forged increasingly stronger relations with its neighbors. For example, in December 2013, Government of Sudan law enforcement authorities hosted a regional workshop on counterterrorism initiatives under the auspices of the Intergovernmental Authority on Development’s program for security sector reform.

SYRIA

Designated in 1979 as a State Sponsor of Terrorism, the Asad regime continued its political support to a variety of terrorist groups affecting the stability of the region and beyond, even amid significant internal unrest. The regime continued to provide political and weapons support to Hizballah and continued to allow Iran to rearm the terrorist organization. The Asad regime’s relationship with Hizballah and Iran continued to grow stronger in 2013 as the conflict in Syria continued. President Bashar al-Asad remained a staunch defender of Iran’s policies, while Iran has exhibited equally energetic support for Syrian regime efforts to defeat the Syrian opposition. Statements supporting terrorist groups, particularly Hizballah, were often in Syrian government speeches and press statements.

The Syrian government had an important role in the growth of terrorist networks in Syria through the permissive attitude the Asad regime took towards al-Qa’ida’s foreign fighter facilitation efforts during the Iraq conflict. Syrian government awareness and encouragement for many years of violent extremists’ transit through Syria to enter Iraq, for the purpose of fighting Coalition Troops, is well documented. Syria was a key hub for foreign fighters en route to Iraq. Those very networks were the seedbed for the violent extremist elements that terrorized the Syrian population in 2013.

As part of a broader strategy during the year, the regime has attempted to portray Syria itself as a victim of terrorism, characterizing all of its armed opponents as “terrorists.”

Asad’s government has continued to generate significant concern regarding the role it plays in terrorist financing. Industry experts reported that 60 percent of all business transactions were conducted in cash and that nearly 80 percent of all Syrians did not use formal banking services. Despite Syrian legislation that required money changers to be licensed by the end of 2007, many continued to operate illegally in Syria’s vast black market, estimated to be as large as Syria’s formal economy. Regional hawala networks remained intertwined with smuggling and trade-based money laundering, and were facilitated by notoriously corrupt customs and immigration officials. This raised significant concerns that some members of the Syrian government and the business elite were complicit in terrorist finance schemes conducted through these institutions.

In 2013, the United States continued to closely monitor Syria’s proliferation-sensitive materials and facilities, including Syria’s significant stockpile of chemical weapons, which the United States assesses remains under the Asad regime’s control. Despite the progress made through the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapon’s Executive Council and UNSC Resolution 2118 (2013) to dismantle and destroy Syria’s chemical weapons program, there continues to be significant concern, given ongoing instability in Syria, that these materials could find their way to terrorist organizations. The United States is coordinating closely with a number of like-minded nations and partners to prevent Syria’s stockpiles of chemical and advanced conventional weapons from falling into the hands of violent extremists.

TERRORIST SAFE HAVENS

Terrorist safe havens described in this report include ungoverned, under-governed, or ill-governed physical areas where terrorists are able to organize, plan, raise funds, communicate, recruit, train, transit, and operate in relative security because of inadequate governance capacity, political will, or both.
AFRICA

Somalia. In 2013, large areas of territory throughout Somalia provided safe haven for terrorists. Following significant military offensives in 2012 that pushed al-Shabaab out of most urban areas of southern and central Somalia, al-Shabaab still maintained freedom of movement and some control in some rural areas,as well as a destabilizing presence in some urban areas. In each of these areas, al-Shabaab could organize, plan, raise funds, communicate, recruit, train, and operate in relative security due to inadequate security, justice, and governance capacity. The absence of anti-money laundering and counterterrorist finance laws, regulatory bodies, and counterterrorism law enforcement resulted principally from a lack of capacity, rather than a lack of political will.

In 2013, the city of Barawe served as al-Shabaab’s primary urban safe haven. Al-Shabaab also maintained a presence in the Golis Mountains of Puntland and in some of Puntland’s larger urban areas. Al-Shabaab continued to operate largely uncontested large sections of rural areas in the middle and lower Jubba regions, the Lower Shabelle region, and the Gedo, Bay, and Bakol regions. Additionally, Somalia’s long unguarded coastline, porous borders, and proximity to the Arabian Peninsula allowed foreign fighters and al-Shabaab members to transit throughout the region. Areas under al-Shabaab control provided a permissive environment for al-Shabaab operatives and affiliated foreign fighters to conduct training and terrorist planning. However, foreign fighters maintained limited freedom within al-Shabaab due to internal strife within the group. The capability of the Federal Government of Somalia (FGS) to prevent and preempt al-Shabaab terrorist attacks remained limited in 2013, although the FGS was committed to countering terrorism and collaborating with international partners, including the United States. As 2013 came to a close, AMISOM was preparing for another offensive against al-Shabaab in conjunction with Somali National Army troops following the UN Security Council’s authorization of 4,000-plus additional troops for AMISOM.

The Trans-Sahara. The primary terrorist threat in the Trans-Sahara region in 2013 was posed by al-Qa’ida in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) and associated splinter groups, such as the al-Mulathamun Battalion (AMB) and the Movement for Unity and Jihad in West Africa (MUJAO).Although its leadership remained primarily based in northeastern Algeria, AQIM factions also operated in northern Mali and the neighboring region. In 2013, these violent extremist groups used footholds in northern Mali to conduct operations, although safe haven areas in northern Mali were significantly diminished by the French and African intervention in 2013.

Mali. Although the Government of Mali lacks the capacity to control much of its vast, sparsely populated northern region, international and Malian forces were able to erode terrorist safe haven in the region in 2013. French Serval and UN Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali (MINUSMA) operations enabled Mali to redeploy government administrators and security forces to urban population centers in the northern regions through the end of 2013. These operations reduced the ability of AQIM and other terrorist groups such as Ansar al-Dine and MUJAO to organize, plan, raise funds, communicate, recruit, train, and operate in the northern region.

The new Malian government demonstrated its political will to deny safe haven to terrorists by supporting and collaborating with international efforts to stabilize northern Mali. The Malian government also demonstrated its political will to increase governance capacity in the North by holding a National Decentralization Conference in October 2013. During the conference, the Government of Mali identified measures to reinforce decentralized authority over northern Mali and to increase the capacity of local authority to govern over the vast territories. The government decided at the conference to create new administrative regions with the intention to increase the presence of the state in the northern region.

Despite having made some progress in disrupting terrorist safe havens in northern Mali, challenges remain, including dealing with long-existing, unregulated smuggling activities integral to the local economy. Controlling long and porous international borders also remains a challenge for the Malian government. The tacit engagement of local populations in illicit commercial activities and licit smuggling in northern Mali provides implicit support to criminal enterprises which undermines efforts to destabilize terrorist networks. Some segments of local populations have been willing to tolerate and enable AQIM’s presence to avoid conflict and for financial gain, rather than ideological affinity.

In September 2013, the foreign assistance restriction to the Government of Mali was lifted. The State Department plans to reengage with the Government of Mali to strengthen biological security and reduce the risk of biological weapons acquisition by terrorists.

SOUTHEAST ASIA

The Sulu/Sulawesi Seas Littoral. The numerous islands in the Sulawesi Sea and the Sulu Archipelago make it a difficult region for authorities to monitor. The range of licit and illicit activities that occur there – including worker migration, tourism, and trade – pose additional challenges to identifying and countering the terrorist threat. Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Philippines have improved efforts to control their shared maritime boundaries, including through the U.S.-funded Coast Watch South radar network, which is intended to enhance domain awareness in the waters south and southwest of Mindanao. Nevertheless, the expanse remained difficult to control. Surveillance improved but remained partial at best, and traditional smuggling and piracy groups have provided an effective cover for terrorist activities, including the movement of personnel, equipment, and funds. The United States has sponsored the Trilateral Interagency Maritime Law Enforcement Working Group since 2008, which has resulted in better coordination among Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Philippines on issues of interdiction and maritime security.

The Southern Philippines. The geographical composition of the Philippines, spread out over 7,107 islands, make it difficult for the central government to maintain a presence in all areas. Counterterrorism operations over the past 12 years, however, have been successful at isolating the location and constraining the activities of transnational terrorists. U.S.-Philippines counterterrorism cooperation remained strong. Abu Sayyaf Group members, numbering a few hundred, were known to be present in remote areas in Mindanao, especially on the islands of Basilan and Sulu. JI members, of whom there are only a small number remaining, are in a few isolated pockets of Mindanao. Peace agreements between the Philippine government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) are suspected to have limited safe haven areas within MILF territories. Continued pressure from Philippine security forces made it difficult for terrorists to organize, plan, raise funds, communicate, recruit, train, and operate.

THE MIDDLE EAST

Iraq. In the vast desert areas of western Iraq, especially in Anbar and Ninewa Provinces, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) established semi-permanent encampments. These areas reportedly included camps, training centers, command headquarters, and stocks of weapons. ISIL fighters allegedly controlled villages, oases, grazing areas, and valleys in these areas and were able to move with little impediment across international borders in the area.

Also, the lack of sustained coordination between Government of Iraq and the Kurdistan Regional government security forces in the Disputed Internal Boundaries areas made it easier for insurgents and terrorists to operate or move through these areas unchecked.

The Government of Iraq lacked the capabilities to fully deny safe havens to terrorists, but not the will to do so. Iraqi Security Forces have conducted air and ground operations to destroy encampments but face well-trained and heavily equipped ISIL fighters. The scale of the terrorist presence in Iraq is compounded by the cross-border flow of weapons and personnel between Iraq and Syria. The United States has encouraged the Government of Iraq to seek broader cross-border counterterrorism cooperation with like-minded neighboring countries.

During the first half of 2013, Iraq, Turkey, and the United States continued a trilateral security dialogue as part of ongoing efforts to combat the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) in the region. As part of peace process negotiations between the Government of Turkey and jailed PKK leader Abdullah Ocalan, hundreds of PKK fighters left Turkey and entered the Iraqi Kurdistan Region in northern Iraq starting in May.

Lebanon. The Lebanese government does not exercise complete control over all regions in the country or its borders with Syria and Israel. Hizballah militias controlled access to parts of the country, limiting access by Lebanon’s security services, including the police and army, which allowed terrorists to operate in these areas with relative impunity. Palestinian refugee camps were also used as safe havens by Palestinian and other armed groups and were used to house weapons and shelter wanted criminals.

The Lebanese security services conducted frequent operations to capture terrorists. They did not target or arrest Hizballah members.

Libya. With a weak government possessing very few tools to exert control throughout its territory, Libya has become a terrorist safe haven and its transit routes are used by various terrorist groups, notably in the southwest and northeast. The General National Congress has tried to tackle the lawlessness of the southern region by temporarily closing – at least officially – the country’s southern border, and declaring large swaths of area (west from Ghadames, Ghat, Ubari, Sebha, Murzuq, and across a 620 miles off-road east to Kufra) as closed military zones to be administered under emergency law. In reality, however, Libya’s weak and under-resourced institutions have had little influence in that region, and have failed to implement this vague decree, as is evident from frequent ethnic clashes in the area. Instead, tribes and militias continue to control the area, and traders, smugglers, and terrorists continue to utilize ancient trade routes across these borders. All of Libya’s borders are porous and vulnerable to this activity, and the United States is working closely with the EU Border Assistance Mission to help the government mitigate these threats.

The Libyan government recognizes the gravity of the threats emanating from its borders, and is willing to work with the international community to overcome its inability to tackle these problems itself. In 2013, the United States signed an agreement with the Libyan government to cooperate on destroying Libya’s stockpile of legacy chemical weapons in accordance with its obligations as an Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) member state. Libya successfully completed operations for the disposal of its remaining mustard gas filled in artillery projectile and aerial bombs in January 2014. Libya also previously completed the disposal of its remaining bulk mustard in 2013. There also have been reports of thousands of barrels of yellowcake uranium, a foundational material for nuclear enrichment, precariously secured in a former military facility near Sebha in Libya’s south. Although representing limited risk of trafficking due to the bulk and weight of the storage containers, Libya agreed to host an assessment team of inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency to survey the stockpile in early 2014.

Yemen. The Government of Yemen, under President Abdo Rabbo Mansour Hadi, remained a strong partner of the United States on counterterrorism issues. Military campaigns against AQAP strongholds in the southern governorates in 2012, along with tribal resistance in the form of pro-government Popular Committees, eliminated much of the territory considered a “safe haven” for AQAP terrorists. In 2013, however, Yemeni security forces have been losing the ground gained in 2012. The impunity with which AQAP conducted ambush-style attacks and assassinations, particularly in the Abyan, Shebwah, and Hadramawt Governorates, suggests that AQAP has been successful in expanding its theatre of operations.

Yemen’s instability makes the country vulnerable for use as a transit point for weapons of mass destruction (WMD)-related materials. In the past year the United States resumed training focusing on the development of strategic trade controls and continued to conduct border security training for Yemeni Customs and other enforcement agencies. Yemen has identified an inter-ministry group to work on nonproliferation-related issues.

SOUTH ASIA

Afghanistan. Several terrorist networks active in Afghanistan, such as al-Qa’ida (AQ), the Haqqani Network, and others, operate largely out of Pakistan. AQ has some freedom of movement in Kunar and Nuristan provinces largely due to a lack of Afghan National Security Forces’ capacity to control certain border territories in north and east Afghanistan. During 2013, the Afghan government continued to counter the Afghan Taliban and Taliban-affiliated insurgent networks with AQ connections. The increased capability of the Afghan Local Police units helped to secure some rural areas that had previously lacked a Government of Afghanistan presence.

Pakistan. Portions of Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province, and Balochistan province remained a safe haven for terrorist groups seeking to conduct domestic, regional, and global attacks. Al-Qa’ida, the Haqqani Network, Tehrik-e Taliban Pakistan, Lashkar i Jhangvi, Lashkar e-Tayyiba, and other terrorist groups, as well as the Afghan Taliban, took advantage of this safe haven to plan operations in Pakistan and throughout the region. Though they did act against TTP, Pakistani authorities did not take significant military or law enforcement action against other groups operating from Pakistan-based safe havens, such as HQN and the Afghan Taliban.

WESTERN HEMISPHERE

Colombia. Colombia’s borders with Venezuela, Ecuador, Peru, Panama, and Brazil include rough terrain and dense forest cover, which coupled with low population densities and historically weak government presence, have often allowed for potential safe havens for insurgent and terrorist groups, particularly the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and the National Liberation Army (ELN). Colombia continued its efforts to combat terrorism within its borders, targeting both the FARC and ELN. Additionally, even as the Government of Colombia engaged with the FARC in peace talks throughout the year, President Santos maintained pressure by continuing operational exercises to combat the FARC’s ability to conduct terrorist attacks. Nevertheless, illegal armed groups, primarily known as “Bandas Criminales,” use the porous borders, remote mountain areas, and jungles to maneuver, train, cultivate and transport narcotics, operate illegal mines, “tax” the local populace, and engage in other illegal activities. Colombia continued cooperation and information sharing with the Panamanian National Border Service, establishing a joint base of operation and strengthening control of their shared border in the Darien region. Improved relations with neighboring Ecuador and Venezuela have led to some increased cooperation from those countries on law enforcement issues. Stronger government actions in Brazil and Peru and continued cooperation with the Government of Colombia have also addressed potential safe haven areas along their shared borders.

Venezuela. There were credible reports that Venezuela maintained an environment that allowed for fundraising activities that benefited known terrorist groups. Individuals linked to Hizballah as well as FARC and ELN members were present in Venezuela.

LONG-TERM PROGRAMS AND INITIATIVES DESIGNED TO COUNTER TERRORIST SAFE HAVENS

COUNTERING VIOLENT EXTREMISM (CVE). CVE is part of a strategic approach to counterterrorism (CT) that aims to deny terrorist groups new recruits. In 2009, the State Department created a CVE team in the Counterterrorism Bureau, to lead our efforts in this critical area. In our CVE programming and activities, we are seeking to (1) build resilience among communities most at risk of recruitment and radicalization to violence; (2) counter terrorist narratives and messaging; and (3) build the capacity of partner nations and civil society to counter violent extremism.

To be effective, CVE must work on multiple levels. First, our efforts must be well targeted. As such, we identify both key nodes and locales where radicalization is taking place, and focus our programming and activities in these areas. Second, our efforts must be tailored to take the local context into account. The drivers of recruitment and radicalization to violence are varied, often localized, and specific to each region, and our programming choices are developed in response to these factors.

Therefore, State’s CT Bureau emphasizes supporting local CVE efforts and building local CVE capacity. Given the growing international focus on CVE, we have also been able to develop a broader range of international partners to work within our efforts, including other governments, multilateral organizations, and non-governmental actors. Through these broad-based partnerships, we have been able to develop good practices, leverage others’ resources, and multiply its impact.

The President and the Secretary of State established the Center for Strategic Counterterrorism Communications (CSCC) in 2011 to lead an interagency effort to coordinate, orient, and inform government-wide foreign communications activities targeted against terrorism and violent extremism, particularly al-Qa’ida (AQ), its affiliates, and adherents. CSCC, based at the Department of State, collaborates with U.S. embassies and consulates, interagency partners, and outside experts to counter terrorist narratives and misinformation, and directly supports U.S. government communicators at our U.S. embassies overseas. CSCC’s programs draw on a full range of intelligence information and analysis for context and feedback. CSCC counters terrorist propaganda in the social media environment on a daily basis, contesting space where AQ and its supporters formerly had free reign. CSCC communications have provoked defensive responses from violent extremists on many of the most popular extremist websites and forums as well as on social media. In 2013, CSCC produced over 10,000 postings and 138 videos. CSCC also engages in a variety of projects directly supporting U.S. government communicators working with overseas audiences, as well as amplifying credible CVE voices and supporting local initiatives, in critical parts of the Middle East and Africa, such as Yemen, Syria, Somalia, and Mali.

While public diplomacy and development projects can have a positive impact on the CVE environment, our CVE programs and activities are far more narrowly tailored and targeted. In fact, CVE programming more closely resembles programs for curtailing recruitment into militias or gangs. It requires knowledge of where youth are most susceptible to radicalization to violence and why that is so. We ensure that our areas of focus align with the areas of greatest risk by working with foreign partners and other U.S. government agencies, such as USAID and DoD, to identify hotspots of radicalization and to design programming. Key areas of programming include:

Community Engagement and Community-Oriented Policing. The Department of State has implemented projects that link marginalized groups in a community, such as at-risk youth or women, with responsible influencers and leaders in their communities to build their resilience to violent extremism or improve their capacity to counter it. These activities include: providing skills training to youth, their families, and their communities; leadership development; and promoting problem solving and conflict resolution skills. Projects also include those to mentor and train law enforcement personnel in community engagement, facilitation and conflict mitigation; and communication techniques. Through increased cooperation between community leaders, law enforcement, and local government; community-oriented policing builds community resilience to violent extremism by addressing factors of community instability, disenfranchisement, and marginalization.
CVE Advocacy: Women and Victims/Survivors. Women can act as gatekeepers to their communities, and can thus provide a first line of defense against recruitment and radicalization to violence in their families and communities. In regions such as East Africa and West Africa, women are trained to recognize signs of radicalization, deploy prevention techniques, and become personally responsible for the local promotion of security and for radicalization prevention. In partnership with local women’s networks, the Department of State supports training for women civil society leaders and works with law enforcement personnel to devise CVE-prevention strategies and pilot activities.
By sharing their stories, victims of terrorism offer a resonant counternarrative that highlights the destruction and devastation of terrorist attacks. Workshops train victims to interact with conventional and social media, create public relations campaigns that amplify their messages, and seek out platforms that help them disseminate their message most broadly to at-risk audiences.

Media and CVE Messaging. The Department of State supports media projects that include radio shows that reach millions of listeners who are facing a looming violent extremist threat. Pivotal in West Africa, these projects include weekly radio dramas that are produced locally and are designed to tackle CVE subjects by empowering locally-credible voices who reject violent extremism. They include call-in shows that engage youth; women; traditional, religious, and political leaders; representatives from educational institutions; and government officials in thematic discussions about CVE, peace, and stability.
The Department of State supports efforts to conduct outreach, engagement, and training tours among diaspora communities who may be targeted for recruitment or susceptible to radicalization to violence in certain regions. Efforts involve screening documentaries highlighting the tragedy and devastation wrought by the recruitment of youth to terrorism and holding community roundtables to raise awareness and discuss ways to prevent recruitment and radicalization to violence. These projects are especially effective in engaging Somali diaspora communities.

Prisoner Rehabilitation/Prison Disengagement. The Department of State has worked to identify and address key nodes of potential radicalization to violence, an example of which is prisons. Improperly managed, a prison can serve as both a safe haven for violent extremism and an incubator for new recruits. Recognizing that many such inmates will eventually be released back into society, the Department of State is working – directly and through partner organizations – to strengthen the capabilities of key countries to rehabilitate and reintegrate such offenders. Such partners include the UN’s Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute and the International Center for Counterterrorism, a Dutch NGO; who are leading a major international initiative on prison rehabilitation and disengagement. They have been using the Global Counterterrorism Forum’s Rome Memorandum – a series of good practices in this area – to shape their efforts. More than 40 countries, multilateral organizations, and leading independent experts have participated in this stage of the initiative, which provided policymakers, practitioners, and experts a chance to compare notes and develop good practices in this critically important area.
A number of multilateral bodies remain key partners for the Department of State in its CVE efforts. Through these partnerships, we are able to shape the international CVE agenda, leverage others’ resources and expertise, and build broader support for our CVE priorities.

Global Counterterrorism Forum (GCTF) CVE Working Group. The GCTF provides a platform for counterterrorism policymakers and experts to identify urgent needs, devise solutions, and mobilize resources for addressing key counterterrorism challenges. GCTF’s CVE Working Group, one of five expert-driven groups, focuses on the following areas: (a) using institutions to counter violent extremism; (b) measuring the impact of CVE programs; and c) countering the violent extremist narrative.
Hedayah, the International CVE Center of Excellence: With support from GCTF members and international partners, the United Arab Emirates launched the first international CVE Center of Excellence, Hedayah, in December 2012. Hedayah’s mandate covers CVE research, dialogue, and training. The Department of State supports Hedayah with funding to develop pilot training courses for governmental and non-governmental CVE practitioners in the areas of community-oriented policing, education, youth development, and media. More information on the GCTF and Hedayah can be found at: http://www.thegctf.org/.
Global CVE Fund: In September 2013, Secretary Kerry announced the launch of the Global Community Engagement and Resilience Fund (GCERF), the first ever public-private global effort to support local grassroots CVE projects. GCERF will leverage public and private sector support for community-based projects aimed at addressing local drivers of radicalization by focusing on education, vocational training, civic engagement, and women’s advocacy. GCTF member Switzerland will host the GCERF in Geneva when it opens in the second half of 2014.
CAPACITY BUILDING PROGRAMS. As the terrorist threat has evolved and grown more geographically diverse in recent years, it has become clear that our success depends in large part on the effectiveness and ability of our partners. To succeed over the long term, we must increase the number of countries capable of and willing to take on this challenge. We have had important successes in Indonesia and Colombia, but we must intensify efforts to improve our partners’ law enforcement and border security capabilities to tackle these threats. Our counterterrorism capacity building programs – Antiterrorism Assistance Program, Counterterrorist Finance, Counterterrorism Engagement, the Terrorist Interdiction Program/Personal Identification Secure Comparison and Evaluation System, and transnational activities under the Regional Strategic Initiatives – are all critically important and work on a daily basis to build capacity and improve political will. For further information on these programs, we refer you to the Annual Report on Assistance Related to International Terrorism, Fiscal Year 2013: http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/other/rpt/221544.htm.

REGIONAL STRATEGIC INITIATIVE. Terrorist groups often take advantage of porous borders and ungoverned areas between countries. The U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of Counterterrorism created the Regional Strategic Initiative (RSI) to encourage Ambassadors and their Country Teams to develop regional approaches to counterterrorism. RSI operates in key terrorist theaters of operation to assess the threat, pool resources, and devise collaborative strategies, action plans, and policy recommendations. In 2013, RSI groups were in place for Central Asia, East Africa, Eastern Mediterranean, Iraq and its Neighbors, South Asia, Southeast Asia, the Trans-Sahara (the Maghreb and the Sahel), and the Western Hemisphere.

One examples of an RSI program approved and funded in 2013 is the Explosive Incident Countermeasures (EIC) course for Bulgaria, which yielded almost immediate results when a week after the course ended, the Ministry of Interior officers that participated in the course successfully responded to two bomb threats, one of which was at the U.S. Embassy in Sofia.

RSI is continuing to fund Resident Legal Advisors in Malaysia, Mauritania, Niger, and Turkey. RSI also funds a number of regional workshops focusing on border security and larger counterterrorism issues. Two ongoing series include Eastern Mediterranean Working Groups on border security and the Gulf of Aden Regional Forum. These forums provide a venue for participants to discuss current counterterrorism issues, as well as joint efforts to counter them.

The Global Counterterrorism Forum (GCTF). The GCTF aims to strengthen the international architecture for addressing 21st century terrorism and promotes a strategic, long-term approach to dealing with the threat. Since its launch in September 2011, the GCTF has mobilized over US $230 million to strengthen counterterrorism-related rule of law institutions, in particular, for countries transitioning away from emergency law.

Other accomplishments since the launch include the adoption of six sets of good practices that are intended to both provide practical guidance for countries as they seek to enhance their counterterrorism capacity and bring greater strategic coherence to global counterterrorism capacity building efforts:

The Rabat Memorandum on Good Practices for Effective Counterterrorism Practice in the Criminal Justice Sector;
The Rome Memorandum on Good Practices for Rehabilitation and Reintegration of Violent Extremist Offenders;
The Algiers Memorandum on Good Practices for Preventing and Denying the Benefits of Kidnapping for Ransom by Terrorists;
The Madrid Memorandum on Good Practices for Assistance to Victims of Terrorism Immediately after the Attack and in Criminal Proceedings;
The Ankara Memorandum on Good Practices for a Multi-Sectoral Approach to Countering Violent Extremism; and
Good Practices on Community Engagement and Community-Oriented Policing as Tools to Counter Violent Extremism.
In addition, the GCTF has set in motion the development of two independent international training centers that will provide platforms for delivering sustainable training in the Forum’s two areas of strategic priority: countering violent extremism (CVE) and strengthening rule of law institutions. Hedayah, the first international center of excellence on CVE, officially opened in Abu Dhabi in December 2012. The International Institute for Justice and the Rule of Law, to be based initially in Malta, is slated to begin operations in 2014.

In September 2013, Secretary Kerry announced that a core group of government and non-governmental partners from different regions will establish the first-ever public-private global fund to support local grass-roots efforts to counter violent extremism. The Global Community Engagement and Resilience Fund (GCERF) will be the first global effort to leverage greater public and private-sector support for community-based projects aimed at addressing local drivers of radicalization by focusing on education, vocational training, civic engagement, and women’s advocacy. GCTF member Switzerland will host the GCERF in Geneva when it opens in the second half of 2014.

The UN is a close partner of and participant in the GCTF and its activities. The GCTF serves as a mechanism for furthering the implementation of the universally-agreed UN Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy and, more broadly, to complement and reinforce existing multilateral counterterrorism efforts, starting with those of the UN. The GCTF also partners with a wide range of regional multilateral organizations, including the Council of Europe, the OSCE, the AU, and the Inter-Governmental Authority on Development.

INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS AND PROTOCOLS. A matrix of the ratification status of 16 of the international conventions and protocols related to terrorism can be found here:https://www.unodc.org/tldb/universal_instruments_NEW.html

Foreign Terrorist Organizations

Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs)are designated by the Secretary of State in accordance with section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). FTO designations play a critical role in the fight against terrorism and are an effective means of curtailing support for terrorist activities.

In 2013, the following FTOs were designated by the Department of State: Ansar al-Dine on March 22, Boko Haram and Jama’atu Ansarul Muslimina Fi Biladis-Sudan on November 14, and Al-Mulathamun Battalion on December 19. Also in 2013, the Department of State revoked the Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group’s designation as an FTO on May 28.

Legal Criteria for Designation under Section 219 of the INA as amended:

It must be a foreign organization.
The organization must engage in terrorist activity, as defined in section 212 (a)(3)(B) of the INA (8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B)), or terrorism, as defined in section 140(d)(2) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989 (22 U.S.C. § 2656f(d)(2)), or retain the capability and intent to engage in terrorist activity or terrorism.
The organization’s terrorist activity or terrorism must threaten the security of U.S. nationals or the national security (national defense, foreign relations, or the economic interests) of the United States.

U.S. Government Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations

Abdallah Azzam Brigades (AAB)

Abu Nidal Organization (ANO)

Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG)

Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade (AAMB)

Ansar al-Dine (AAD)

Ansar al-Islam (AAI)

Army of Islam (AOI)

Asbat al-Ansar (AAA)

Aum Shinrikyo (AUM)

Basque Fatherland and Liberty (ETA)

Boko Haram (BH)

Communist Party of Philippines/New People’s Army (CPP/NPA)

Continuity Irish Republican Army (CIRA)

Gama’a al-Islamiyya (IG)

Hamas

Haqqani Network (HQN)

Harakat ul-Jihad-i-Islami (HUJI)

Harakat ul-Jihad-i-Islami/Bangladesh (HUJI-B)

Harakat ul-Mujahideen (HUM)

Hizballah

Indian Mujahedeen (IM)

Islamic Jihad Union (IJU)

Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU)

Jama’atu Ansarul Muslimina Fi Biladis-Sudan (Ansaru)

Jaish-e-Mohammed (JEM)

Jemaah Ansharut Tauhid (JAT)

Jemaah Islamiya (JI)

Jundallah

Kahane Chai

Kata’ib Hizballah (KH)

Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK)

Lashkar e-Tayyiba

Lashkar i Jhangvi (LJ)

Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE)

Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG)

Al-Mulathamun Battalion (AMB)

National Liberation Army (ELN)

Palestine Islamic Jihad – Shaqaqi Faction (PIJ)

Palestine Liberation Front – Abu Abbas Faction (PLF)

Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP)

Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (PFLP-GC)

Al-Qa’ida (AQ)

Al-Qa’ida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP)

Al-Qa’ida in Iraq (AQI)

Al-Qa’ida in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM)

Real IRA (RIRA)

Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC)

Revolutionary Organization 17 November (17N)

Revolutionary People’s Liberation Party/Front (DHKP/C)

Revolutionary Struggle (RS)

Al-Shabaab (AS)

Shining Path (SL)

Tehrik-e Taliban Pakistan (TTP)

United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC)

Yona Fares Maro

Institut d’études de sécurité – SA

Africa: Background Briefing on South Sudan

From: U.S. Department of State
Background Briefing on South Sudan
Special Briefing
Senior Administration Officials
Via Teleconference
May 6, 2014

MODERATOR: Hi everyone, this is [Moderator]. This is a background call. We’ll have a couple of speakers, both of whom should be referred to in reporting as Senior Administration Officials, please. That’s how we’re going to do this call. Just so you know who’ll be speaking, first we’ll hear from [Senior Administration Official One] at the Treasury Department, who I know you are all very familiar with, and then we’ll hear from [Senior Administration Official Two] here at the State Department, who will talk a little bit about the Secretary’s trip and some of the other policy issues as well. And then we’ll open it up for questions.

So again, this is all background, Senior Administration Officials. Thanks for joining today. As you saw, the Secretary just announced to talk about the sanctions we’ve imposed related to South Sudan. So with that, let’s turn it over to [Senior Administration Official One] and then we’ll go to [Senior Administration Official Two] and then we’ll go to questions.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Thanks very much, [Moderator], and good afternoon to everyone. Just wanted to talk briefly about the sanctions steps that the Administration has taken today. In the last hour, the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Asset Control has rolled out sanctions against two individuals who have been driving and directing the conflict in South Sudan. The individuals are a South Sudan anti-government force leader by the name of Peter Gadet and a commander within the South Sudanese Government’s Presidential Guard by the name of Marial Chanuong. And we will have our press release up shortly, if it isn’t up already, to give you the spelling of those individuals.

Marial Chanuong, first, is, as I noted, the commander of the Presidential Guard for the South Sudanese Government, so he is reporting to President Salva Kiir. The Presidential Guard led the operations in Juba following the fighting that began on December 15th of 2013. And the second individual, Peter Gadet, who is fighting among the anti-government forces, is commanding a group of troops who were responsible for some of the horrific violence we saw just last month in Bentiu, the capital of Unity State in South Sudan.

Both of these individuals were sanctioned under the recently issued Executive Order by President Obama EO 13664, which allows us to target those responsible for or complicit in actions or policies that threaten the peace, security, or stability of South Sudan. That EO was signed by the President just last month on April 3rd, 2014. And it is a broad and flexible EO, which gives us the authority to target not just commanders but those directly engaged in violence and those who are providing material support to the forces that we see directing the violence, including those who are targeting UN peacekeepers or those delivering humanitarian supplies.

This new EO will be a critical new peace to our efforts to hold accountable those who obstruct the peace process and those responsible for violence against civilians. Today’s actions are the first designations under this authority, and we expect them to serve as a warning to those engaged in continuing the cycle of violence that has already claimed thousands of lives in South Sudan since December 2013.

And with that, I would turn it over to my State Department colleague.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: Thanks very much, and I appreciate the chance to speak about what’s happening in South Sudan. As my colleague from Treasury stated, today the United States officially sanctioned two individuals whose actions have threatened the peace, security, and stability of South Sudan, or who have committed atrocities.

First, Marial Chenuong, as he said, commanded the Presidential Guard Forces and ordered and led attacks directed at civilians in the early stages of this conflict in Juba. The other, Peter Gadet, was – led the anti-government forces who were responsible for the April 17th attack on Bentiu, in violation of the cessation of hostilities from the January 23rd agreement, which resulted in the killing of more than 200 civilians.

As [Senior Administration Official One] said, we will continue to use the authority under President Obama’s executive order to hold accountable those who commit atrocities, obstruct the peace process, or undermine peace and stability in South Sudan.

Today’s announcement comes on the heels of the Secretary’s trip to South Sudan. It was his first as Secretary but by no means his first trip to South Sudan. He traveled to Juba and to the region, where he made very plain that it was critical that all parties abide by the cessation of hostilities, where he met with members of civil society and with UNMISS, the United Nations peacekeeping operation in South Sudan, and where he underscored the vital importance of humanitarian assistance, especially as the rainy season has already commenced.

In these meetings, he pushed for a meeting between President Kiir and former Vice President Riek Machar to come to Addis for negotiations as a – one stage but a critical stage in the road to a more inclusive peace process for South Sudan. Both parties have now agreed to travel to Ethiopia for that meeting, and it is now tentatively scheduled for May 9th.

As the Secretary said today, we refuse to let South Sudan plunge into violence, famine, and deeper desperation. We will continue to stand with the people of South Sudan who call for peace and who recognize that the only way to resolve this conflict is through political dialogue.

And we’d be happy to take your questions.

MODERATOR: Great. If the operator could let folks know how to ask a question.

OPERATOR: Thank you. If you’d like to ask a question today, you may press *1 on your telephone keypad, and you should hear a tone acknowledging that you’re in the question queue. Once again, it’s * then 1 at this time.

MODERATOR: Great. Thanks. It looks like our first question is from Reuters, from Anna of Reuters. Go ahead.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) why you chose these particular two people outside of – is it meant to – also to send a message to Kiir and Bashir that there could be more sanctions? And also, are you, in general, ready to sanction more people if the peace talks don’t lead to cessation in the violence? Thank you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Yes. I mean, as I tried to signal in my opening remarks, this is a very powerful and flexible tool, the President’s new executive order, and today is our first use of the tool. We’re using it in a limited way against two individuals. They’re two individuals that we think are fairly significant, both of whom have blood on their hands with respect to the activities that they have directed or conducted. So we believe today’s actions are significant but also are, as you note, a signal to any who would consider or who are already contributing to violence on either side in South Sudan.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: I would just add to that in this case you have individuals who are both responsible for attacks on civilians, one of whom was responsible for attacks that began in December 15th in Juba, and one for attacks in Bentiu much more recently. So we see the sort of scope of the conflict and the toll it’s being – that it’s taking on civilian lives. And I think that was one of the reasons for these selections.

MODERATOR: And I’ll just jump in here. Finally, we’ve also said repeatedly that there are a couple goals with these sanctions, right? One is accountability, which is what you’ve seen today. And the other is to serve as a deterrent, if it can, going forward for future violence. So I think hopefully this can begin to serve both of those goals.

Our next question is from Deb Riechmann of the Associated Press.

QUESTION: Hi. Can you just explain what the sanctions do? I haven’t seen anything yet that says – do they freeze assets or what do they do?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Yeah. So they do freeze assets. The other component is that they prohibit any and all transactions by U.S. persons, wherever located, with the designated individuals. What that means, as a practical matter, is that, as of 2:30 today, these names and their identifying bio-identifiers were sent out to tens of thousands of institutions in the U.S. and around the world, who now have them as a part of the OFAC SDN list or blacklist.

And as a practical matter, we’ve seen these actions disrupt and interfere with financial operations of designated individuals far away from U.S. shores. But certainly, the legal direct impact would be any assets they have in a U.S. bank, with a U.S. person, or that transits the U.S. even for a split second would need to be blocked, and U.S. persons can’t do business with them. As a complement, the State Department is – typically enacts a visa ban against the individuals listed as well.

MODERATOR: Thanks. Our next question is from Barbara Usher of the BBC.

QUESTION: Thank you. I’m just wondering if it was only a U.S. action. I know that some officials were saying that sanctions would be more effective if Uganda and Kenya participated, because a lot of the assets of these men are in those countries. Is this something that you’ve done in conjunction with neighboring countries?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: We’re definitely working in partnership with neighboring countries, including Ethiopia, Kenya, and Uganda, talking to them about these steps as well as their own efforts to secure peace in South Sudan. We are also working in partnership with the European Union and other – the members of the South Sudan Troika, which consists of the U.S., the United Kingdom, and Norway, and coordinating our efforts across the board to bring this crisis to an end.

MODERATOR: Can the operator remind folks how to ask a question, please?

OPERATOR: If you would like to ask a question today, you may press * then 1.

MODERATOR: Great. Thank you. Our next question is from the other Matt Lee, Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Great. Thanks a lot, [Moderator]. I wanted to ask, there was a – it was said that in Security Council consultations at the UN that senior government officials were named in a radio broadcast prior to the attacks in Bor on the UN compound in killing the civilians. I just wonder if you can say are these people – is that the case? Do you know the names of people that sort of called for that attack, and in which case, why aren’t they on this list?

And I also – this might for Senior Administration Official Number Two. Secretary Kerry was talking about a legitimate force to help make peace. And I just wanted to know, is the UN – is the U.S. thinking of that as part of UNMISS mission or as the IGAD force? And if so, would it require a Security Council approval? Thanks.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: On the first, I mean, we typically do not comment on actors against whom we are – we have not yet – we have not yet acted, a clunky way of saying we don’t comment on those who are not part of our designation. But anyone who is contributing to the violence, whether that’s by directing violence, whether that’s by funding it, fueling it, contributing arms, can be a subject of designation in the future. And I’ll leave it to my State Department colleague to answer the second question.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: Yeah. On the question about the regional force and on UNMISS, we – it is something that conversations and discussions are ongoing between countries of IGAD, with New York, with ourselves and others on how best to create this additional force presence that we are working very much with UNMISS and see this as part of the same effort. But we do think it’s very important that the regional forces are able to join this effort in larger numbers and appreciate the efforts of, particularly, the governments of Ethiopia and Kenya, who are leading the mediation and who are seeking to work with UNMISS in this regard.

MODERATOR: Great, thanks. Our next question is from Phil Stewart of Reuters.

QUESTION: Yeah, hi. Can you hear me?

MODERATOR: We can hear you.

QUESTION: Great. Just quickly, what assets of these two individuals are actually going to be affected if any? Are there any identified? And also, I’m seeing a report that Uganda is saying that targeted sanctions against South Sudan are not necessary. Has Uganda communicated this to the United States? Thank you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: So we typically will put out an action like this and then hear from financial institutions in the coming hours about assets that they’ve frozen. We don’t have perfect transparency, of course, into where assets may be held or where they be moved. And movement of assets is really important to recall here, in that a typical international transfer from one country to another, neither U.S. – neither of them, the United States, will often transit U.S. shores.

So many lay people aren’t following the dynamics of what a U.S. designation means, but what it means is typically a transaction between two African countries may well touch a U.S. institution, and a transaction of that type would need to be blocked in the U.S. But as of today, the moment of designation, we’re not identifying the assets of blocked individuals and we don’t traditionally identify how much has been blocked under an individual’s name.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: I can’t comment on Uganda’s statement specifically. I can tell you that we have been talking to all the countries in the region and we will continue to do so and take on board their thoughts on this. We do very much think that targeted sanctions – and these are highly targeted sanctions – will, in fact, have the impact we hope, and that we will continue to dialogue with the region on it.

MODERATOR: Great, thanks. I think we have time for a few more. The next question is from Gregory Warner of NPR.

QUESTION: Yeah. I’ll make this quick and I’m joining by Skype from Juba. So I guess I just wanted to clarify – and maybe you don’t know this – but the percentage, a rough percentage, of their assets that might be affected by the sanction and that split-second passage though the U.S. that we’re talking about. And then also, in terms of your conversations with the neighboring countries, I mean, how soon do you hope that the neighboring countries will join the sanctions, or is that your intention?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: On the first question, obviously, we’re not in a position to assess what percentage of their assets might be bound up in international transactions. It’s not simply a question of what might have been transiting today, but on any future day. So long as these designations are in effect, they’ll bar these individuals from access to the U.S. dollar, to the U.S. financial system, and any transactions that are attempted will more than likely be blocked.

But in an action like this, the primary purpose, as you heard both myself and my colleague describing, is not a freezing of funds. The primary purpose is to isolate and apply pressure to change the decision-making calculus of the key actors involved, whether that’s the two individuals we named today, who we very much hope will desist from directing bloodshed against innocent civilians, or whether that’s others who would contemplate engaging in similar actions. So the tool here is a financial tool, but of course it’s much more than that, and these actions are noted around the world and have, in the past, served as powerful disruptors and deterrent actions against individuals engaged in human rights abuses.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: And on the question of other countries in the region, we definitely encourage others in the international community to take similar steps, and we will work with the UN Security Council in the effort to authorize additional targeted sanctions. These are issues that the Secretary discussed during his visit to Addis last week, and to make sure that the steps we are taking are consistent with the goals of the mediating teams and other partners in the region.

MODERATOR: Great, thanks. Our next question’s from Pat Reiber of the German Press Agency.

QUESTION: Yeah, hi. I think most of my questions have been answered. I was – just wanted to know more about what Kenya and Uganda will be doing, and Ethiopia, in accord with the sanctions that the U.S. is putting out there.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: Yeah. On that, as we said, we certainly encourage others in the international community to take similar steps to what we’ve done today.

MODERATOR: Great. Our next question’s from Emile Barroody of Al Mayadeen.

QUESTION: Yes, thank you for doing this. Is there any other sanctions in the pipes against other members of the South Sudan military?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: We don’t talk about prospective actions that may still be coming, but we are clearly signaling today our willingness to use this tool against others who are directing or committing acts of violence. And the hope here, of course, is to incentivize the diplomacy and to encourage the talks that we’re all very much hoping will reduce the violence.

MODERATOR: Great, thanks. And it looks like our last question’s from Brian Monroe of MoneyLaundering.com.

QUESTION: I’m going to record it so we can put it on the site, okay?

MODERATOR: This is on background, though, so you can’t actually record it for the site. Brian?

QUESTION: Hello? Can you hear me?

MODERATOR: Yeah. Did you hear me?

QUESTION: Oh, now I can perfectly. No, the key question I was asking is – I apologize (inaudible), another conversation jumped in there – I was just curious, what is the expectations from banks in terms of the depth of due diligence on these names? I mean, because always the question is: Is this names that they just put in their filters and they just see what sticks out? Or do you expect maybe a more rigorous look in terms of assets or sub-entities, or basically, just all the assets tied to these names? Thank you very much.

MODERATOR: Hey, Brian, this is the Moderator. Did you hear that this call’s on background, so not to be recorded for broadcast?

QUESTION: Yes.

MODERATOR: Okay. So you can’t record the answer and put it on your website.

QUESTION: No, no, no, that was a conversation for someone else. No, absolutely.

MODERATOR: Oh, okay. Well, it came up on here. Okay. Go ahead. If my colleagues have answers, go ahead and [Senior Administration Official One] may.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Yeah. So the primary obligation, of course, is to ensure that filters contain these names and identifiers to be sure that any current accounts are searched, and any prospective transactions or account openings are detected and blocked.

We’re not talking with these two individuals about CEOs or those who have large business interests, and so I don’t think the question about how deep should people be diving in terms of their due diligence is as applicable as it might be in another context. But of course, if you’re a bank that has more heavy exposure to South Sudan, to business coming in and out of Juba, that implies a greater burden with respect to the due diligence one needs to do.

MODERATOR: Okay, great. Well, thank you to everyone for joining. Again, sorry to be a stickler there, I thought you were talking about this call. This is all on background, senior Administration officials. As always, you know how to follow up with us, but thanks to everyone for joining, and have a great rest of your evening.

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

Stay connected with the State Department:

State Dept website
http://www.state.gov/