This arresting phrase Agriculture: New Zealands Silicon Valley is not mine. It is Sir Graeme Harrisons and I cant improve on it. Sir Graeme, you will recall, is the founder and Chairman of ANZCO Foods, one of New Zealands …
Hon Tim Groser
Minister of Trade
Minister for Climate Change Issues

Address to New Zealand National Fieldays

This arresting phrase – ‘Agriculture: New Zealand’s Silicon Valley’ – is not mine. It is Sir Graeme Harrison’s and I can’t improve on it. Sir Graeme, you will recall, is the founder and Chairman of ANZCO Foods, one of New Zealand’s largest exporters.

I like the phrase for three complementary reasons:

· First, it conveys a real sense of optimism – and we have every reason in this country to be optimistic about our future in the first quarter of the 21st Century.

· Second, it captures the reality that agriculture will be as important to New Zealand’s future as it has been to our past.

· Third, it also captures a more subtle idea about our agriculture future. Yes – agriculture will continue to be the economic backbone of our country’s export future. But it will be a vastly more sophisticated agriculture with innovation at its centre.

This is indeed the theme of Fieldays, the biggest annual display of agriculture technology in the Southern Hemisphere, and always hugely supported by the people of Hamilton. Every time I come here, I am reminded of just how high tech our agriculture sector is. These days, you are more likely to see a computer device in a young dairy farmer’s hands than a spade. Allow me to elaborate on these themes.

NZ: Positioned for Growth

If we stay on the broad trajectory we are now on, we have every reason to be optimistic about New Zealand’s medium and long-term future. Let me repeat the big numbers around our macro-economic performance. And make no mistake about it – sustained good economic performance rests always on the foundation of sensible, orthodox macro-economic and monetary policy, not the latest recycled ‘bright idea’ as to how to secure a free lunch.

We have growth around 3% and good prospects of sustaining this. Our inflation rate is around 1%. Our unemployment rate, though higher than we want it, is just above 6%. Our Government net core debt to GDP ratio is a little under 30% when the US and Eurozone are around 90%.

We are not resting on this – we particularly want to see more disadvantaged groups in our society in paid, full-time employment. But there are many countries in the developed world that would give their political back-teeth to have those numbers.

On this foundation, we are positioned to move ahead in the Asia Pacific and with other emerging economies. The shift in power to the emerging economies, led by China but by no means confined to China, is the big story of this age. Basically, the world’s wealth is being realigned with where most of the world’s people live, instead of being concentrated in what we have called ‘the developed world’.

This creates huge opportunities not just for the people who live in these emerging economies, but for other countries that can provide what these people want. This is not nice futuristic theory I am describing – some type of ‘Ted Talk’ for thinking farmers. We have already seen its impact. Our exports to China have tripled in the last five years. But literally, “you ain’t seen nothin’ yet”. The middle class of these countries is about to explode. It will grow from around 500 million today to around 3 billion in the next 15 years.

This is not like some ripe plumb, ready to fall into our hands. It is simply an opportunity. To grasp it, we need to continue to ensure, for example, we have the right tax policies, 21st Century infrastructure suitable for a small but successful outward-looking economy, the right regulatory frameworks in place governing water, food safety and myriad other issues.

This agenda is all set out in the Government’s long term plan for structural policies, known as the Business Growth Agenda. It covers six broad policy areas: Export Markets, Infrastructure, Natural Resources, Skilled and Safe workplaces, innovation, capital markets. None of it is straightforward and we are just working our way through the long-term policy adjustments required to deliver on the outstanding potential of this economy. We know where we want to be: to return NZ to the position we used to enjoy – a small, but highly successful cog in the larger global economy.

With respect to the Business Growth Agenda, my prime focus is on the first of these policy areas: export markets and the trade policy component of that agenda in particular. Here, we need to continue with our great success in recent decades creating the right trade platforms for our country. Rising middle class incomes will not do a thing for New Zealand if we are cut out of their markets by prohibitively high market access barriers. That was our problem in the last quarter of the 20th Century with the traditional developed country markets. They certainly had the income levels and demand for our exports, but we could not get access to their consumers because of massive protectionist barriers and subsidies.

As I look to our future, which lies largely with Australia and the emerging economies, we are doing really well here and I am confident it will get better. In particular, TPP, now that it is the centre of US Trade Policy and involves Japan, Canada and Mexico, is an enormous opportunity.

Agriculture: Its Place in our Export Future

Move to my second point about the phrase – ‘Agriculture: NZ’s Silicon Valley’ – it absolutely nails the point that agriculture will be as important to our future as it has been to our past. And this is strongly related to the rise of the emerging economies. These emerging economies look to New Zealand primarily for safe, high quality food and agriculture technology. We have it, and they want it.

Of course there is more to us than just agriculture. All New Zealanders understand that. But we don’t need to get involved yet again in this internal and finally meaningless conversation about ‘agriculture versus non-agriculture’. The real choice facing New Zealanders is about shifting resources into exports, not a choice about what type of exports we have. Or, if you want to be more technically correct, the real choice is between the traded sector and the non-traded sector. There is no fight here between, say, horticulture exports and high end export-oriented software companies like Orion Health, which are starting to make real progress. We need both to perform in the global economy and as Trade Minister I switch inter-changeably between supporting both these export sectors.

Are we doing enough to achieve our goal of a ten per centile increase in the ratio of exports to GDP by 2025? No, but we are doing rather better than I suspect people think. In the last five years to March 2012 we have averaged 5% annual compound growth in total exports of goods and services, the last two years of which were considerably higher.

This is, of course, in the teeth of the continuing impact of the biggest global economic crisis in seventy years and what the Governor of the Reserve Bank has called an overvalued exchange rate. We have seen the top coming off the US cross rate a little bit recently. However, fundamentally this misalignment will be corrected, at least in my view, only when international markets start to price in an expectation of a structural shift away from quantitative easing and, associated with it, near zero interest rates in the major developed economies.

This extraordinary period of near zero interest rates in the developed world cannot last indefinitely. At some stage, a tightening cycle will happen internationally and that in turn will create all manner of problems with households and businesses around the world that have not rebalanced their books. As Warren Buffet said, it is only when the tide goes out that you can see who has been swimming naked. Having said that, I admit that economists are pretty good at predicting what will happen, but terrible about telling you when.

Putting this aside, let’s focus on longer-term drivers of change behind the outstanding prospects for New Zealand agriculture. Fundamentally, we are at the beginning of the same process of globalisation of trade in food as was the case for globalisation of trade in industrial products some fifty years ago. Revolution is quite the wrong word and concept. It is an evolutionary process and it is about readjusting to new realities in food security.

As a result of horrific experiences in war, including in particular, the Second World War, food security has been defined pretty much as one and the same thing as getting as close as you can to food self-sufficiency. New Zealand, here, has always been a complete outlier, since we export about 90% of our food. Broadly speaking, we are at the early stage of agriculture liberalisation and a consequential re-interpretation of food security to include security around imports as part of the equation.

I have no doubt that our FTA with China is, in effect, a small part of China’s food security for the future. Our investments in Chinese agriculture production, and we are just starting down this track, is another small part of this phenomenon.

Outward Chinese investment in efficient agriculture exporting companies is another part of this global trend. At the OECD Ministerial Meeting in Paris a couple of weeks ago, I noticed in the Financial Times that Shuanghui International Holdings has bid some $7 billion dollars for Smithfield, situated in Virginia, the United States. Smithfield is the world’s largest pork processor and pig producer. The investments by Bright Dairy, Yashili and Yili, three of China’s largest dairy companies, in our own country are part of the same pattern. Food security for China is now a global concept and they are systematically securing that future. Good on them. It is a far superior and more rational strategy of food security than a pure policy of self-sufficiency, regardless of environmental and resource constraints and economic reality.

This is all about the globalisation of agriculture, which has trade, investment and technology aspects to it. I welcome it. Globalisation is not a disease to be avoided, but an opportunity to be grasped. It has huge upside potential for New Zealand in particular. It will underwrite jobs, tax revenue and higher real wages for the next generation of New Zealanders.

Our agriculture prospects are nothing less than outstanding. Here’s an interesting ‘factoid’. We all know Australia is a hugely successful economy – in fact the most successful economy in the developed world in the first decade of this century, even if it is facing a few rough edges at the moment as the mining investment boom tails off.

We also know Australia, the Chair of the Cairns Group of agriculture exporting countries, is a major agriculture exporter by world standards. Well, it turns out that our agriculture exports, both unprocessed and processed are nipping at the heels of the Australians – and that is in absolute, not relative, terms.

There are always arguable issues around definitions of what constitutes, for example, ‘agriculture’, since for both Australia and NZ a fair part of our respective manufactured exports will be highly processed agriculture. But as far as I can tell from officials ABS statistics, total Australian agriculture exports for CY 2011 totalled NZ$35 billion, using 80 cents as the cross rate for the currency conversion. Our total exports are just behind that at NZ$32 billion. Considering the vast difference in size of our economies, that is truly an objective measure of our standing and success in world agriculture markets.

Furthermore, we have great growth prospects. We are aiming to double those agriculture exports by 2025 and we think this is achievable.

The Growing Sophistication of Agriculture

The third point that I think that great phrase – ‘Agriculture: NZ’s Silicon Valley’ -captures relates to the growing sophistication of our agriculture future. So it is not just about grinding out higher volumes of food exports; it is a very different future and we need very sophisticated commercial and policy strategies around that future.

Water in particular is the absolute key. Seventy per cent of the entire world’s fresh water is used in producing food. We have water in abundance. It is just that we are capturing only around 5% of our annual rainfall. If we can invest in environmentally sound water storage and irrigation – and we have advanced plans to do just that – we can make an even bigger contribution to feeding an expanding global population and strengthen our own economic future. NZ agriculture exports can, in a very real sense, be considered a ‘virtual water exporter’, taking pressure off countries like Saudi Arabia, India and China which have massive water resource constraints.

So we need to continue to improve the environmental impact of our agriculture. This is a broad agenda around water management, wetlands, effluent management and a range of other important issues. One aspect of that is my direct responsibility is around the climate change impact of our agriculture. That is an entire subject matter in itself. Just remember a few facts.

No Government in the world has imposed a tax or a carbon charge on biological emissions and there is no point – other than an ideological one – in doing so until cost-effective and safe alternative technologies are available. The recent upset over DCD, which was in part a nitrification inhibitor, tells how careful we need to be.

Second, New Zealand is the most carbon-efficient major agriculture exporting country in the world. For our major pastoral industries, they have sustained around a 1.5% decrease per annum in carbon emissions per unit of output over the last 20 years or so. That is outstanding. The only reason our per capita emissions are high by international standards is not some ‘black mark’ about NZ being a ‘dirty country’ in terms of emissions. Quite the opposite. It is simply because around 90% of what we produce is exported to people who live outside our country. Most estimates suggest we feed about 50 million people. If we were a more ‘normal’ agriculture country and most of those 50 million people we feed lived within our borders, NZ’s per capita emissions would drop to near the bottom of international league tables. Do the math.

Any attempt to deliberately price carbon to reduce our agriculture output to make some ideological point would not only be an economic mistake of grave proportions, it would worsen the problem of global anthropogenic-induced greenhouse gas warming since the production gap would be filled by less carbon efficient producers than ours. Utter environmental and economic madness, in my view.

Finally, we are hardly sitting on our hands doing nothing about biological emissions. We are leading the world in having established the Global Research Alliance on Agriculture Emissions. This involves linking in climate change and agriculture scientists from over 30 countries in the search for alternative technologies and management systems that can achieve two global goals of great importance – increasing global food production by 70% by 2050 and reducing the emissions footprint of that extra production.

Above all our agriculture exporting future will be driven by innovation. Commercial realities are already forcing this on our agriculture sector and we are quite deliberately trying to accelerate this process through a number of innovation policy initiatives, the most important of which is the PGP, or Primary Growth Partnership, which is business-led, market driven primary sector innovation.

First, look at what is happening anyway in the market place. Our sheepmeat exports, for example, look nothing like our exports a few decades ago. When I started out as a young trade negotiator and analyst, 90% of our sheepmeat exports were frozen carcasses. Today the figure is less than 3%. The rest of it is all high end stuff.

Looked at more broadly, our processed food exports are making great strides. Even within processed food exports you can see this sharp shift towards higher value, more complex products. We have just had a very interesting analysis done for a range of agencies called ‘Driving Growth in the Processed Foods Sector’. I have done a bit of ‘data mining’ from this fascinating study. It is exciting and encouraging.

In the ten years to 2011, the compound average growth annual growth rate (CAGR) of processed foods has been 15%. At a CAGR of 15% you double any number roughly every 5 years. Within that stellar growth rate, highly sophisticated nutraceuticals and other innovative foods have been growing even faster. This reflects the increasingly porous nature of the distinction between food as nutrition and food as health. This is huge in Chinese and many Asian cultures. We have an extraordinary natural resource base and an extraordinary brand from which we can leverage. Much as I admire the outstanding future of NZ wines, I suspect ten years from now our natural food exports will be much bigger.

The Primary Growth Partnership is, as I said, an attempt to turbo-charge these commercial developments, working closely with business. To date, we have kicked in around $300 million in 13 projects and our business partners have added some $350 million extra. So more than half a billion dollars of R&D funding is working on projects large and small. Let me give you two practical examples.

There is a tiny, but very strategic project to find cost-effective alternatives to methyl bromide, which is a fumigant for our forestry exports. It is also an ozone depleting substance. But it underwrites some $3 billion dollars of exports. We need to find alternatives.

At the other end of the scale is a $43 million investment in generating more value from the red meat carcase to transform our export future into a consumer-centric food and healthcare business. This programme is called ‘Food Plus’.

It is about innovation and this is a large part of our future.

We also have to admit that we have a lot to learn. The new supply chains, or global value chains, that we are just starting to create with the great emerging economies, primarily but not solely in Asia, create new demands. How well do we know our customers? Well, we have had two sharp reminders on that score – the problems over DCD in certain dairy products and some issues we had to resolve over meat certification in China.

I am not going to re-litigate those issues here: after some uncomfortable moments, we have found a way through and the trade is flowing. But I don’t think anyone can say that we have a clear run to the line here. We need to develop improved infrastructure – in the broader sense of that word ‘infrastructure’ – to support these rapidly growing and unfamiliar markets. We need a new generation of NZ experts who are not just highly technically skilled – and we have some of the best in the world. But in my view, they need to be steeped in the languages and cultures of our new markets. I am not being critical here. The situation has exploded on us. But a number of NZ institutions in the public and private sector need to start thinking through long-term strategic responses, particularly in the area of HR strategy, and these two events should be regarded as a wake up call.

This was not an issue from 1880 to 1975 when our export economy was essentially geared to selling agriculture commodities to the Anglo-Saxon world of the UK, Canada, US and Australia – but it is an issue today. Recall the deep accumulated wisdom of the phrase – ‘the customer is always right’. Let me repeat the point: do we really understand our new customers? This is not just a matter for Government agencies; it is a matter for every NZ agribusiness that wants to base its future on these markets.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade went through this shift in mind-set in the late 1970s when we realised that we were not an offshore island in the English Channel. The entry of the UK (then taking 50% of our exports) into the then unreformed protectionist morass of the EEC’s Common Agriculture Policy (it is much improved now) sent shockwaves throughout NZ. I remember political leaders of the day like Jack Marshall and Trade Minister Brian Talboys, sending out the panic signals – ‘diversify, diversify’. That realignment away from Europe in particular has dominated my entire professional life.

So the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, as a first step, sent off at least some of our smart young men and women to Tokyo, Beijing and other capitals to learn the languages and cultures and spend a fair bit of their careers there. We have benefited enormously from that investment. Other agencies, including Treasury and the Reserve Bank, take note. You all know where the financial power is shifting to – it is not just about NZ exports. And do not overlook the smart young New Zealanders who are of Asian heritage.

Our vastly more sophisticated agriculture future will also be about the export of our world-class agriculture technology. Don’t get me wrong: I still see the base of this great future ahead for NZ agriculture our production base in NZ. But I remain convinced that we can supplement that by selling our Intellectual Property in agriculture.

There is nothing new in this. We have been doing this for decades. But the scale of the opportunity is on a different scale. There is simply no way New Zealand can meet the opportunity of the growth in emerging markets from a NZ production base. So either we profit from growth in agriculture production elsewhere or someone else will.

By ‘intellectual property’ I mean something far broader than products and processes formally protected by patents and copyright. The big star in this year’s OECD Ministerial Meeting was a concept called ‘Knowledge Based Capital’ (KBC). It turns out that for Apple, for example, the bulk of its value is knowledge based capital, not formal IP. Design and management know-how are huge.

One practical example is Fonterra’s operation in the United States. The US dairy industry is part way through a process of transition – from a deeply defensive, inward looking past to an outward-looking, export-oriented future. The real winners from comprehensive liberalisation in TPP in dairy will be the US industry, not NZ, simply because our dairy production base is far too small to seize the opportunities. This is happening already. Some 60% of the increase in demand for milk protein in recent years has gone to the US dairy industry, compared with 12% for NZ. Today, some 14% of all US milk is exported.

But who is the largest exporter of US milk products? Fonterra. Why? KBC – knowledge based capital. In this case it is the marketing and distribution channels of Fonterra, the world’s largest milk exporting company that is the real jewel in the crown.

I am not sure we have yet developed the business models to fully leverage our agriculture technology. We are certainly making efforts. This was a major theme of the Prime Minister’s recent visit to Mexico, Colombia and Chile and there is no question that the agri-business delegation with the Prime Minister saw the scale of the opportunities. And only a few weeks ago, NZTE led a group of agri-business to Russia to explore the opportunities for NZ agriculture technology. There is a huge hunger in Russia for NZ expertise, equipment and genetics. There is also a very interesting investment proposition taking shape in the Russian Far East.

The international market for agriculture technology is huge and will grow. Agriculture machinery and equipment – and we have our own world class machinery and equipment on show right outside this room at Fieldays – was worth US$111 billion in 2012. We know we have real niche strengths here in areas such as electric fencing, milk meters, and livestock weighing equipment.

But the market for our agriculture technology is more than just ‘kit’. It includes includes soil testing, pasture species development, DNA testing, sustainable resource software that enables planning around water quality, effluent disposal, and resource management compliance. These premium exports are a product of the practices and technology designed and employed by NZ’s agriculture industries.

The bigger game of course, but fraught with risk, is for our agriculture companies to take equity positions, rather than just sell licensed technology. It is happening – particularly in China with Fonterra’s ambitious plans to produce 1 billion litres of high quality milk in China in over 30 large farms. It is happening in Chile and Brazil and will happen in Russia and India.

But this is not straightforward and my general sense is that we are out of our comfort zone and this is going to be a complicated journey. Generally, the commercial history of New Zealand companies’ efforts to invest outside NZ is poor, though we have had a few welcome exceptions. It will take time for NZ agribusiness to find the right business model to do this profitably and without too high risk exposure.

The Government will of course continue to do whatever it can to support this, but finally it rests on commercial decisions. We just need to recognise that this country needs to lift its game on outward investment. Some economists have argued we don’t have a trade problem, we have an investment problem – and if you compare the average rates of return on our FDI in other countries compared with the average rate of return on FDI in NZ made by Australia in particular, these economists have a point except I would say the two ways of earning a living – exporting from our domestic base or investment – are not alternatives. We need them both to participate more fully in the complex global value chains developing. I am just stating the obvious when I say that while I would support any commercial enterprise in any sector with a good business plan that involves strategic investments and thus gives us an equity stake in far bigger economies, the one thing we know how to do well is agriculture. Agriculture has to be the most obvious thing to focus on. Investment has to be part of the more sophisticated future ahead of us in the first quarter of this century

In summary, ladies and gentlemen, let me repeat the key theme. I think Sir Graeme Harrison is right on message. Agriculture is indeed NZ’s Silicon Valley. This is not going to be at the expense of non-agriculture, internationally efficient export activities such as high end services exports – which incidentally are powering ahead with an average annual growth of nearly 10% – but it will be our export backbone for many years to come.

This is the one area of global politics and the economy where we are not small – we are a middle sized player with standing internationally and influence. Our total agriculture exports, processed and unprocessed, are pretty much the same as Australia’s – and Australia is rightly recognised as a major player in this league.

We have the world-class technology; we have access to the emerging markets through these new trade agreements, some of which are fully negotiated and others yet to be finessed such as TPP. We also have the human capital – but I think there are some systemic HR issues for NZ Inc. that need to be addressed here.

So, to sum it up, we are in the right space at the right time and agriculture will play a huge role in this. There is every reason for us to have some measured optimism that the next 25 years are going to be far better for our country than the period of transition in the last quarter of the 20th Century. Now we just have to put in the hard yards to make it happen.

ends

Content Sourced from scoop.co.nz
Original url

The partnership between the two countries is founded on common values, such as democracy, human rights and the rule of law, as well as a strong commitment to peace and security, free trade and investment, and sustainable development.Hon Murray McCully

Minister of Foreign Affairs

9 June 2013

Media Statement       

Joint statement on a strategic cooperative partnership between Japan and New Zealand

-shared values and vision-

Japan and New Zealand have a long record of international cooperation based on shared interests and objectives.  The partnership between the two countries is founded on common values, such as democracy, human rights and the rule of law, as well as a strong commitment to peace and security, free trade and investment, and sustainable development.

On the occasion of the meeting between Foreign Ministers Hon Murray McCully and H.E. Mr Fumio Kishida in Auckland on 9 June 2013, both sides renewed their commitment to pursue a cooperative approach to the challenges facing the region and the international community based on their shared values and vision, and to this end to strengthen their bilateral engagement.

A stronger bilateral relationship

Japan and New Zealand recognise that they are long-standing and natural partners, and enjoy broad ties covering many fields.  Both sides are committed to bring new vigour and vision to the relationship, as a basis to strengthen bilateral cooperation in all its forms and to work together on regional and global issues.

Both governments are committed to opening a new and more ambitious chapter in the bilateral economic relationship.  In this regard, they recognise the importance of the successful conclusion of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) for creating closer, more integrated ties between Japan and New Zealand, along with other participants.

Both sides welcome the signing of a new Double Taxation Convention and further liberalisation of air travel based on the Air Services Agreement, as well as the deepening of cooperation in the science and technology fields, as important steps to modernise the relationship. They welcome the proposed signing of a Memorandum of Intent on Defence Cooperation as a significant step forward in enhancing cooperation in the security area. Both sides will consider practical proposals for new cooperative bilateral frameworks as required. They also highly value bilateral consultations for enhancing cooperation in development assistance. 

Both sides highly value expert contact and cooperation, such as is being achieved through the Japan/New Zealand Conferences. They are committed to expanding collaboration in areas such as earthquake engineering and geothermal energy, and to explore new areas for collaboration including tsunami prevention and early warning systems in the Pacific Island region. With their recent experience of natural disasters in East-Japan and Christchurch, both sides will seek further opportunities to work together to enhance disaster recovery and resilience.

Both sides recognise the wide range of frameworks in place to promote people-to-people exchanges, including the JENESYS 2.0 scheme recently announced by the Prime Minister of Japan, and the importance of these being fully utilised.  They support the work of the Japan Foundation and the Asia New Zealand Foundation in promoting greater understanding and interaction between the two countries.

Asia-Pacific regional cooperation

Both countries will cooperate to promote the stability, prosperity and integration of the Asia-Pacific region through regional institutions and mechanisms, including Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), the East Asia Summit (EAS) and ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF). They underline the importance of enhancing regional institutional frameworks and engagements through the constructive and responsible participation of all regional players. The two countries will work together to enhance transparency, predictability, openness and functional cooperation in regional affairs.

As maritime nations, Japan and New Zealand are committed to strengthening maritime order in the region, based on established international law, including the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).  Both sides underline the importance of disputes and issues being resolved peacefully, without force or provocation, in a manner that is clearly consistent with international law.

Both sides express concern over North Korea’s nuclear and missile development. They urge North Korea to abandon all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programmes including its uranium enrichment activities, to fully comply with the relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions and the Six Party Talks Joint Statement, and to address humanitarian and human rights concerns including the abductions issue.

The two sides recognise the strategic importance of TPP, including its potential to spur economic growth and development and serve as a platform for wider trade and economic integration across the Asia-Pacific.   The two sides reaffirm their commitment to achieving a comprehensive, high-ambition, next generation agreement, consistent with the Outlines of the TPP Agreement announced by TPP Leaders on 12 November 2011 in Honolulu and New Zealand’s 21 April 2013 statement, on behalf of the existing membership, welcoming Japan to the TPP negotiation. 

Pacific Islands Cooperation

Japan and New Zealand reaffirm their shared goal of a prosperous and secure Pacific region.  They underline the importance of the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) as the pre-eminent political grouping of the Pacific Islands region, and the Pacific Islands Leaders Meeting (PALM) process as a significant cooperative grouping, in providing regional coordination.  The two sides stress the need for effective coordination between the PIF and PALM processes, recognising the importance of Japan’s role in this regard. They have decided to hold regular Pacific consultations involving officials from foreign ministries and aid agencies to strengthen cooperation on Pacific issues and enhance development coordination in the Pacific.

Japan and New Zealand commit to advance practical actions and initiatives designed to tackle the challenges faced by the Pacific island countries, building on the respective expertise of each country.  Particular areas of focus are to include disaster management, as well as sustainable economic development, infrastructure and renewable energy.

Multilateral issues

Japan and New Zealand reaffirm their shared commitment to sustainable development, climate change issues, human rights, disarmament, arms control and non-proliferation as well as the Middle East Peace Process. They will continue to engage cooperatively to advance these issues in multilateral fora.

Both sides reaffirmed their shared commitment to the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) reform, which makes it more effective and representative of the 21st century. 

Both sides commit to work constructively on the issue of the establishment of marine protected areas (MPAs) under the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR), including a Ross Sea region MPA, consistent with the General Framework for the Establishment of CCAMLR Marine Protected Areas adopted in 2011, and CCAMLR’s conservation principles which provide for rational use.

Both sides value sports exchanges as a means to enhance bilateral engagement. Reflecting the importance of rugby in both countries, New Zealand aims to contribute to Japan’s successful hosting of the 2019 Rugby World Cup. New Zealand appreciates Tokyo’s efforts to host the 2020 Olympic and Paralympic Games.

Implementation

To ensure close coordination on bilateral, regional and global issues, both sides reiterate the importance of more frequent political-level visits and dialogues, and also regular consultations between officials.

They also emphasise the importance of non-governmental dialogues, such as track two discussions and business-to-business forums such as the Japan/New Zealand Partnership Forum and the Japan/New Zealand Business Council, for deepening understanding and cooperation.

ENDS

Content Sourced from scoop.co.nz
Original url

Foreign Affairs Minister Murray McCully today announced his Japanese counterpart, Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida, will visit New Zealand this weekend.Hon Murray McCully

Minister of Foreign Affairs

7 June 2013       Media Statement       

Japan Foreign Minister to visit

Foreign Affairs Minister Murray McCully today announced his Japanese counterpart, Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida, will visit New Zealand this weekend.

Mr Kishida’s visit will be the first by a Cabinet minister in Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s government, which came into power in late 2012.

“Japan’s participation in the Trans Pacific Partnership negotiations opens a new chapter in our bilateral relationship,” Mr McCully says.

“I look forward to discussions with Mr Kishida on how we can strengthen our cooperation, both bilaterally and in the wider region.”

During his visit, Mr Kishida will also meet Trade Minister Tim Groser. 

ENDS

Content Sourced from scoop.co.nz
Original url

US terms for Japans entry holds Japan and TPPA to ransom The bon homie bound to be shown between Japans Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida and his New Zealand counterparts this week should not disguise the realities of the Trans-Pacific Partnership …6 June 2013

For Immediate Release
US terms for Japan’s entry holds Japan and TPPA to ransom

‘The bon homie bound to be shown between Japan’s Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida and his New Zealand counterparts this week should not disguise the realities of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement in Japan’, warned Professor Jane Kelsey who has just completed a week’s tour of Japan at the invitation of coalitions opposed to the TPPA.

‘The terms of Japan’s entry are effectively a surrender to the US, which has secured two sets of parallel negotiations that will potentially hold the TPPA talks hostage to securing its desired bilateral outcome from Japan.’

Proposed new US Trade Representative Robert Froman has said these talks will operate on the same time frame as the TPPA and the US will not close with Japan on TPPA unless it has what it wants.

These parallel talks are separate from the deeply fraught question of market access for agriculture in the TPPA, where the US will be caught between wanting to give Japan flexibility to justify its own selective approach on agriculture and demanding that Japan surrenders to US agribusiness interests.

Very different explanations of the terms for Japan’s participation have been released in the US and Japan. Key players in Japan have been led to expect that five groups of sensitive agricultural products will be excluded, including dairy.

It is unclear what the US approach means for the broader negotiations.

‘Clearly, from the US perspective the TPPA has now become a bilateral FTA negotiation with Japan. This leaves the rest of the TPPA countries, including New Zealand, as onlookers, despite Tim Groser’s claims that New Zealand will not agree to any exceptions for Japan’s agriculture’.

‘No one should underestimate the internal resistance to US demands in Japan, let alone those from New Zealand – even assuming the Abe government survives for the duration of the TPPA and parallel bilateral negotiations’, according to Professor Kelsey.

The faction opposed to the TPPA in the governing LDP party agreed to Japan joining the talks, but set six tough conditions to protect the national interest in any final deal.

‘Despite media reports suggesting the Abe government will roll any internal dissent, the anti-TPPA faction in the LDP is resolute about these conditions’, said Professor Kelsey, who met with the Diet member leading the group while in Tokyo.

Explanation:

Because of a 90 day notification requirement in the US, Japan can only join the final two days of the July round of TPPA negotiations in Malaysia from 15 to 25 July.

As with Mexico and Canada, Japan had to accept all the text that the other parties have so far agreed, even though it will not be allowed to see that text until 23 July.

In a display of bad faith, a series of inter-sessional meetings are now planned to try to close as much of the text as possible before Japan joins.

As a term of agreeing to Japan’s entry, the US demanded that Japan make down-payments that facilitate the entry of more US motor vehicles and a moratorium on approving the sale of new cancer and other medical insurance products by Japan Post Insurance.

The Abe government has agreed to two further sets of bilateral negotiations that will run parallel to, but separate from, the TPPA itself.

One will cover a long list of US demands on automobiles, including testing and standards, distribution, financing, and participation by the US industry interests in Japan’s domestic regulatory decisions. This side agreement would become enforceable through the TPPA dispute process.

The second parallel talks involve a raft of ‘non-tariff measures’, including insurance, investment, intellectual property, food and other technical standards, government procurement and competition policy. These would be implemented in various ways, including requirements for Japan to change its laws.

The non-tariff measures covered in the parallel talks are also subject to TPPA negotiations, and it is unclear how a US deal with Japan would interface with rules being developed in the TPPA talks themselves.

Obama’s proposed new Trade Representative Rob Foreman said in a press conference on 31 April 2013 that outcomes of the parallel talks would have to be implemented before the US brought the TPPA into effect in relation to Japan. He fudged the answer when asked if that meant the whole agreement would be blocked if there were no agreement with Japan in these parallel talks.

These parallel talks are additional to the negotiations on market access for agriculture. The US has insisted these are negotiated bilaterally with countries that do not currently have US FTAs.

The Japanese language version of the bilaterally agreed terms for Japan’s entry implies the exclusion of five groups of agricultural products: rice, sugar, dairy, wheat and barley, beef and pork. The US version merely notes that Japan has sensitivities in agriculture, as does the US in manufacturing.

The LDP identified six items that were essential to protect the national interest: exemption of tariffs on agricultural, forest and marine products;
1. protection of safety and environmental standards and removal of US tariffs for automobiles;
2. maintenance of universal health insurance coverage and the public drug price system;
3. food safety standards, including food labelling, GE and BSE beef standards;
4. exclusion of investor-state dispute settlement; and
5. maintenance of Japan’s approach to financial services, including insurance and Japan Post.

ends

Content Sourced from scoop.co.nz
Original url

Daily Press Briefings : Daily Press Briefing – June 5, 2013 06/05/2013 05:26 PM EDT Jen Psaki Spokesperson Daily Press Briefing Washington, DC June 5, 2013 Index for Today’s Briefing SYRIA Fighting in Qusayr / Humanitarian Assistance / U.S. Assistance …Daily Press Briefings : Daily Press Briefing – June 5, 2013

06/05/2013 05:26 PM EDT

Jen Psaki

Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC

June 5, 2013

Index for Today’s Briefing

SYRIA

Fighting in Qusayr / Humanitarian Assistance / U.S. Assistance to Opposition

United Nations Investigation Continues into Alleged Use of Chemical Weapons

Geneva 2 Conference

TURKEY

Conversation between Secretary Kerry and Foreign Minister Davutoglu / Protests

ISRAEL/PALESTINIANS

Peace Process

PAKISTAN

Elections / Congratulations to Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif

VENEZUELA

Secretary Kerry’s Meeting with Venezuelan Foreign Minister Jaua

Release of Tim Tracy

CHINA

China’s Interest in Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)

DPRK

Concerned by Reports of Repatriation of North Korean Refugees

NIGERIA

Nigerian Classification of Boku Haram

EGYPT

Blue Nile Project / Encourage Cooperation between Egypt and Ethiopia
TRANSCRIPT:

1:25 p.m. EDT

MS. PSAKI: Hi, everyone. Hi, Brad. Welcome back.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have anything at the top, so why don’t we get to what’s on your minds?

QUESTION: Can we start with –

QUESTION: Syria.

QUESTION: Turkey.

QUESTION: — Qusayr. Yeah.

MS. PSAKI: With Syria.

QUESTION: Yeah. What do you think about the apparent fall of Qusayr to government forces?

MS. PSAKI: Thank you for your question, Arshad. We continue to receive conflicting reports about what is happening on the ground in Qusayr. We remain concerned, of course, about the influx of foreign fighters, as we’ve talked about quite a bit here and we know that has lifted up the regime and their efforts there. We, of course, are following it very, very closely.

It is clear – so let me just reiterate this – that the regime is unable to contest the opposition’s control of Qusayr on its own and is therefore dependent on Hezbollah and Iran to do the work for them. But as I mentioned, we are receiving conflicting reports from what is happening on the ground

QUESTION: What are the reports you’re getting? I mean, are you getting some that it has fallen and some that suggest it has not?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I don’t want to outline all of them, but yes, clearly we’re getting reports of different directions for the final outcome there.

QUESTION: Do you think the U.S. Government should have tried to do more to help the rebels in their effort to retain control of Qusayr?

MS. PSAKI: Well, let me first point out – and we’ve talked about this a little bit, but it’s worth reiterating – that the regime has blocked access for humanitarian assistance on the ground. They’ve blocked – they’ve been blockading the entrance. So you are very familiar, of course, with all the assistance we have provided to the opposition and our efforts to continue to do that. But one of our many concerns we have about what’s going on the ground there is the humanitarian issues, which we’ve not been able to break through.

QUESTION: That wasn’t my question though. My question was: Should the Administration have done more to help the rebels retain control of Qusayr?

MS. PSAKI: Well, Arshad, I think the reason I mention that is because it’s been very difficult to even get humanitarian aid through, given it has been blockaded. So as you know, our assistance from the United States, at this point, has been focused on a range of nonlethal assistance, humanitarian aid, et cetera. We’re continuing to – that is continuing to flow in, as we’ve talked about over the past couple of days. Beyond that, we, of course, are in close contact with the opposition. We are concerned, as I’ve expressed, about what’s going on on the ground and the influx of Hezbollah. But beyond that, I’m not sure I have much more to add.

QUESTION: Well, it’s not clear to me that the flows of humanitarian aid in any way address the question that I posed, which was whether the Administration thinks it should have done more to try to retain – help the rebels retain control.

MS. PSAKI: Well, as you know, we’ve been broadly opposed to any influx of foreign fighters. And that’s something we’re greatly concerned about and that has helped the regime. Beyond what we have already talked about and what we’re already doing to help the opposition and help them on the ground and remain supportive of them, I’m not actually quite sure what you’re suggesting. Of course, we are concerned about the humanitarian aid on the ground. We remain – we keep all options on the table, and that’s where our focus is.

QUESTION: I’m not suggesting anything. I’m asking whether the Administration thinks it should have done or do more, no suggestion; it’s a question. I mean, the answer could be yes, the answer could be no, the answer could be we’re not going to try to help the rebels protect territory, and that’s been the President’s position so far. Is that the answer?

MS. PSAKI: Our position so far has not actually been that. Our position so far has been – we have obviously increased our trajectory of aid over the past couple of months. You know we’re now at 250 million in nonlethal assistance, 127 that has gone out, 123 that will soon be notified, and we look forward to moving forward with that.

As you also know, as part of our discussions with our international partners, we’ve continued to encourage them and continue to say that we will increase our aid and continue to increase our aid over time. Part of that is working with the SMC, working with General Idris, working with commanders on the ground through that process to determine what their needs are. So that’s where our focus us.

QUESTION: So part of your effort is indeed to help the rebels retain ground that they have already acquired or take more?

MS. PSAKI: Well, Arshad, and I think – or the process and how it works is of course that we work through the SMC, we work with a number of partners on the ground. As you know, General Idris is the head of the SMC. I’ve spoken before about how impressed the Secretary has been with him. He was one of the advocates for driving aid to the opposition in part through the SMC, which we expect will be part of the next tranche of aid. He is consulting with commanders on the ground on their needs and working with them. And of course, given our stakes here and given how often we talk about this, of course we want the opposition to succeed on the ground and that’s what we’re working closely with them to do.

QUESTION: What did your aid accomplish in this latest battle? You said you’re working with them to change the situation on the ground. What were you able to accomplish with the nonlethal aid you’ve provided so far?

MS. PSAKI: Well, Brad, we’ve talked about this a lot over the last couple of days while you’ve been gone. Obviously this is a challenging situation on the ground. We are working with international partners. We’re not the only ones who are providing aid. Everybody is providing different kinds of aid. In terms of what we have done and what we encourage to do, there’s a broad range of benefits that have come from our aid. Of course, this is a case –

QUESTION: In Qusayr there’s a broad range of benefits?

MS. PSAKI: Well, Brad –

QUESTION: I don’t think people have seen the benefits.

MS. PSAKI: – part of the challenge here – and I know that humanitarian aid is something that you often all scoff at, but it’s a very important component to this. There are thousands of civilians –

QUESTION: No, we don’t scoff at it, but the Secretary of State came in saying he was going to change Assad’s calculations, and that doesn’t mean band-aids. Providing people with medical kits isn’t going to change Assad’s calculations, and he acknowledged that himself.

MS. PSAKI: Well, there’s several tranches of aid.

QUESTION: He didn’t say, “I’m going to change his calculations with humanitarian aid.”

MS. PSAKI: There are several components of changing the calculation. There’s –

QUESTION: How have you changed his calculations?

MS. PSAKI: We’re working with our partners to do just that. There are several tracks to that, as you know. There’s a political transition that I have an update for all of you on in terms of the meetings and what has happened there. That’s part of it. Part of it is also working with our international partners to continue to aid the opposition, continue to encourage them to unite and work together to strengthen their own front.

QUESTION: And then on the military, that’s just a loss? You’ve got politics to talk about –

MS. PSAKI: Well, Brad, as I just mentioned –

QUESTION: — so on a military ground (inaudible) –

MS. PSAKI: — so let me just reiterate, the next tranche, which the Secretary talked about in Istanbul, part of that will be directed through the SMC. In terms of what that will be composed of, that will still be worked through the congressional process, and that’s something that we’re encouraging our international partners to do as well. There are a range of materials that will be included and are possibilities for that. We’re consulting with the SMC about what’s best going to help them on the ground.

QUESTION: But it’s still going to be non-lethal, right, this next tranche?

MS. PSAKI: Yes, that is – it is non-lethal aid, mm-hmm. That was announced in Istanbul.

QUESTION: On the chemical weapon issue, yesterday, French Foreign Minister said that now, French Government has no doubt that the Syrian regime used sarin gas. Do you have trust and confidence in French authorities?

MS. PSAKI: Well, we talked about this a little bit yesterday. I don’t know that I have much more new to say, but let me just reiterate what I said. As we’ve said, we have been providing relevant information to the United Nations. We’ve been cooperating with our partners, including, of course, the French and other allies, about information that we all have. This is a report that we’re not going to evaluate in public, but certainly we continue to focus on nailing down the facts, just as the President said just a few weeks ago.

QUESTION: And you also made a parallel yesterday between Iraq and Syria. Do you recall in any time during the Iraq War this kind of high official from your allies came out and said that they have no doubt there was a WMD in Iraq?

MS. PSAKI: Again, I’m not going to go through a historical context here.

QUESTION: You brought it up yesterday.

MS. PSAKI: Let me just reiterate what I said yesterday. I did, and I said it has impacted our own commitment to determining the facts before we take further steps. It was certainly a lesson for us. It is something that we have been reflective on. And we’re doing everything possible to work with our allies, contribute to the UN investigation, and finalize the facts on the ground.

QUESTION: One question – one final question: You talk about Qusayr, about foreign fighters in Qusayr. But according to firsthand witnesses, the same thing is going on in eastern Gota, which is the eastern part of Damascus, from Afghanis to Iraqis to Hezbollah to Irans are all flocking there, and the situation on the ground militarily are worsening by day, and they are predicting same thing is happening in eastern Gota what happened in Qusayr. Are you going to take any kind of – anything different than – you obviously failed in Qusayr preventing falling into the regime hands.

MS. PSAKI: This is a fight between the Syrian people. Obviously, we are committed to helping the opposition. We have taken steps over the past couple of months to increase aid, to help the opposition, to work – help them move towards a political transition. And we’ve continued to encourage our allies to also help the opposition succeed here.

This is a challenging situation on the ground, there’s no question. Let me reiterate that we’re concerned about the influx of all foreign fighters regardless of what side they’re fighting on, whether – and the influx of – and the overflow of this fight into neighboring countries. That’s something we’re greatly concerned about. We have expressed that to the opposition as well.

QUESTION: Jen, regardless of how Qusayr ends up, whether the fighters for Assad take it back or not, it’s being perceived that they are winning, or at least they are in the ascendance in the fight. And some are interpreting that as having Assad emboldened not to go ahead with what your diplomats are dealing with right now, which is this Geneva 2 meeting. What indications are you getting on the ground from Wendy Sherman and others that – the prospect of this? And do you see any type of diminution of energy or weakening of any progress toward that precisely because Assad thinks that he can win this?

MS. PSAKI: Well, let me first say that obviously, the situation on the ground, which is just further killing, further deaths of innocent men and women and civilians across the board, continues to raise the stakes, as it has for months on what’s at – on the issue here. So let me give you an update on where we are with the conference.

Today in Geneva, Under Secretary Sherman and Ambassadors Jones and Ford, actually, who was there, concluded substantive and useful conversations with Russian and UN officials on planning for the Geneva conference on Syria, which will be sponsored and led by the UN. Their discussion today was focused on efforts to advance a negotiated political solution as well as the devastating humanitarian crisis in Syria, particularly in Qusayr, and the urgent need to allow humanitarian access for aid to reach those in need.

They agreed that the objectives of this conference are focused on trying to form a transitional government, governing body, and all government institutions will transfer authority to this new governing body, and that no executive party – power will remain with the regime. In terms of participants, they did, of course, discuss this as well as other agenda items that you often all ask about. The Secretary General will issue conference invitations to participants, the – which will begin with a plenary session at the ministerial level, and then the proceedings would be turned over to Special Representative Brahimi, who is the negotiator. Let me just finish this and then we’ll take some questions on it.

He expects to negotiate with the parties and to have the substantive support from all of those parties involved to be focused on the hard work of negotiating names for the transitional governing body. Participation in the negotiations will include two delegations of Syrians, the opposition and the regime. And the – in addition to the opposition and the regime, we expect the Secretary General would also include those who participated in Geneva 1 and the group known as the London 11. There was additional discussion of other participants. That will continue. No conclusion was made.

And finally, let me just add that given all the arrangements and organization required for the Geneva conference on Syria and the continued need of the opposition to elect leadership, which we’ve talked about a bit, they are now aiming for July, we are aiming for July. And the same delegation of officials that met today will meet – will return to Geneva on June 25th to take stock of preparations for this conference.

We’ll go to Jill.

QUESTION: Can I ask you, when you went through the top of it with Wendy Sherman and Jones, Ford, et cetera, you said that they agreed that there would be – no executive power will remain with the regime. Now, who agreed on that?

MS. PSAKI: That is something – and I would point you to Special Representative Brahimi, who has spoken to this, actually, on the ground. That’s something that was agreed by the group who was negotiating there.

QUESTION: And so that would be – in other words, the regime would agree?

MS. PSAKI: The regime was not negotiating there. This was the Russians, the UN, and the United States.

QUESTION: Jen, you’ve covered all the ground on the timeline. But I wanted to ask you – there were reports that actually they failed to find common ground, the Russians and the Americans, and that in fact, Gennady Gatilov expressed that quite vocally, that you don’t really have common ground. Do you have any response to that?

MS. PSAKI: Well, let me reiterate where there is common ground, and that is that there is a need for a political transition. That is the best path forward for the Syrian people. That is for the Syrian people to decide who will be a part of the transitional government, that they will continue to discuss the agenda and participation at the next meeting in June 25th, and that this is the best path forward. That seems a great deal that they do agree on.

QUESTION: And a quick follow-up on Qusayr: There were reports that it is virtually a ghost town. Do you have anything that you can confirm or deny or refute, that it is not a ghost town, that there is – there are people there? It seems that –

MS. PSAKI: Again, I don’t have anything for you beyond –

QUESTION: — that lived in –

MS. PSAKI: — what I –

QUESTION: Could you find out?

MS. PSAKI: — highlighted at the top about conflicting reports about what is happening on the ground. As that develops, as we know more, we’re of course happy to provide that to all of you.

QUESTION: Because this is big news. I mean, they say that the whole population actually went to the surrounding villages and so on. Could you find out for us, please?

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS. PSAKI: And let me just reiterate that this is a place where there are thousands of civilians, innocent civilians, who have been blocked. I don’t have any update on the status of that or if there’s been humanitarian aid let in for them, but that remains a great concern of ours.

QUESTION: Okay. It’s also an area that has been –

QUESTION: Was this the –

QUESTION: — subject to ebb and flow. I mean, fighters go in and they go out, and so on. So do you expect that there will be, like, another attack or a counter-attack by the opposition on –

MS. PSAKI: I don’t want to speculate on that.

QUESTION: Was this readout from Geneva, was this the political progress that you were mentioning?

MS. PSAKI: Well, again, I think they did make progress, Brad, moving forward in terms of next steps. This is challenging. We’re trying to –

QUESTION: Hold on. Just – hold. What’s the – I mean, we knew that the whole point of this was to have a discussion between the opposition and the –

MS. PSAKI: Correct.

QUESTION: — regime. So, agreeing that the opposition would meet the regime, how’s that progress?

MS. PSAKI: Well, it’s progress because they continued – we continue to be on the same page about the path forward, the importance of a political transition, getting all sides to the table –

QUESTION: Repetition, repetition, repetition. I just don’t see what is new. Is the new thing that Ban Ki-moon will hold a plenary session? Is that the progress?

MS. PSAKI: Brad, that’s part of the process that will happen as part of the Geneva conference. Obviously, the agenda was part of the conversation, so –

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. PSAKI: — I wanted to provide you all with that update.

QUESTION: I’ve got a couple of questions.

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: When you say that the executive – no executive power will remain with the regime, is that something that both sides of the Syrian conflict will have to agree to before coming to the talks? In other words, will the representatives of the regime have already agreed to that before they sit down, hopefully, with the Syrian opposition?

MS. PSAKI: Well, part of the process here is coming to the table to discuss all of these issues not with preconditions, because the stalemate, in part, has been about demands from both sides. And so we expect that that will be part of the discussion. But again, the same group will be meeting on June 25th to continue the discussion of the agenda and participants and all of the other issues around the conference.

QUESTION: So this is just an agreement between the United States and Russia. It has nothing to do with the Syrians. I mean, they can – they could decide not to accept that.

MS. PSAKI: Not to accept – well –

QUESTION: That executive authority will remain with the regime.

MS. PSAKI: Remember that the purpose of this conference is to discuss these exact issues, right? So the focus is getting everybody there, creating an environment that will be most conducive and most productive to that. It’s not determining everything in advance.

QUESTION: So was the success of that statement the fact that the Russians came onboard with the United States position on it?

MS. PSAKI: It’s just a broad agreement about moving forward, and these are obviously the key players in planning this conference with the Syrian regime, with the opposition. Clearly, the Russians, as they’ve said many times publicly, have been closely working, in close contact with the regime. As you know, the U.S. has been in contact with the opposition, as have a number of our allies and partners. The UN is playing a pivotal role here.

So, this was an agreement about how to move forward. We think it’s important because the political transition and the path to that, the conference is a key component of getting there.

QUESTION: And then you mentioned that Ban Ki-moon will be issuing invitations to the guests.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: And you mentioned the Geneva – the people who were present for Geneva 1, the London 11, obviously the Syrian side, and that some of them have yet to be discussed. Presumably, that means Iran. Any other countries?

MS. PSAKI: They were discussed, but no conclusion was made.

QUESTION: So when are the invitations likely to be – start to be issued?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have a timeline on that yet.

QUESTION: And there’s no discussion, or you didn’t agree on a date yet for this even though –

MS. PSAKI: Not yet.

QUESTION: Sometime in July?

MS. PSAKI: And a component of that is not just with the people who were participating in these discussions. It’s also with the Syrian opposition and the fact that, as we’ve talked about a bit in here, they are going to be electing leadership. That’s a key component of that. They’re obviously an important participant. And so that will have an impact on that as well.

QUESTION: And do you have clarity on who the Syrian regime would like to send to these talks?

MS. PSAKI: Not yet.

QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.

QUESTION: Do you have –

MS. PSAKI: Oh, Jill, go ahead.

QUESTION: Yeah, just – because it’s exactly this question: So, just to make sure, at this particular point, is there any indication that the regime will show up, that representatives will show up?

MS. PSAKI: Well, the Russians have stated publicly they would. I would point you to that. The focus of this meeting was not about reaching out to both sides. That’s obviously something that’s ongoing every single day. This was about putting together a plan of action, an agenda, moving forward on that, a group of participants that would make sense to, of course, consult with the regime and the opposition on.

QUESTION: Just to clarify to – if you will. Do you have a criteria that they must meet, like conditions countries or participants must meet? Do you have any kind of criteria?

MS. PSAKI: In order to participate?

QUESTION: Right, to participate, in order to participate.

MS. PSAKI: Well, again, the UN will be issuing the invitations to this. They’re a key component in the –

QUESTION: And so you don’t have a criteria? You don’t have, say, that a country must not have participated in aiding the rebels or the regime or anything like this?

MS. PSAKI: I wouldn’t put it in those terms. There are obviously a number of participants who will be invited, as I just mentioned, to have a – had a stake in Geneva 1 who attended, members of the London 11, others who have been very involved in this across the board. And discussion of other participants will continue.

QUESTION: So it’s just Ban Ki-moon (inaudible)?

QUESTION: I just have one –

MS. PSAKI: No, it will be discussed, again, in an ongoing conversations over the next couple of weeks and when they meet again on June 25th.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: General Idris has raised his concern that women and children, particularly living in areas bordering Alawites’ villages, have been targeted. He’s used the term “ethnic cleansing.” Secretary – and concerns about it. Secretary Kerry has said he is concerned about ethnic cleansing in Syria. Today, the Syrian army said that the town of Qusayr was cleansed. That was the word that they used. At this point, in the reports that this building is looking at, some of them conflicting, is this building looking into the question of ethnic cleansing? Is there a belief or a concern that it is indeed taking place?

MS. PSAKI: We are – I mean, I think I would just reiterate what I said and what the Secretary has said. I don’t know that I need to add much to that. And you know we are concerned about sectarian violence, we’re concerned about the influx of foreign fighters, we’re greatly concerned about the deaths of innocent civilians. Beyond that, I don’t have anything to report out to you on what we’re focused on there.

QUESTION: Well, when the Secretary used that phrase, it has a specific meaning; it’s not just sectarian violence.

MS. PSAKI: Of course. I understand that.

QUESTION: It’s targeted. It’s focused. Is this building in any belief or question that that is taking place?

MS. PSAKI: Again, I don’t have anything for you on that.

QUESTION: Just one last clarification. So you said that the parties – to come together without any preconditions, but this no executive authority to remain with the regime, that’s a precondition, and why would the regime agree to that if they’ve just had a significant strategic victory in Qusayr?

MS. PSAKI: Well –

QUESTION: I mean, is that a precondition or –

MS. PSAKI: I would not qualify it that way. What I was conveying is that this is an agreement between the UN, the Russians, and the U.S. on what they think the path forward should be and in their efforts to plan and organize this conference. There will, of course, be significant consultations. Both the regime and the opposition are key components of this process. Again, this is a conference to discuss putting together a transitional government. There isn’t a transitional government that will be in place before this conference, so this is the stage we’re at. Obviously, there will be consultations on both sides moving forward.

QUESTION: So this is a nonbinding recommendation not backed by teeth, essentially, this full transfer of executive authority?

MS. PSAKI: Well, again, Brad, it’s an important group of partners –

QUESTION: Right.

MS. PSAKI: — who’ve agreed on the path forward. That’s the significance of it.

QUESTION: It’s kind of like when the President said almost two years ago that Assad should step down. It was a recommendation but not a prescriptive for what U.S. is going to force to happen, correct?

MS. PSAKI: Do we have any more on Syria?

QUESTION: Change topics?

QUESTION: You wouldn’t put it in that category?

MS. PSAKI: I would not.

QUESTION: Change topics?

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm. Any more – do you have more on Syria?

QUESTION: On Turkey.

MS. PSAKI: Go ahead, okay.

QUESTION: Could you confirm that yesterday – you mentioned that the Secretary was going to try and phone to his Turkish counterpart Davutoglu and that they did indeed talk?

MS. PSAKI: They did.

QUESTION: And can you confirm the – apparently, according to Turkish media – no, according to the foreign ministry talking to AFP, actually, Davutoglu told Kerry – and he was pretty angry about some of the comments that the Secretary’s made about excessive use of force during the demonstration – apparently, he told the Secretary that Turkey is not a second-class democracy.

MS. PSAKI: Well, I don’t want to confirm the comments of the Foreign Minister. What I can do is confirm they did speak and that the Secretary – they spoke quite a bit, of course, about Syria and moving forward. But they also talked about the Secretary’s concerns, ongoing concerns about the situation on the ground, and he also welcomed the update on efforts to calm the situation on the ground that some officials have called for.

And let me just reiterate the Secretary and Foreign Minister have had a very positive working relationship. They’ve worked together very closely on a number of issues, most specifically on Syria and the crisis ongoing there. That will continue. We have no doubt about that.

There – we – at the same time, the Secretary and others in this building don’t hold back when there are concerns that we have as well. And we have had concerns over the past couple of days about instances of police brutality, and we continue to call for, of course, the acceptance of peaceful protest. And that’s something we do around the world. So certainly, he was making no effort to quantify or qualify Turkey in any way other than to express support for calls for calm that have happened on the ground, express his belief that that needs to continue to happen, and to continue his very positive working relationship with the Foreign Minister.

QUESTION: But you don’t consider Turkey as a second-rate or second-class democracy, do you?

MS. PSAKI: No.

QUESTION: First-rate? (Laughter.)

MS. PSAKI: I’m not going to do rankings in here, Brad. I appreciate the opportunity, though.

QUESTION: Well, presume – obviously, the Foreign Minister has done a ranking and felt that the criticism that was coming from this building and from the Secretary himself was overly – was unduly harsh. Would you accept that?

MS. PSAKI: We would not. Obviously, the protests and the incidents that we’ve talked about a little bit over the past couple of days that have happened on the ground, reports of police brutality and injuries and even a couple of deaths, that’s concerning. And we continue to call for acceptance and support for peaceful protest not just in Turkey, but around the world. That’s our consistent belief and our consistent feeling. At the same time, we still have a very good, positive working relationship with the country of Turkey. The Secretary and the Foreign Minister have struck up quite a friendship and they’ve worked together closely on Syria and other global crises we’re facing, and we expect that will continue.

QUESTION: That doesn’t address the issue of democracy. You have good relationships with completely undemocratic countries, correct? So what does saying that you have a good relationship regarding Syria have to do regarding your concerns about its democratic trajectory?

MS. PSAKI: Well, Brad, I think it’s relevant because the point is that we work closely with Turkey as a NATO ally on a number of issues, including Syria, which is one of the most devastating global crises happening right now, and they are a very close partner on that. At the same time, we have had concerns about some of the reports from the protests, and that’s natural we would express that given our support for peaceful expression and human rights around the world.

QUESTION: Do you feel Turkey’s democracy is mature enough to be able to handle this current crisis and get back on track?

MS. PSAKI: We feel – and the Secretary said this the other day – that he feels confident that they can continue to move forward. He was pleased to see the calls for calm, hopes that continues. And we look forward to working with them on a number of issues.

QUESTION: So there’s no fear in this building that the Secretary’s comments will in any way undermine or harm the relationship that you have with Turkey?

MS. PSAKI: We certainly – certainly not.

QUESTION: But it seems that it’s obvious a reason of tension between the two, because I mean, Foreign Minister Davutoglu’s comment on your remarks actually is very harsh because he’s blaming U.S. side to see those protests as extraordinary while you are interpreting other protests all around the world ordinary.

MS. PSAKI: Well, I would refute the notion that we – that they are extraordinary in that any time there are incidents of police – potential police brutality or opposition to what we see as opposition to the freedom of expression, that’s something we often talk about in this room, the Secretary talks about, that’s something we regularly bring up and highlight.

What I was stating was that we have a very important partnership with Turkey on a number of issues, and we feel confident that will continue.

QUESTION: In fact, the Foreign Minister reportedly also compared the protests in Ankara and other Turkish cities to the protests that we saw a couple of years ago with the Occupy Wall Street movement, in which we also did see a lot of arrests and court cases and things like that. Is that a fair comparison?

MS. PSAKI: Again, there’s going to be an investigation into what happened on the ground here. We support peaceful protests, whether that’s in the United States or in other countries, so I would just reiterate that.

QUESTION: Jen, but let me ask you, on the words and the things that Mr. Erdogan has said in the last few days, I mean, do you consider that to be draconian or calling for draconian measures? For instance, he’s really insulting basically people that drink beer, telling them to drink yogurt instead, telling them not to do this and so on. Very, sort of, very aggressive Islamist kind of agenda. Do you consider that to be not helpful towards a vibrant democracy?

MS. PSAKI: Well, we think what would be helpful is for all officials to encourage calm in the country and support peaceful protests. So that’s what we’re encouraging everybody to do.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) a Prime Minister who is, a prime minister of all Turks, of all political orientations, should back away from that kind of rhetoric?

MS. PSAKI: I’m not going to go further on that than I’ve just gone.

QUESTION: But he’s promising – I mean, it’s a very reasonable question, actually. He’s promising this rhetoric for you to calm down all the protests. Because even yesterday, Vice Prime Minister Babacan was here, and he was the most reasonable ministers in the cabinet, he even used the word of terrorists in his speech defining this protest. I mean, is this rhetoric promising to solve this question?

MS. PSAKI: I think I answered it. It’s – what is most helpful is for all the officials, as some have, to encourage calm and encourage peaceful – and accept peaceful protest. And language and verbiage that’s not doing that is not helpful toward moving forward.

QUESTION: You will keep to raise this issue – I mean, after that, even if the protest will be going on after giving this – after the speech that the Secretary Kerry took with Foreign Minister Davutoglu? You will keeping to raise this issue?

MS. PSAKI: Well, our ambassador and other officials on the ground have been in close contact. Obviously, the Secretary was in contact with his counterpart just yesterday. We’re hopeful that there will be a peaceful resolution here of course, but where we see issues that need to be raised, we will certainly continue to raise them.

QUESTION: Can I change topics?

MS. PSAKI: Any more on Turkey? Okay, go ahead.

QUESTION: Today marks the 46th anniversary of the June 5 occupation of the West Bank. The Palestinians have languished under occupation for 46 years. Do you believe that we have been at the point of enough is enough and this occupation must end immediately?

MS. PSAKI: Well, let me just reiterate what the Secretary has been focused greatly on, spent a lot of time and effort on, and that is moving both parties back to the path to peace. He’s spoken about that in speeches; he gave a speech just on Monday. He believes that is what’s best for future generations of Palestinian people, as well as future generations of Israeli people. And the time is now to act.

QUESTION: But you do recognize that this occupation has gone on for far too long and it’s time for it to end, correct?

MS. PSAKI: It’s time to move back to the table and move back to a peaceful –

QUESTION: But principally, you believe that this occupation must end, correct?

MS. PSAKI: Again, I think I’ve addressed where we are with this, and the Secretary speaks frequently about it.

QUESTION: Quick question on this. The Secretary’s next trip to the region, whenever it is, is that kind of the moment he has to have some progress on his, what, two and a half month initiative to restart talks or to get the process moving again? Or can this just languor on and on?

MS. PSAKI: Well, Brad, he’s said pretty clearly the last time he was there that we’re at a point where both sides need to make tough choices. And we continue to be there. He’ll go back to the region if he thinks that the trip would help both sides take even one step forward towards peace, towards moving back to the negotiating table, and he’s hopeful that that’s a step we’ll soon see.

QUESTION: So he’s not going to go back to the region if it’s going to be another listening tour or another step where – or another trip where essentially he doesn’t – he can’t really deliver anything, any movement forward?

MS. PSAKI: Again, I think he will go back if he feels there is an opportunity to move things forward. That doesn’t mean that will be the outcome of a trip, but if he feels it would be productive for him to go back.

QUESTION: So that’s not the end of his initiative.

MS. PSAKI: I don’t want to define when the end of such an important initiative would be. Hopefully it’s with both sides agreeing to a peaceful path forward.

QUESTION: Right. But when he started, and I think it was on the trip he accompanied the President with, it was clear that he had had a few months, I think, to get something going or you would move on to other pressing multilateral concerns. When is – is that basically time running out now?

MS. PSAKI: I’m not going to give a self-imposed deadline here. The Secretary has been very firm in his belief that now is the time for both sides to make tough choices. In terms of what’s next, he’ll continue to work on this. In terms of where we go from there, I can’t get ahead of what the next step in the process will be.

QUESTION: What are the tough choices that you want the Palestinians to make?

MS. PSAKI: I’m not going to define that from here. These negotiations have been quiet for good reason.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: Pakistan.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: I wondered if there was a comment or reaction today on the swearing-in of the new Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif.

MS. PSAKI: Sure. We congratulate Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif on his party’s success in the May 11th elections and look forward to working with him and the newly democratically-elected government of Pakistan. This election marked the first time in Pakistan’s history a civilian government has completed its term and transferred power democratically to another civilian government. And the U.S. – the United States stands with all Pakistanis in welcoming this historic, largely peaceful and transparent transfer of civilian power, which is a significant milestone in Pakistan’s democratic progress.

QUESTION: And in his first speech, he – Prime Minister Sharif also took a moment to call for an end to the campaign of U.S. drone strikes in the country, saying that we respect the sovereignty of others and they should respect our sovereignty and independence. This campaign should come to an end. Was that a helpful remark to be making in his first speech as prime minister?

MS. PSAKI: Well, Jo, we have a very strong ongoing dialogue with Pakistan regarding all aspects of the relationship and our shared interests, including security and counterterrorism cooperation. And we work together to address each other’s concerns. As we move forward with our counterterrorism operations, it is critically important that we continue to work closely with our partners throughout the world, providing them with the support they need, helping build their capacity to carry out counterterrorism operations in their own countries. And that’s what we expect the conversation will be and what it will continue to be with the Pakistanis.

QUESTION: Change topic?

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Venezuela. Today, the Secretary is meeting with the Venezuelan Foreign Minister. I wondered if you could say which side called for that meeting.

MS. PSAKI: Well, I believe in our background briefing we did with the traveling road show, they confirmed that it was the Venezuelans who asked for the meeting. Just to confirm for everybody, the Secretary will meet with Venezuelan Foreign Minister Elias Jaua on June – today, I should say – today, on June 5th. He will talk about the U.S. Government’s interest in building a functional operational relationship with Venezuela. And our interest in establishing a productive and functional relationship with Venezuela based on mutual interests, including counternarcotics, counterterrorism, and commerce. And I believe that meeting is either about to happen or are happening, as we speak.

QUESTION: Staying in Venezuela, the filmmaker Tim Tracy – did you guys accept the meeting before he was released or after?

MS. PSAKI: Well, the Secretary was prepared to discuss his case during the meeting. In terms of the tic-tock of the timeline of when we accepted it, I believe it was sometime last week, but it was an issue he was prepared to discuss.

And can also confirm, of course, as you all have seen, that Mr. Tracy has been released. We are pleased that he will be reunited, of course, with his family. We also want to thank the fine work of Venezuelan Charge Ortega and our Embassy in Caracas in getting to this moment.

QUESTION: So is he – do you know where in the world – is he still there or is he –

MS. PSAKI: No. He’s either en route or back.

QUESTION: China?

MS. PSAKI: Anymore on Venezuela? Okay. China.

QUESTION: China. When China’s Commerce Ministry stated in a public announcement that they were going to join the TPP, was that a surprise to United States? Have you spoken with them about this issue? And how do you assess the seriousness of their announcement?

MS. PSAKI: Well, again, no country announces they’re a part of a trade agreement. This is a case where the TPP – one – well, let me say first that USTR, of course, has the lead on this. It’s not something that one gets invited to, the TPP that is, but rather something that one aspires to with a very high standard that is required that any country meets. And beyond that, in terms of their posting on their website, I’m not sure there was any heads-up on that, but it doesn’t signify membership, but it signifies, I think, their interest. And other than that, I’d refer you to USTR.

QUESTION: Is this something that the United States welcomes, their interest?

MS. PSAKI: Again, I would refer you to USTR. This is a case where they have to meet high standards in order to become a part of TPP and a part of the trade agreement, and I would refer you to them on what those standards are.

QUESTION: Do you think it’s going to come up in the summit meeting in California between the presidents?

MS. PSAKI: Well, White House has outlined what their main topics of focus are there. I’m happy to reiterate those if helpful. And of course, the expectation is there would be a broad range in conversation. Whether or not this will be raised from the Chinese side, I would send you to them.

QUESTION: On North Korea.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Have you ever got in the direct contact with the North Korean delegation in New York regarding repatriate from Laos to nine North Korean young peoples issues?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have anything for you on that. We’ve talked a little bit about this, of course, about our concern about reports about these individuals and our continued urging for all countries in the region to cooperate in the protection of North Korean refugees. But in terms of contact and anything else, I don’t have anything for you on that.

Last one.

QUESTION: On Nigeria. There’s been a lot of talk in this building about whether the United States should classify Boko Haram as a terrorist organization. It has not. The Nigerian Government, however, has. Do you have any thoughts on President Jonathan’s decision?

MS. PSAKI: We have seen that. And they also classified Ansaru – I’m sorry – as terrorist organization as well. As the Secretary of State recently said, the United States condemns Boko Haram’s campaign of terror in the strongest terms. We urge Nigeria’s security forces to apply disciplined use of force in all operations, protect civilians in any security response, and respect human rights and rule of law. We respect, of course, the decision by Nigerian authorities. As you know, we have designated individuals in Boko Haram as specially designated global terrorists. Beyond that, I don’t have any comment on further deliberations.

QUESTION: Can I ask one more on –

MS. PSAKI: Oh. Go ahead, Jo.

QUESTION: — may I just go to Egypt briefly?

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: Yesterday there was a question from one of colleagues about the Ethiopian river dam. And I did see the statement that you put out just before we came down. But also at the same time, one of the advisors to President Morsy has borrowed a line from the U.S. briefing book, saying that all options remain open if the water supply is damaged in any way by the Ethiopians. How would you characterize that comment?

MS. PSAKI: Well, we’ve been encouraging – as many people have been – continued cooperation between the Egyptian and the Ethiopians and efforts to do that in this case. I don’t want to characterize the comment beyond that, but obviously our focus is on encouraging that and not rhetoric that would discourage it.

QUESTION: But it does seem – yeah. I mean does it seem – there’s an implicit threat there, that if something happens to Egyptians’ water supply the Egyptians could retaliate in some way against Ethiopia. I mean, there’s enough kind of crisis going on in the world. Presumably, the idea would be to try and calm this situation down.

MS. PSAKI: Of course, but our – what we’ve seen on the ground is that both sides are working together to resolve this, so we encourage that to continue and we’re hopeful that it will.

Thanks, everyone.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:12 p.m.)

ENDS

Content Sourced from scoop.co.nz
Original url

“In Conversation with Noel Cheer”, Face Television, Monday June 10th at 7:00pm, repeated on Tuesday June 11th at 12 noon.Big Fish and Little Fish

Can a minnow like New Zealand swim with a whale like the United States in the sea of commerce?  Do we have sufficient in common such that our requirements and preferences will get heard – especially in the context of reciprocal trade?
The Trans Pacific Partnership — which involves several Pacific countries — is bigger than free trade and – to extend the metaphor – it contains fishhooks.
To discuss this, the guest In Conversation with Noel Cheer on Face Television this week is the business journalist, Rod Oram.

“In Conversation with Noel Cheer”, Face Television, Monday June 10th at 7:00pm, repeated on Tuesday June 11th at 12 noon.

Face Television, the home of public broadcasting, is found on Sky Television Channel 83 and can also be received in the Auckland region on UHF Channels 41, 42 and 52.  It is also live-streamed on www.ecasttv.co.nz.  The website www.facetv.co.nz carries programme schedules.   Some recent episodes of In Conversation can be viewed at www.youtube.com/user/NoelCheer

“In Conversation with Noel Cheer” receives funding from New Zealand on Air.  This has enabled us to introduce viewers to over 260 New Zealanders on Air (as well as visitors to New Zealand) during more than six years of unbroken weekly public-interest broadcasting.

ENDS

Content Sourced from scoop.co.nz
Original url

MODERATOR: All right. Good afternoon, everyone. Were en route to Antigua, Guatemala for the OAS General Assembly. Well also have a bilateral program with the Guatemalans. And here we have a Senior State Department Official to go ahead and give us an overview …Background Briefing en Route to Guatemala

Special Briefing

Senior State Department Official

En Route to Guatemala

June 4, 2013

MODERATOR: All right. Good afternoon, everyone. We’re en route to Antigua, Guatemala for the OAS General Assembly. We’ll also have a bilateral program with the Guatemalans. And here we have a Senior State Department Official to go ahead and give us an overview of the Secretary’s participation over these two days. So I’ll turn it over to you.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Thank you. So this is the annual event, big event, of the OAS, the General Assembly held every year in May. I think the Secretary’s participation really does speak to the importance of the OAS. It’s the only organization in the hemisphere that has universal membership. Remember, of course, that Cuba is still a member; it’s just suspended. So it is all of the countries of the Western Hemisphere.

This General Assembly, I think, is particularly important. You may remember that last April at the Summit of the Americas, the leaders decided that there was a lot to talk about related to counter-narcotics policy and the drugs issue in the hemisphere, and that therefore, they would ask the OAS to produce a study on the issue. The OAS did that. They released their study in mid-May, and so that is the theme. Every host country of the OAS General Assembly can select the theme, and Guatemala selected approaches to the drug problems.

So Secretary Kerry will be going to talk about the U.S. approach to the issue, the way we work in cooperation with countries around the hemisphere. The OAS study, if you take a look at it, while the headlines and the sound bites were all about the one part of the report that dealt with the possibility of legalization of marijuana – in fact, most of the report talks about policies and options that are very much part of the Administration’s approach, which is very comprehensive, deals with demand, prevention, treatment, and as the President has said, we can’t incarcerate our way out of it. It is not just about law enforcement. It’s about a public health approach. And there’s a lot of information in the OAS study to support that approach.

So that’ll be the main subject, and that is – clearly, it is in our interest, and I think Secretary Kerry wants to go to contribute to a really good conversation about this, because frankly, up until now, especially last year when this started, there was a lot of buzz about legalization, but there really wasn’t much behind it. There weren’t a whole lot of facts in that conversation.

The other things that I think the Secretary is going to want to focus on in this General Assembly: One is the election that’ll be held on the 6th just after we leave for the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. The Inter-American Human Rights System is really the crown jewel of the organization. It contains the commission and the Inter-American Court. You may know that the Inter-American Declaration on the Rights of Man actually was implemented seven or eight months before the Universal Declaration on Human Rights at the UN, so it was the first of those human rights treaties. And it’s been under attack. The Inter-American System on Human Rights has been under attack by lots of countries over the last year or two, and we feel very strongly that we need to support that organizational structure – the commission, the court, the special rapporteurs that have been selected on various issues. And one of the things that we’ll be talking about is the election.

There are three slots open in the Inter-American commission this year. There are six candidates running. The U.S. has an outstanding candidate, a guy named Dr. James Cavallaro from Stanford Law School. He’s a recognized expert in this field. We’ve all talked to many of our neighbors about him. He is widely recognized as the most qualified candidate among the six who are running. And I think it’s really important that the U.S. remain with a presence on the commission. We’ve had a commissioner, I think, since the commission was founded, except for a three-year period under the Bush Administration. So Secretary Kerry will be talking with lots of his counterparts about Dr. Cavallaro’s qualifications and trying to ensure that we can get Dr. Cavallaro elected to the commission.

The third aspect, I think, is always a part of the OAS General Assembly, but is even more important to Secretary Kerry because of what he has said about the organization, is the reform effort we’ve been undertaking with the OAS to try and make it do really two things. One is focus on its core missions, its core missions being democracy, human rights, security issues, and development. And the second is to ensure that it focuses on those things in the most proficient and cost-effective way. The U.S. obviously pays the largest share of the OAS’s budget, and it’s particularly important to us in a time of budget constraints that the OAS be using those funds responsibly. So the Secretary will definitely talk about the importance of focus and efficiency at this organization.

Obviously, while he’s met with about, I think, five of the foreign ministers in this region, this is also an opportunity for him to see so many of his counterparts who come to the OAS General Assembly at one time. He’ll be having bilateral meetings, obviously, with the hosts, the Guatemalans, and that’s at the presidential and foreign minister level.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: (Inaudible.) He’ll also be seeing Colombian Foreign Minister Holguin, the new Peruvian Foreign Minister Rivas – what other ones we’ve got set up – and he’ll see others, obviously, during this.

He will probably speak briefly with the Venezuelan Foreign Minister. We’ve said, obviously, that we’d like a positive relationship with them, and Foreign Minister Jaua, I believe, is coming to the OAS. So those are the other bilateral meetings.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: No, I think that’s it.

MODERATOR: He’ll meet with the Secretary General.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Of course. He’ll meet with the Secretary General of the OAS, Secretary-General Insulza, today.

QUESTION: Is (inaudible) Venezuela (inaudible) on a formal bilat?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: I think it’ll be a short meeting, yeah.

QUESTION: So –

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: And then the other thing I should say is there are – there’s a dinner tonight and there’s a lunch tomorrow. In each of those, he will have almost certainly additional conversations with other foreign ministers. I know that he’s going to be seated next to the Salvadoran Foreign Minister Martinez in one of those meals, I think maybe lunch tomorrow. And there’s actually a lot going on in our relationship with El Salvador that we want to talk about. Foreign Minister Martinez has been a great ally, so I’m sure that he’ll talk with him. But to be honest, I expect that he’ll talk with many of the foreign ministers as part of the day that he’s there.

MODERATOR: In the bilateral agenda, he’ll also have a chance with the Attorney General.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Oh, that’s right. He will do a brief photo with Claudia Paz y Paz, who’s the Attorney General of Guatemala. I think everybody knows that we strongly support her work. She’s been remarkable. Obviously, this is a time in which a lot is going on in the judicial system in Guatemala, whether it is the trials of – the trial of Efrain Rios Montt, or whether it is the just completed extradition of former president Portillo, and our cooperation with Attorney General Paz y Paz has just been outstanding.

Then he’s also going to do – I think before departure, he’s going to be doing an event in Guatemala (inaudible), near Antigua, that will emphasize the work that we’re doing with Guatemala on education and working with young people and the President’s initiative on 100,000 Strong with student exchanges.

MODERATOR: One other thing to highlight, the Secretary is going to swear in a class of the Peace Corps, which is, I think, the first time he’s done that. So he’ll swear in a class of the Peace Corps, as well, ahead of the embassy meet and greet tomorrow morning.

QUESTION: I interested in asking about the reform of the OAS, I mean, this is a big issue and I think clearly the Secretary’s been talking about it for a long time. What kinds of steps would like – is he going to be pushing for now? I mean, because it seems that the election of this human rights committee falls into that whole –

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: It does. It does. But I think when we talk about – the first two things I mentioned as core missions of the OAS were democracy and human rights. There’s nothing that exemplifies that better than the commission. The commission, for example, I think this is an important distinction, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has universal membership. Everybody’s a member. We have many, many cases against us, and we engage in that process very actively. So it isn’t a question of us not being part of that system. The court, on the other hand, is only for those members who’ve ratified the convention – the Inter-American Convention – which, as you may know, the U.S. signed in 1977, but has never ratified. So we are not members of the court, but we are members of the commission.

And I do think that is a quintessential part of the OAS that needs to be strengthened. That’s why we participated in that special General Assembly back in March where we were very pleased with the outcome. But the question is: Is the OAS doing other things that really aren’t central to its mandate? And I think that has been the case on occasion in the past.

The other thing is, this is also the time every year when the budget comes up for passage. Our strong belief, and I think this is probably how it will come out because it’s trending this way, is that the OAS right now has to have a zero-growth budget. There aren’t, as far as I know, any countries in the hemisphere who are keen to pay a lot more. So we’ve got to work with what we’ve got. We have to have a no-growth budget that focuses on those four priority areas of the OAS, and that’s what he’s going to be trying to advance.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) you may be cutting back some of the U.S. contribution.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: I don’t know of any initiatives for us to cut back on our contribution. I think that we’re willing to comply with our contribution but not see it go up at this point. There’s huge pressures on the budget; as you know, the sequester. Whether we can make our full contribution given the budget constraints, I’m not absolutely certain. But our hope would be that the OAS can pass a zero-growth budget, which allows all of us some certainty of what those levels are going to be. And I think that’s going to be sufficient for the OAS to do its work.

The other area that we’ve been focused on for the last couple of years is, frankly, the OAS’s personnel structure. Do they need as many people as they have? More people over the last number of years have been moved into – I’m not even sure what the category’s called – it’s the Secretary General’s sort of personal staff, if you will, who are not part of the formal structure where you compete for entry, et cetera. That’s not the most efficient way to run the office. So it’s those kinds of things that I think we’ll be looking at. It’s the same kind of scrub, frankly, we’d give our own budgets.

QUESTION: About the meeting with the Venezuelan Minister, who’s idea was it? Was this issued from you, through the State Department? Or was it his idea to meet?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: I think the Secretary is interested in trying to find out, as we’ve said, if we can have this positive, more functional relationship. The Venezuelans did seek a meeting, and so we said we we’re willing to do a brief meeting.

QUESTION: But what is going to be the subjects? Is it something to do with the return of ambassadors? Do you think it’s too soon? Oil? What is –

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Well, I think one of the things we’ve said is we want to try and find a way forward with the Venezuela. We want to see if there are areas that we can discuss. We’ve mentioned that they’re not necessarily exclusive. We mentioned counternarcotics, counterterrorism, the commercial relationship, including energy. We’d like to have those conversation on things that are of mutual interest. If the Venezuelan Government has other subjects that they want to bring to the table, we’re willing to consider that. Whether we start with ambassadors right away or return ambassadors later, I don’t know the answer to that yet. I don’t think that – I think we’ll have to see how the conversation goes.

But I also think we’ve made very clear that we’re not going to pull our punches on democracy issues. That’s a clear part of our agenda all over the hemisphere, and we still have concerns about how the deep divisions in Venezuela after the last elections get resolved.

QUESTION: I believe they have requested (inaudible), considering all the things that you have on the table to settle – a lot of things – and especially a lot of statements, quite harsh from that side. What do you expect? I mean, what are you getting ready for? Do you expect another speech – aggressive speech? Or do you think that this time they are ready or they are willing to move forward?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: I think my answer to that is: I certainly hope they’re ready to move things forward. I’m an inveterate optimist. I don’t think you stay in this business for as long as I have if you’re not. I also don’t expect that we’re going to have an encounter (inaudible). If that’s the attitude that our counterparts come to this meeting with, it won’t be very productive. And I think we want a productive meeting. So I think it’s going to be a conversation. That’s what I’m hoping for.

QUESTION: It’s a pull-aside. How long it’s going to take, do you think?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Oh, I really don’t know. I can never predict Secretaries. I mean, right now I don’t know how long we may have on the schedule. It’s not scheduled for particularly long, but if it’s a productive conversation, we’ll have more of that conversation. And it depends a little bit on the tenor of how they approach the conversation.

QUESTION: On the headline-making part of the drug report –

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Of the what?

QUESTION: The headline-making part, the part you don’t want to talk about, the part that everyone else is talking about – I don’t understand. You go down there with the idea that you don’t want countries in the hemisphere to move towards legalization. That’s correct, right?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: We go down there with the view that legalization is not, to us, the answer to this problem.

QUESTION: Right. So how do you do that when state after state in the U.S. is legalizing it?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Well, look, I think the Administration has been very clear on the fact that federal law has not changed and isn’t going to.

QUESTION: I know, but you have – I mean, the problem is –

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: But I think what we go to this General Assembly with, quite honestly, is something that looks very similar to what’s happening in many other countries in the hemisphere, and that is a debate is underway on these issues, and that debate is taking place in the United States. Whether or not the federal government is going to change its rules, which we aren’t, the states are having their own debate. That debate is taking place in Uruguay, that debate took place elsewhere in the hemisphere. We’re all having that debate.

QUESTION: Right, but it’s not problematic for you to go down there and say we don’t think legalization is the right thing to do when, if I’m Foreign Minister of country X, I’m going to say, well, you know what? That’s great you don’t think it’s a good thing to do. I’m going to go to Colorado –

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: But two of your states do.

QUESTION: — and I’m going to – and we’re going to start selling pot in Colorado and Oregon. And what are you going to do about it?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Federal law won’t have changed, and remember that drugs have to get from one place to another, and that’s still problematic.

QUESTION: That’s right, and we’ve been very successful at stopping them. (Laughter.)

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: But trafficking is still going to be a crime into the United States.

QUESTION: Right. I just don’t understand – you don’t see this as a – you’re not prepared for push-back from –

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: I see it as a debate that’s taking place in the United States, and when those kinds of policy debates are underway, whether it’s immigration reform or the death penalty or – they obviously are things that have to be factored into your foreign policy. They make it more complicated.

QUESTION: Right. Well, exactly. So that does – when Texas –

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Yeah, but it’s not –

QUESTION: — runs around executing Mexicans, it also makes it very hard for –

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: And the Avena case, which I worked on for years – I mean, absolutely.

QUESTION: So I mean – but the bottom line on drugs is that you don’t want to see the elements – the headline-making parts of this report come to (inaudible) – you don’t want to see that come to –

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Actually, what I’d prefer to see the headline be is that –

QUESTION: Not what you’d prefer to see as the headline.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: — “OAS Endorses Comprehensive Approach to Transnational Narcotics Organizations.”

QUESTION: Unfortunately, you get no readers after that headline. (Laughter.)

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: This is news. This is news.

QUESTION: I’ve got one other thing if I could.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: How about “OAS Agrees with Obama Administration Approach”?

QUESTION: But that would be just a lie. (Laughter.)

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: No, it wouldn’t. That’s right. Have you read the report? It wouldn’t be a lie. Two-thirds of the stuff that’s in there is exactly what we’re doing.

QUESTION: But you –

QUESTION: “Venezuela-U.S. Best Friends Now.” (Laughter.)

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Probably not.

QUESTION: I just want to ask about election for the commission.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Yeah.

QUESTION: Who is the big – is there someone who’s actively opposing your candidate?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: I don’t think so actually. There were six candidates.

QUESTION: But is there a chance of a (inaudible)?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Brazil, Mexico, us, the Colombians, the Peruvians, and Ecuadorans.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Brazil, Mexico, Peru, Colombia, Ecuador and the U.S. One of the things that we’ve heard from just about every single country that we’ve talked to is how incredibly well qualified Dr. Cavallaro is. I mean, it’s just – he’s done an incredible amount of work on the commission itself. He’s been an advocate and a lawyer who has represented clients in front of the commission, speaks Spanish and Portuguese. I mean, this is what he does. He’s really good. He also, by the way –

QUESTION: So he’s anti-Haitian.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: He’s anti-what?

QUESTION: Haitian.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Actually he may speak French, but I’m not sure about the Creole. But he also doesn’t agree with the United States Government position on certain issues, like the ratification of the convention, which I think speaks to the fact that this is a commission where members –

QUESTION: You mean he wants it to be ratified?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Correct.

QUESTION: Well, he doesn’t agree with the Congress.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Well, correct. Not with the executive branch, which obviously signed it. But let me just say this is one of those structures, and each commission is different in the UN and the OAS, where your members are not members representing governments. Governments propose the candidates, but the members serve in their individual capacity. So independence from the government, it’s actually quite important that he have credibility on that.

QUESTION: But why such a big push, or is this something you do every – I mean, are you concerned that he might not –

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: You have to push a different amount depending on the election in part, because it depends on your competition.

QUESTION: Well, I understand that, but I mean this is number two on your list of three, so it’s –

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: I can move them around. No, I mean, honestly –

QUESTION: No, no, no. But I mean, are you worried that he’s going to – is there –

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Oh, sure. It’s not a sure thing.

QUESTION: Because of –

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: It’s not a sure thing.

QUESTION: Because of just anti-U.S. sentiment?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: I will tell you right now – yes. There has been a concerted effort – and we saw it last March at the special General Assembly – did you stay in there all night? You were in there all night. No, you left.

QUESTION: No, I missed that.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: You weren’t even there. Some of us stayed there till one in the morning. There has been a concerted attempt by some countries, especially those in ALBA, to push the U.S. out of the commission because we have not ratified the convention, which is completely contrary to the rules of the commission. The commission is universal jurisdiction. The court is only for those members who ratified. So they have mounted an effort to keep the United States off the commission because we’re not part of another body. That makes no sense, but frankly, that’s something that we have to worry about because we don’t believe that’s a valid argument, and most other countries don’t either. But we’ve had push-back.

QUESTION: Okay. So there’s three spots, and the top three vote-getters get it?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Yeah. The way this works apparently is you go into the first round, if you will, where everybody is up for election – the six candidates – and everybody gets to vote on three. The guy – if there are three candidates that get 18 votes, that’s it. Right? We’re done, because 18 is what you need to get in. If there aren’t – let’s say two of them get in, one of them has 14 – then you go to a second round. The guy with the lowest number of votes drops out, and you vote for the remaining whatever.

QUESTION: And the opposition – you said it’s almost – the usual suspects who are opposed to the – and they’ve said or told other people, “We’re not voting for” –

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Yeah. And in fact, some of those countries have stimulated meetings over the past six months of only those members of the OAS who have ratified the convention to talk about how they line up support for only members who have ratified the convention. They’ve been working at it.

QUESTION: So you have a rough – what’s your estimate of the vote?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: You know, it’s still so much in flux. I think we have pretty good numbers, but I don’t know that we’re at 18 yet, so that’s why we’re going to keep pushing.

QUESTION: All right. So after the Canadians and the Colombians – or the Colombians have their own candidate.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: We’re good with the Canadians. The Colombians have their own candidate. Not everybody gets to vote for three, so –

QUESTION: So what happens if you are off? Would you consider that as sort of just a disappointment?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Would I consider what?

QUESTION: Do you consider that as sort of – just disappointment or is it something more alarming for –

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Well, it would be a disappointment, but I have to say I think it would weaken the commission. This guy is incredibly qualified. I think he would bring instant prestige and an elevation of the debate to the commission. So I think the disappointment – and on a policy level, the disappointment would be that the commission would be missing out on somebody who’s truly spectacular. And frankly, we have always made it a priority to be a member of the commission.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) international institutions over the last 10 years, I know that you would lobby for backing for this candidate. So –

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: And the other interesting thing is he’s traveled all around the hemisphere, talking to governments, and pitching his own candidacy, which all the candidates do. And the interesting thing is, in so many ways, he’s an even better – I’m sorry, we’re making this hard on you – in so many ways, he is the best possible salesman for his own candidacy. Because I’ve had a number of foreign ministers – when I was on the Vice President’s trip last week and in working for this trip the last couple of days, I’ve had a number of ministers say to me, “I really wasn’t sure that I was going to support you, but he’s incredibly impressive.”

QUESTION: So you think (inaudible)?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Yeah. I feel like if people do look at his capabilities and his qualifications – and I think that’s what most people will do – they will support him.

QUESTION: Just looking at the reform issue again, is there specific areas that you think this human rights commission should be focused on?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Well, I think the one thing that I would say, which we were clear about back in March and we remain very firm on, is we feel really strongly about the special rapporteurs. The OAS has special rapporteurs. I’m not going to remember them all, but they’ve got on minority rights, I think, and women’s rights and they have on indigenous.

But for sure, one of the largest rapporteurs and the most active is the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, and she has just been – Catalina Botero – she has been really, really effective on an issue that we think is very, very timely right now. There are places in the hemisphere where that issue is clearly under threat, and she has an important role to play. So, her – not only keeping that special rapporteur and keeping her strong, but keeping her independent, keeping the commission independent; those things are really important. They have to be autonomous. If they are not autonomous, if they become mechanisms or tools of governments, then we’ve defeated the purpose.

QUESTION: (Inaudible), how about a special rapporteur for Guantanamo (inaudible)?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: I think the UN has one of those, don’t they?

QUESTION: Not at the UN, but (inaudible). Is there an outcome that you’re expecting (inaudible)?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Well, there’s two things.

QUESTION: Not on that (inaudible).

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Other than that election –

QUESTION: Make sure the General Assembly –

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: I mean, I think what I would say on that is there is always a declaration that comes out of these General Assemblies. It’s the Declaration of Antigua. It was – last year, it was the Declaration of Cochabamba, God help us.

I think what we’re looking for is that declaration is actually quite good; we’ve worked on it for weeks. And I think a lot of what it says about the complexity of the narcotics issue and the importance of cooperation – because these guys don’t respect boundaries – and the importance of a comprehensive approach that looks at public health and prevention and treatment, as well as law enforcement cooperation, a strong statement on that is what we’re looking at to come out of this General Assembly.

QUESTION: So you don’t expect there (inaudible)?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: And let me just – actually let me not – let me bring it back to the Secretary and sort of the personal. We’re also obviously looking for the Secretary’s first trip to this region to be one in which he’s able to engage in something he’s clearly been passionate about for quite a while, and get to know his colleagues so that he can work with them on lots of other issues.

MODERATOR: (Inaudible) the context you have of the President’s visit, the Vice President’s visit and the Secretary’s visit.

QUESTION: Right.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: It’s been a great month.

QUESTION: In terms of the drugs, though, you don’t expect there to be any further endorsement of the idea of legalization?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Of legalization? I don’t.

QUESTION: Is that because (inaudible), because you guys are (inaudible)?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: No. I expect it will be similar to what President Perez Molina said when the President – our President – was in Costa Rica a couple of weeks ago, which is there’s no consensus on this issue.

QUESTION: And there’s also (inaudible).

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: He has promoted it. But his comment was there’s no consensus on this issue, and as long as there’s no consensus, it doesn’t make sense to try and move ahead on this individually. And I think he’s right about that.

QUESTION: Unless you’re an individual state or province, and then you can go ahead and do –

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: I work federal – (laughter) – and international.

MODERATOR: You remember we also have the ONDCP Director with us. He’ll be engaging with other countries, and part of that is to explain our overall federal strategy, which includes demand.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Right. Right. And I mean, I think, for example, one of the things –

QUESTION: If he leaves his job and goes home to Seattle, he can buy pot legally.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Do you know Gil Kerlikowske? That is so unlikely.

QUESTION: Just for clarity –

QUESTION: Right. I’m just saying you could.

QUESTION: — what do you mean by a comprehensive – just for clarity, what do you mean by a comprehensive approach?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: I mean not just a law enforcement approach. Because we are often painted as if we have only a law enforcement approach, which is so not the case. Even if you look at our security initiatives in the hemisphere – the Central American Regional Security Initiative, the Caribbean Basin, the Merida Initiative – all of them have demand reduction components, they have job creation components, they have rehabilitation and penitentiary components. So I think it’s really important to understand that that side of public policy, the public health and prevention side, is just as important as strengthening police forces or military or interdiction, which is obviously a really tough game.

QUESTION: The problem is, of course, that prior to five years ago, there wasn’t any real acknowledgement of that. So I know you (inaudible) –

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: I don’t actually think that’s – yeah –

QUESTION: Oh, you don’t? It wasn’t until Obama and Clinton (inaudible).

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: I mean, no, I think – no, no. I just don’t know if that’s, like, particularly relevant to this moment when we’re having the debate. What we did in the past and what we may not have done now and since the Administration’s beginning of its first term, where they increased the demand, reduction, and prevention side to over $10 billion, that’s where we are. And we’ve seen a 50 percent reduction in cocaine use in the last five years.

QUESTION: Oh, I know. I’m just (inaudible) the history – but the history was of basically denial that demand (inaudible) – was a contributing factor.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: So aren’t we glad we don’t have that now?

QUESTION: Well, maybe so. But people can look at that and say, look, this is relatively new.

QUESTION: Excuse me.

QUESTION: Maybe it’s five years old for the U.S. and it’s going to take a long – much longer time. And who knows?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Well, look, I don’t disagree.

QUESTION: When Ted Cruz becomes President of the United States, you might go back to that.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: I do not disagree at all with the notion that this is a long, hard slog. And I think the Secretary has made that clear in lots of statements over the years, and I think the countries in the region know that too. If you look at Colombia over 12, 13 years, you know.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: No, no. That’s – this is a long, hard slog. And frankly, you never get rid of it altogether. You try and reduce it to a level at which law enforcement can cope with it, the institutions are strong enough to cope with it. You don’t obliterate it. I wish you could.

QUESTION: Can I ask about another issue? It’s –

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Sure. I’m going to just slide in here because I’m feeling guilty about –

QUESTION: There are increasing rumors about Insulza is leaving after this – after he has some (inaudible), because he’s going to be a candidate in his own country. So what do you know about it? What do you know about his intentions? Has – expressed something to the U.S.?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: No. No. I think –

QUESTION: (Inaudible) Secretary Kerry could bring this (inaudible)?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: I think Secretary General Insulza will convey to all the members of the OAS his intentions when he’s ready to do so. Right now, our conversation is going to be focused on this General Assembly and on the reform efforts within the OAS. I don’t know what he’s going to do.

QUESTION: How do you qualify, I mean, his tenure, his –

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Well, I think it’s pretty clear we think the OAS has more work to do on reform and management issues. I think there are some cases in which the OAS really did great work. If you look – even though it wasn’t a huge public profile, but if you look at what the OAS did on Paraguay, on the impeachment in Paraguay, was a great response, it was an excellent report. I think we saw Paraguay move back into the democracy, the full democracy column, with its elections in April. I think the OAS was very important in Honduras a couple of years ago.

There are other places where we’ve been disappointed. So I think it’s a mixed record, but we still think there’s a lot more to do, whether that’s with this Secretary General or when the next one comes in 2015 or sooner. That’s up to the Secretary General.

QUESTION: Just looking again into Venezuela, what is likely to be Secretary Kerry’s message to the Venezuelans right now?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: I think his message is going to be that we would like a more positive, functional relationship on issues that we both are interested in talking about and that we would also like to see a process for addressing the concerns of 7-plus million voters who don’t yet feel like their aspirations, their democratic hopes, are being addressed by the government. So the message will be both on principle, on democracy, and on functional sort of practical steps that we can take to –

QUESTION: So just for guidance, the Administration’s nowhere near recognizing the government in any way?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: We don’t recognize governments.

QUESTION: No, no, (inaudible).

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Are we talking to this government representative? Yes. Do we still have an Embassy open in Caracas? Yes. I don’t know what recognition means. If it means pronouncing on who won Venezuela’s election, that’s for the Venezuelans to do.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) is the status now (inaudible) internally in Venezuela?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: I actually saw something yesterday or the day before about their CNE, their electoral tribunal, saying I think they had just about finished or almost finished their recount. I know that the opposition does not believe that the recount was fully done, that it was properly done compared with non-machine tallies. So I don’t know exactly where that stands. But my point is still the same. You still have a dispute, if you will, between a very large percentage of Venezuelans who voted one way and don’t yet feel that this is resolved.

STAFF: Excuse me, ma’am. We’ll have to stop the conference because we’re in meal service (inaudible) shortly. We’re trying to give it to you (inaudible).

QUESTION: That’s fine (inaudible).

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: They want you guys to eat.

QUESTION: Just very briefly, anything (inaudible) work on trade?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: On trade?

QUESTION: Yeah. On the TPP or anything?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: It may in the bilaterals. But I don’t expect that it will within the OAS. But certainly we talk trade with almost all of the bilateral partners, and obviously Peru is in the TPP so we do expect that to come up.

All right. Thanks.

QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.

ENDS

Content Sourced from scoop.co.nz
Original url

When the handful of corporations set on owning, controlling and ber-profiting from our common seed heritage Monsanto, Syngenta, DuPont, Dow, BASF and Bayer began experimenting with their proprietary chemicals and genetically engineered crops …

Coming soon to your backyard, Monsanto and gang!

by Andrea Brower
May 30, 2013

When the handful of corporations set on owning, controlling and über-profiting from our common seed heritage — Monsanto, Syngenta, DuPont, Dow, BASF and Bayer — began experimenting with their proprietary chemicals and genetically engineered crops in Hawaii in the 1990s, barely a peep was made. Two decades later, we can’t even convince our Hawaii state government to pass a law making these companies release basic information about the pesticides they spray next to primary schools. Children are sent home vomiting and with nose bleeds.

The national US-level is even more outrageous. Some will have heard of the infamous revolving door between Monsanto and the Federal Government. The recently passed “Monsanto Protection Act” that mandates the government to allow planting of GE-crops even if courts rule they pose health risks. Monsanto’s triumphant suing of family farmers to the tune of USD$27 million (many of whom did not plant Monsanto’s patented seeds but are victims of cross-pollination). Or even the current push to prohibit states from passing GE-labeling laws (despite the fact that 82% of Americans support labeling). The power of these biotech/chemical (all are both) companies in the US reaches from the highest offices of government to local Farm Bureaus, and from university research centers to primary school gardens. Their political and economic power is anti-democratic and dangerous to food security and sustainability, and should serve as a warning of things to come if New Zealand does not start making some strong decisions to take it in another direction.

Monsanto and gang are already more entrenched in proudly “GE-free, Clean and Green New Zealand” than commonly perceived:

• In the food chain — Though New Zealand does have labeling laws, these don’t apply to some “highly processed” ingredients, and it is estimated that around 70% of processed foods from imported soy, corn, canola and cotton seed contain GE derived ingredients. There are already 76 varieties of foods approved by Food Standards Australia New Zealand Authority (FSANZ), and FSANZ was recently the first in the world to approve Dow’s controversial soy and corn engineered to resist higher doses of 2,4-D (the infamous component of Agent Orange).

• Major players in the seed and agrochemical markets — The “Big Six” corporations (that together control 75% of the global pesticide market and with a few others account for 73% of the world’s commercial seed sales) are becoming major players in New Zealand’s seed and pesticide markets. The Pioneer (DuPont) or Seminis (Monsanto) signs tagged next to fields are emblematic of the global restructuring of agriculture, where increasingly corporations control what goes in and what comes out, and farmers are reduced to mere labor.

• The dairy industry’s developing dependence on GE-feed — The last decade has seen a continuing intensification of New Zealand agriculture, compensated in no small part by the “ecological subsidies” of nitrogen fertilizers and imported livestock feed. Huge increases in imported GE cotton seed meal and soy to feed dairy cows, which does not have to be labeled under NZ law, means farmers may not even be aware that they are using GE. Consumers in other countries may be quick to ditch NZ dairy as they discover “grass-fed” is being replaced by “roundup-ready-soy-fed”.

• Appropriation of “indigenous values” — Last year, the Federation of Māori Authorities was a sponsor of the Agricultural Biotechnology International Conference, stating that “We will bring a unique element to the discussion because of our cultural and environmental values where taking care of the land that we operate businesses on is just as important as making a profit.” Te Waka Kai Ora (the National Māori Organics Authority Aotearoa) sees this as part of the industry’s insidious campaign to push their agenda onto indigenous communities. GE is being pitched to Māori growers “under the guise of financial benefit” and without the “full story about the total ramifications of introducing GM and its impacts on the whakapapa and genetic make-up of our food.” The NZ government also paid a hefty sum to sponsor the biotech conference, though exact numbers have not been revealed.

• Influential folks pushing GE — The US government has spent the last decade trying to convince NZ that it has a moral imperative to adopt GE. It funds “educational programmes” to “promote the uptake of biotechnology in New Zealand by outlining its benefits and pointing out the flaws in the statements of detractors” (US Embassy Reports). The threat of “crisis” has regularly been manipulated to justify sidestepping any form of precaution — during the recent drought in NZ, Federated Farmers’ vice-president William Rollerston advocated for changing the country’s “restrictive” GE-regulations in order to develop drought-resistant grasses and crops. Similarly, Monsanto has used the case of the devastation of the kiwifruit industry by Psa disease to lobby for GE-solutions, despite indisputable evidence that such “solutions” can cause the very types of catastrophes they claim to avert (take, for example, the superweeds and superbugs spreading across the US).

Though already concerning, these trends, and the power of the biotech/chemical industry to force its way into New Zealand more generally, will expand radically with the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA). The TPPA is a highly secretive international agreement being negotiated under the pretext of “trade” between eleven Asian and Pacific-rim countries, including the United States.

If passed, TPPA will amount to the biggest corporate power grab New Zealand has seen since colonization, putting the rights of corporations above those of elected governments and sovereign nations. Under the cryptic title of “Investor State Dispute Settlement” (ISDS), foreign corporations could challenge New Zealand laws and regulations that undermine their expected profits, holding them liable for these losses. Challenges could be brought for everything from attempts to stop potentially harmful GE-foods from entering the food chain, to regulating the impacts of pesticides on water quality. The government would be tried in private offshore tribunals that lack transparency and due process.

These private tribunals routinely put the economic interests of corporations ahead of the rights of governments. Under NAFTA’s ISDS provisions the Mexican government was sued by three separate corporations for their tax on High Fructose Corn Syrup, and forced to pay nearly USD $170 million. The highest monetary award in the history of ISDS was ruled on last year when Ecuador was ordered to pay $1.77 billion to Occidental Petroleum Corp for terminating their oil contract. We might think of the recent debate over asset sales in NZ, and how decisions that should be the result of democratic processes and dialogue could instead be decided by overseas courts staffed with corporate attorneys.

The US government and biotech/chemical industry are pushing hard to use the TPPA as a vehicle for “developing a common regulatory approach” for GE. In other words, exporting the anti-democratic, non-transparent, and non-scientific US “regulatory” regime to other countries. This could put labeling laws on the chopping block, undermine countries’ ability to conduct rigorous risk assessments of GE, and absolve corporations of responsibility for unapproved GE contamination.

The effects of past “free-trade” agreements are well-documented, and the TPPA is even more extreme and destructive in its reach. If passed, it will lower environmental and labor protections, weaken biosecurity and food safety efforts, encourage a “race-to-the bottom” in agricultural production, cripple local food economies, lead to further corporate consolidation in all parts of the food chain, and threaten Māori rights to land and resources. Most fundamentally, the TPPA will radically undermine people’s ability to participate in defining what kind of future they want. While we can’t know the exact details of the TPPA because it is being negotiated in secret, what is certain is that it is advancing a food future designed by Monstanto, DuPont, Syngenta and the rest of the agricultural giants— one where the only logic is profit accumulation through expropriation and exploitation of common resources and the common good. In an age of climate change and fossil fuel depletion, when we urgently need a food system that is resilient and regenerative, equitable and democratic, the TPPA is taking us in exactly the opposite direction.

*************

Andrea Brower is a food sovereignty activist from Hawaii who has moved to Aotearoa / New Zealand to do a sociology PhD on the possibilities of a post-corporate food system. For more information, visit It’s Our Future, It’s Our Food on Facebook.

Content Sourced from scoop.co.nz
Original url

SECRETARY KERRY: (In progress) consolidated democracy, and deeply cooperative on any number of issues, not just in Latin America but on a global basis. And we are very appreciative of the progress that you make on technology, science, on some security …Remarks with Chilean President Sebastian Pinera Echenique Before Their Meeting

Remarks

John Kerry
Secretary of State

Ben Franklin Room

Washington, DC

June 3, 2013

SECRETARY KERRY: (In progress) consolidated democracy, and deeply cooperative on any number of issues, not just in Latin America but on a global basis. And we are very appreciative of the progress that you make on technology, science, on some security issues. But particularly we are now engaged in the discussions about the Trans-Pacific Partnership and Chile sharing with the United States a Pacific outlook can play a very significant role with respect to global business standards and the global economy.

So we welcome the President here and look forward to a good discussion over lunch.

Mr. President.

PRESIDENT PINERA: Thank you very much. Well, we share with the U.S. the most important thing which are values, basic traditions. We share the commitment to democracy, human rights, rule of law. But beyond that, we have so many things in common.

We are working right now in the Trans-Pacific Partnership and we have a commitment to make good progress before the next APEC meeting. And that will become the largest free-trade zone in the world, and we are collaborating and we are very much committed to that.

But on top of that, I want to remind you, Secretary of State, that we have just signed a special strategic alliance with your state of Massachusetts. And we are very, very interested and looking forward, because this strategic alliance is working on very important areas for both countries, like science, technology, energy. So we are very enthusiastic, and the relationship between the U.S. and Chile are on very, very good grounds.

SECRETARY KERRY: Excellent. Thank you, Mr. President. Come in and have something to eat.

PRESIDENT PINERA: Of course.

SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you, sir. Thank you very much.

ENDS

Content Sourced from scoop.co.nz
Original url

2 June 2013 For immediate release Chiles ex-chief negotiator drops a bombshell on TPPA2 June 2013
For immediate release
Chile’s ex-chief negotiator drops a bombshell on TPPA

In a dramatic public statement, Chile’s former chief negotiator for the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (TPPA) Rodrigo Contreras has urged fellow Latin American countries to work together to defend their interests against the demands of rich countries in the talks.

Contreras warned that unless they held back those demands the TPPA will become ‘a threat for our countries: it will restrict our options for development in health and education, in biological and cultural diversity, and in the design of public policies and the transformation of our economies’.

It will also provoke a backlash from Latin America’s increasingly active social movements.

The warning came in an opinion piece in the 16 May edition of Peru’s Spanish language weekly Caretas, at the start of the most recent negotiating round in Peru.*

Contreras stood down from the role in February 2013. Informed bloggers note ‘It’s widely believed that he left his post voluntarily. He’s held in high esteem not just in Chile but among his fellow trade negotiators. His departure left people on the trade beat scratching their heads. It now appears probable that the reason for his resignation was that he saw where the TPP was likely to go and didn’t want his name attached to it.’

‘Chile’s former chief negotiator has dropped a bombshell on the talks’, said Professor Jane Kelsey who is a critic of the negotiations.

‘While his concerns are targeted at the poorer countries at the TPPA table, the risks are essentially the same for New Zealand’ Professor Kelsey observed.

‘Here is an insider who knows the texts. Rodrigo Contreras has sat in the negotiating room for several years and tried to get the US and others to back off their most damaging demands. He now believes the current direction of the TPPA poses a threat to his country’s economic and social development’.

‘The evidence continues to mount against this agreement every day. New Zealand cannot continue to negotiate the TPPA under the shroud of secrecy. With many chapters nearing closure, it is way past the time to release what is on the table so we can evaluate and debate its implications’, Kelsey said.
*For an English translation see: The New Chessboard – English Translation of Rodrigo Contreras Article

Content Sourced from scoop.co.nz
Original url