What’s obvious is that as we meet today the international community is struggling to deal with the crisis in Syria, and that will be a big focus in this session. But what I’d like to do is make a couple of general comments on our overarching priorities and also a few comments on general trends we see at the Council in terms of its evolution and maturation process.

The first comment: keeping in mind a year ago this Friday was an important moment at the Human Rights Council –which was the special session on Libya, which was one of the first times we were really able to grapple with a crisis in real time. As you may recall, Secretary Clinton and many world leaders came to the Council, called on Qadaffi to step down, end the violence. What we have now, just one year later, is a very changed landscape both in the world, in the Middle East and North Africa and not coincidentally at the Human Rights Council. Mubarak is gone, Qadaffi is gone, Ben Ali is gone, and there are transitions underway in those countries.

We are actually working collaboratively today, and you will see this at this upcoming session, with the authorities in Tunisia and Libya, to help them protect human rights, work on democracy promotion and the rule of law. And we consider that transformation of the work in the Council to be very significant.

We have to say we are aware that many of these democratic transitions that we see are fragile, we’re worried about them, and we know that the outcome sin several of these situations are not clear, but we want our message to be very clear, which is at the Human Rights Council the membership will work to support all efforts to work to build democratic, free, fair societies, and that the international community will have this as a vehicle to support democratic efforts around the world.

I want to just move really quickly to a couple of different priorities. As I said, obviously Syria will be top of the agenda at the Human Rights Council in this session, so we begin on Monday with the High Level Segment and I believe there’s something like 80 Ministers from around the world coming to Geneva for this session. I think it’s fair to assume that the vast majority, if not all of them, will give their commentary on the crisis in Syria.

In addition, we expect that on the 12th we have a scheduled interactive dialogue with the Commission of Inquiry that was established through this Council last summer, and at the end of the session you can expect another resolution on the crisis in Syria where our expectation is that the Commission of Inquiry will be extended and presumably there will be further condemnation and hopefully some other tools we can come up with to help with the humanitarian situation.

I want to comment, we all know that the circumstances in Homs and elsewhere, Hama, the violence is just growing by the day. I have just learned from a couple of your colleagues in this room that there is a report at least of another death of a journalist in the last day or so. We are horrified to learn about that, and we want to underscore the value we place on a free media. We understand that without a free media human rights defenders and activists cannot get their messages out. The international community is not able to support the work or convey support for anyone in a closed society if we don’t get their messages.

So the importance of the media could not be overstated when it comes to human rights work.

Here we really would like to also pay tribute to Anthony Shadid who we all know was very brave and courageous and important in getting so many stories to us. He had an extraordinary impact on how these transformations were understood by the rest of the world, and we just want to say we will honor his memory.

Last, on Syria. I think there’s an overwhelming consensus that the Assad regime must go; the violence has to stop. Assad is being more and more isolated. Unfortunately, it’s not yet universal. The condemnation isn’t quite to that point yet but it’s moving in that direction. I think you all know there’s a very important meeting on Friday in Tunis with the Friends of Syria. Secretary Clinton will be there as will many other leaders, and I’m confident they’re going to be looking for avenues to ensure that humanitarian relief can move into the most threatened areas and look for other ways to pressure Assad to leave and end the violence.

Following that Tunis meeting, in Geneva we will work very hard to amplify the pressure on Assad and demand an end to the violence. As I said, we will have multiple opportunities to do that during the High Level Segment, during the interactive dialogue with the Commission of Inquiry, and with our resolution on the final days of the Council.

I’m going to move to another top priority for the United States which is a difficult and much more nuanced initiative so I’m going to take a little bit of time to explain it. It’s on Sri Lanka.

As I said, a year ago we were struggling to get the Council machinery to deal with crisis situations, and this past year we have a lot of evidence that the Council is now able to deal with crisis situations. We’ve had multiple special sessions on Syria, we had the special session on Libya, and we’re doing a relatively good job of confronting things as they occur and capture the world’s attention.

The case of Sri Lanka is different and difficult. It is essentially dealing with large-scale civilian casualties, allegations of government involvement in large-scale civilian casualties during a civil war that took place over many years, but ended in 2009. It’s not an ongoing crisis. And for that reason, it’s slightly more challenging. In the circumstances of the world today the fact that it’s not a crisis makes it slightly more difficult. However, we firmly believe that doing a Human Rights Council Resolution on this subject is warranted and important because we believe there cannot be impunity for large-scale civilian casualties, and that if there is to be real reconciliation it must be based on an accounting of the truth and serious implementation of changes.

So we are working to convince the Sri Lankan government that there has to be greater evidence of serious implementation of the recommendations in their own domestic report and greater accountability in order to satisfy the victims and the various communities that feel like they have not yet been heard.
Maybe I’ll take a minute here and outline even more specifically for you how we will proceed with this resolution. It will essentially have three elements.

The first will be, we’ll acknowledge that the Sri Lankan government undertook a domestic investigation, the LLRC — Lessons Learned and Reconciliation Commission. It was very good in a number of regards and we will acknowledge that.

Second, it will say, unfortunately the report was inadequate with respect to accountability and we do not believe reconciliation is possible, that real reconciliation is not possible without greater focus on accountability, credible accountability efforts.

Third, that the LLRC is not adequate with respect to a credible action plan on implementation. And the LLRC itself said it was concerned that the government had not taken adequate, or would not take real efforts to implement the LLRC’s recommendations.
So we are saying that you have to show your citizens that you will not just be taking this report and putting it in a drawer. There has to be real improvement.

So those are the elements of it.

The last comment on this is that up until now, up until this session it has seemed like we’ve had two options at the Council. Either do nothing and remain silent, which from our point of view would have been in some ways an endorsement of the adequacy of what the government has done, and we knew that was not acceptable. On the other hand, the other choice that people have called for is an International Commission of Inquiry where the international community takes over and ensures that there’s some kind of international accountability.

We are trying sort of a third way here. We are acknowledging what the government has done, saying that it is valuable, as are their efforts at progress on a variety of fronts in terms of reconciliation. However, we are also saying at the same time what you’ve done is not enough and it’s not adequate for your own population, for purposes of reconciliation and lasting peace you need to do more.

I also will briefly mention, obviously Iran is coming up again. As you may recall, last March we had the first resolution establishing a special rapporteur on the Human Rights Situation in Iran, and that was a landmark for this Council because it was the first country-specific human rights mechanism that was created since the establishment of the Human Rights Council. That mandate we expect to be renewed fairly easily, and we hope to be able to increase pressure on the Iranian regime through either increased numbers or other potential language in the resolution to allow the special rapporteur to enter Iran. Whether that happens or not, we think there’s real value in continuing this mandate because it shows the people inside Iran that the international community is paying attention and that the Iranian narrative about how they treat their people is not fooling anyone.

Other than that, I would say I want to comment on two panel discussions. There are multiple panel discussions all of which are very interesting and help us with our work. Two are of particular importance to the United States.

The first one is on Freedom of Expression on the Internet. And this is a topic that is near and dear to my heart and it’s, I believe, obviously the internet is changing the face of media and journalism and it is changing the face of human rights reporting generally, so it is very important and we’re really pleased that this is ongoing. It’s a subject matter that we will be paying a lot of attention to.

The second one I will mention is the LGBT panel sponsored by South Africa. I should mention the first one is sponsored by Sweden who has been an outstanding leader on the subject of internet freedom and we are grateful for that.

The LGBT panel is sponsored by South Africa. We know this is a very very tough issue for many delegations and regions and even a particular continent. But it is also something that the United States feels strongly about. Secretary Clinton came and delivered a very strong statement of support for LGBT Rights in December, as you know, and we are proud that this panel is going forward.
I think I’ll just leave it there and maybe we’ll take questions.

Media: [Inaudible]. At the beginning of your statement you mentioned your cooperation with the new Libyan [inaudible]. But turning to the [inaudible], the UN Watch picked up Libyan [inaudible] last week on LGBT issues which seem to be [inaudible] against any idea of continuing this discussion within the Human Rights Council. And then of course has been followed up by the OIC [inaudible] issue. Working with the OIC is one of Secretary Clinton’s big issues as well, working together with the OIC.

How are you going to handle this?

Ambassador Donahoe: We obviously are going to continue to articulate our firm belief that LGBT people, individuals, deserve the full panoply of human rights protection, as do any others. We will not shirk from our responsibility to articulate clearly that strong principle which Secretary Clinton demonstrated better than anyone. Having her come on Human Rights Day and focus her speech on that topic I think is about the clearest demonstration you can have that the United States is living up to its leadership responsibility on this subject.

That doesn’t make it easier, and that doesn’t yet translate into unanimity around the world or a global consensus on this topic. It does not exist. And that is exactly what makes it so difficult.

So we will continue to work on this issue. It will take time. We are confident that at least in the long run we know where it will come out and we don’t know how long that will be. We will continue to speak out as strongly as we can to encourage other regions and countries to see this subject as we do, which is where we think the global community will end up

Media: I was wondering, do you have direct contact with the Syrian delegation? What are your relations like? You said you’re really friendly in the corridors and then you get tough with them.

And then I was also wondering what is the best that you can hope for as an outcome in regard to action within the limited framework in which the Council works that you can have for Syria?

Ambassador Donahoe: On the first topic, first off as a factual matter I have not seen the Syrian Ambassador recently. And in past sessions you may have observed that I have interacted with him and tried to get him to understand that we were not going to back down, the special session was happening, the resolution was happening, we were not going to be changing the text for him, and so we just tried to work professionally together.

I haven’t seen him in a long time.

Media: Has he disappeared from Geneva?

Ambassador Donahoe: I can’t confirm or deny that. I personally haven’t seen him. Let me say one other thing which is a year ago when we did the special session on Libya, our relationship with the Libyans was rather strained and yet we were in communication with them. At that time they were trying to decide what their personal stance vis-à-vis the government would be, and by the time we had, the day we called for the special session, between then and the Friday, they had decided that they would disassociate themselves from the government.

So I can’t tell you if the Syrian Ambassador is facing the same dilemma.

In terms of what we can do here that has an impact with respect to Syria, the international community is struggling with this topic, and I’m not going to tell you we have a silver bullet here. I can say we are looking to the leadership of the Arab League as one vehicle, and secondly, we are working very hard to convince the other members of the international community who are choosing for whatever reason to continue to support the Assad regime, that they’re making the wrong choice.

So those are two things that we will do.

Third, we will have I think some additional focus this time on humanitarian assistance and figuring out how we can ensure that greater humanitarian access is provided.

And last, of course, we will continue to condemn the increasing violence in the hope that it puts enough pressure on Assad that somehow he realizes he’s got to leave.

Media: May I quickly follow-up? Can Russia and China spoil things in terms of outcomes at the Council in regard to Syria?

Ambassador Donahoe: No. Ironically, this is the difference between the Human Rights Council and the Security Council. No one has a veto at the Human Rights Council, and that means all of us are equal players and equal voters. Interestingly, that means that none of us can be spoilers and all of us have to work hard to convince others that our perspective is the right one and that they want to be with us on the right side of history.

Media: Following what you said, is the international community capable to help the people of Syria, people of other countries are, of other regimes are in danger to it. So do you think the U.S. is [inaudible], maybe the Security Council is not working, it could work differently?

Ambassador Donahoe: You know, my responsibilities are at the Human Rights Council, and I don’t think that it’s fair or wise for me to comment on the mechanics of the Security Council. But I would not yet say that the international community has failed, and I will say we are doing everything we can at least on the human rights front to make sure that we do not fail the people of Syria. And anything any of you can do to put pressure on others who are supporting Assad I think is the most valuable thing you can do. We can all work together in that regard.

Media: I have a question regarding Sri Lanka. Given the seriousness of the allegations that have been made by the Commission of Inquiry, the [inaudible] Sri Lanka, and given the extent of the NGOs like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, what they are proposing, he is very soft glove approach in the resolution. Is it just a first step, that you say if they aren’t cooperating on this you have harder, stronger measures in the bank, or is it all [you want]?

Ambassador Donahoe: No. What we want it real accountability, real implementation, and real reconciliation. That is what we want as an outcome.

The question is what can we do at the Human Rights Council that supports that? In our judgment, we could have of course followed the proposal of the NGOs and others to ask for a Commission of Inquiry, basically say that the domestic efforts had not been valuable, and that there was a need, complementarity had failed, and that the international community really was now responsible. We did not think that either — There was a question of the likelihood of success which we always, we have to be pragmatic. What can we do?

Secondly, we are in it, it’s a very challenging thing to figure out what will actually work in the present in Sri Lanka? We are walking a very fine line right now, still trying hard to get the Sri Lankans to consent to our initiative. As of Monday night when I spoke to the Sri Lankan Ambassador, the answer was no. No. They don’t like it. We think it’s unwise for them to resist and we’ve made it clear, it will go forward and it will succeed.

But at this juncture we felt it a better balance to reach out a hand. Secretary Clinton has invited the Foreign Minister of Sri Lanka Peiris to come to Washington. She herself has said some aspects of your domestic work have been very good. At the same time she has said clearly and they have made this public in the media, not adequate. Your efforts at accountability are not adequate. So it’s not — this binary option — silence –or everything they’ve done domestically is worthless and we’re not working with them — neither of those seemed like the right approach.

To your question of is this the end, is that all, hopefully not.
So either the Sri Lankans will consent, or if they don’t consent they’ll see the outcome and they might ultimately see they’re going to have to do more and they will do more.

The alternative is that — This resolution doesn’t preclude action in June or September or at any other time. So all options will still be on the table. This is just a step that we came up with that we thought could succeed and have possibly a positive effect on what the Sri Lankans do.

Media: You’re not talking about this in your statement, but the situation of Mexico [inaudible] armed conflict [inaudible] neighbors. So do you think that the Human Rights Council can do more?

Ambassador Donahoe: I’m sorry to say we have not really done a lot of investigation of this subject. As you probably know, the Mexican Ambassador here is one of our leaders and is deeply, deeply committed to human rights, to free speech, to women’s rights, to everything. And it is a topic we can consider and I’m just not really, I haven’t heard anybody suggest that we put forward an initiative, but I would be willing to explore.

Media: Concerning Iran, there was a first act, ITU, International Telecommunication Union about frequency allocation to Iran. Did that have anything political or was it purely technical?

My second question, I’m not very familiar with all the structure of the human rights bodies of the UN but I saw a release concerning mountain tribes in Vietnam which sided with the U.S. during the war and which were in fact left to their sad fate for 20 or 30 years, and apparently they are being heard, now their voice is being heard by some UN human rights body. Do you know anything about that? And what is the U.S. stand on that?

Ambassador Donahoe: I am very sorry, I hate to say this, but I don’t know anything about that case so I can’t comment.
And on the ITU, again, I don’t know what happened at the ITU, so I can’t comment.

Media: You talked earlier about a transformed landscape within the Human Rights Council. It’s not terribly conspicuously obvious to us, I mean it still looks like the same old cast of the good, the bad and the ugly. [Laughter]. How do you think –

Ambassador Donahoe: Well –

Media: And the second question was specific iterations of [inaudible] which will also be addressed at the Council. The U.S. hasn’t been very forthright on this issue. Are you going to take up concerns in the Human Rights community about the conduct of the Bahraini government in dealing with their own protest movement?

Ambassador Donahoe: Let me start with Bahrain and then I’ll go to the bigger question. On Bahrain I think our comment is that in that case — Each of these cases of the Arab Awakening, so to speak, is different, and we have to look at the efforts made by each of these governments in their own context. We are aware that the Bahraini Independent Commission, the BICI, was relatively substantial and the government embraced it to a large extent and we feel fairly positively about that.

We’ve been in conversations with our Bahraini colleagues here and encouraged them to engage even more. But in the scheme of things, in terms of what we have felt able to put forward as concrete initiatives at the Council, we have chosen a few of these other priorities — Syria, Iran and Sri Lanka — as the ones we have to put our energy into.

In part, as I said, because we judge that the Bahraini efforts have been relatively good.

On the transformed landscape, I will say I think there’s good evidence of fairly substantial improvement in a couple of big ways. I already mentioned the creation of the special rapporteur, a country-specific resolution last March on Iran. That was a significant victory with respect to a country that is a serious human rights violator. Before we did it nobody thought it was possible to get from this membership. That’s one data point.

Another data point, freedom of assembly and association. A very important value for the United States. Again, would not have been possible two years earlier in the dynamics that existed. I’m going to comment that at the time there had been a presumption among a certain group of members that somebody would have called for a vote on that. The usual old bloc. They would have called for a vote or they would have tried to do amendments from the floor, and in fact the very last request we got was from China to take out, remove protection for human rights defenders, which in the old way of doing business they would have succeeded in getting that amendment. But they could count. They didn’t even call for a vote. They knew they would lose. I consider that a significant improvement.

Then I would add, the multiple special sessions we’ve had on these urgent crises as they’ve evolved. Someone said the Arab world, the dynamics in the Arab League and the Arab world have changed dramatically, and that is reflected here.

There has been great Arab leadership on a number of initiatives, and that’s a very important new dynamic.

Last, to me this is the important part. I think countries are starting to step up and realize they can’t rely on a regional or group position. They can’t have a bloc mentality based on their geography or whatever, their continent or anything. And instead, when they push the button — green or red — it is a reflection on the values of their own government and their own countries and citizens. And I see that working. I observe – I’ll give you an example from right now.

I’ve had many many conversations on the topic of Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka has been sort of the taboo subject here. It’s like that’s the third rail, you don’t touch that one because you’ll lose even though it’s something we should do. That has not been the response this time. We have been so pleased with the response of everyone to how this is the right thing to do. The importance of telling the truth. The idea that if governments cannot tell the truth about large-scale atrocities, whatever else they’re doing that’s positive can’t eradicate the despair that will be there on the part of the victims. If that despair isn’t acknowledged or dealt with in some way by the government it will sow seeds of future violence. People understand that.

So we’re getting a lot of support. This idea that you tell the truth and you vote your values. I see that as a transformation.

Media: Can you touch upon the subject of the DPRK. I heard that, I understand there will be a special rapporteur’s report [inaudible] Human Rights Council. Given the fact that the DPRK is now under transition which is [inaudible] in a way from a global perspective, do you see any kind of action or discussion that’s going to happen in the Human Rights Council [inaudible] on the issue of [inaudible]?

Ambassador Donahoe: Yes. There will absolutely be conversation, interactive dialogue with the special rapporteur on the DPRK. I don’t think any of us in this room, certainly the membership of this Council, can yet comment on the meaning or direction of the transition of the leadership in the DPRK. What we can comment on, unfortunately, is the really dire human rights situation there that is, I have to say, one of if not the saddest on the planet.

The utter and extreme isolation of the population in North Korea is just an abomination and it is basically stunting, not just a generation but a whole country of people. I think it’s the saddest thing I’ve ever seen.

Media: I would like to come back on your comment about freedom of the internet. We are seeing a pattern where some internet search engines and providers are violating privacy laws and they put out a little apology. What is the administration going to do concretely to [inaudible] users of the internet that they are protected and not abused when using the internet

Ambassador Donahoe: I’m going to tell you, internet freedom is probably the most complex topic there is, especially when, as you just did, you move from simple articulation of affirmative requirement — freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, and association — must be protected on-line as off-line, which is Article 19. It says through any medium, which was a brilliant inclusion back in 1948 and I think is the lynch-pin of the human rights dimensions. Through any medium it must be protected. That is the clear principle we are here to protect.

I am telling you, I’ve been spending a lot of time on this topic, and when you get into the ITU, you get into governance issues, you get into information security issues, you get into cyber warfare, privacy concerns. It is very complex and what I can tell you is I am working hard on this topic, as are a number of us. I will tell you, I just had a retreat for 40 ambassadors in Silicon Valley on this topic.

Not to say we have the answers, but to acknowledge the complexity and caution all of our governments from thinking we are certain about the answers and certainly cautioning that government control isn’t the solution or that losing the multi-stakeholder perspective is the right idea. The reason we’ve had a free internet is because it has been multi-stakeholder. The reason it functions at all is because it has not been controlled solely by governments.

What the balance will be going forward on these multiple areas of governance, security, privacy? I can’t sit here and tell you the answer. But I will tell you it is a top priority for the Obama administration, Secretary Clinton, and we are putting a lot of energy into it.

Media: On North Korea, very quick. Could you comment please on China’s decision to send back I think it’s 13 North Korean refugees to North Korea? They say they’re not refutes, they’re economic migrants, and it’s likely that they will be executed if they are returned.

Ambassador Donahoe: Let’s put it this way. I don’t know the case. I shouldn’t comment on the facts. But as you’ve described them, it does not sound good.

Today, the organization’s director, Mazen Darwish, is under arrest. Seven more SCM administrators and staff are likewise detained by Syrian forces, without warrant and without cause. Their detention lays bare the hypocrisy of the Syrian government, which claims to want dialogue with the political opposition at the same time as Assad’s thugs arrest and kill those who dare oppose it. The United States condemns the imprisonment of Darwish, the SCM staff, and thousands more who have been detained arbitrarily in Syria, and calls for their immediate release.

Today’s election sends a clear message that the people of Yemen are looking forward to a brighter democratic future. But there is still more work to be done. As part of the GCC Initiative, Yemenis will convene a National Dialogue Conference to address critical issues of national unity and the fundamental structure of Yemeni government and society, while taking steps to address urgent economic, social, and humanitarian challenges. The United States, along with its partners in the international community, will continue to support Yemen as it works to implement these reforms and confront these challenges so that all Yemenis will have the opportunity to realize their potential.

This has been, for our team coming from the U.S., a great opportunity to discuss matters of important – importance to the bilateral relationship with Mexico, but also to catch up on the full range of regional and global issues that concern us with our – with my colleagues. And I think it’s fair to say, as I made the point in the first working session yesterday, Mexico is emerging as a leader in bringing nations together to solve problems that none of us can solve on our own. And this meeting of foreign ministers from G-20 and beyond is yet another example of that.

Now more than ever, foreign policy and economic policy are inseparable. Prosperity has to be a core foreign policy goal for all of us, and economic forces virtually impact every aspect of how our nations engage. And what’s more, we are increasingly seeing strong connections between traditional G-20 financial issues and questions about economic development, the environment, and good governance. In an age when more people in more places can participate in the global economy, we have to expand the range of partners working to take on our most pressing shared challenges and to work together to take advantage of these new opportunities.

So this has been a very excellent and all too rare chance to connect informally. It was, for me, a great opportunity to kick-off yesterday’s first session on breaking deadlocks in the multilateral system. I discussed some of the challenges to open, free, fair, transparent – transparency in the system of competition that we need if we’re going to continue to expand prosperity and include everyone in it.

Today’s sessions focused on all kinds of issues of great importance. I’ll just mention a few. The role that green growth can and should play – and again, I commend President Calderon, Secretary Espinosa, and the Mexican Government, because they have been leaders in this. The work that came out of Cancun was absolutely essential to what was then the follow-on work in Durban. The very creative idea that President Calderon put on the table back in ‘09 for a green growth fund was given more specificity. So across the board, whether it was talking about how we grow our economies, how we create both energy security and a market for renewable energy, how we include more women across the world as full participants in the economy, we covered a lot of important matters.

And then finally, this morning, Secretary Salazar and I were proud to represent the United States as we signed a groundbreaking agreement with Mexico regarding oil and gas reserves in the Gulf of Mexico. For too long, uncertainty in this area about the reservoirs of oil and gas has impeded our progress and created grounds for dispute instead of cooperation.

Today, the agreement we signed will remove the uncertainty. It will make exploration and production safer, more efficient, more equitable for companies in both countries. It will advance energy security in our hemisphere and help us handle our energy resources more responsibly. And for the first time, American energy firms will be able to collaborate with PEMEX, their Mexican counterpart. That’s a welcome benefit for both Mexico and the United States in these challenging economic times.

So it’s a great pleasure to be here and to renew friendships with a lot of my Mexican contacts and counterparts. I particularly appreciate working with both the president and the secretary, but what is most important is that both of us are intent upon delivering concrete, positive results for the American and Mexican people.

So with that, I’d be happy to take your questions.

MS. NULAND: We’ll take two today. First one from Indira Lakshmanan of Bloomberg.

QUESTION: Thank you, Madam Secretary. We wanted to ask, if the Arab League or others were determined that they had to arm the Syrian opposition to stop the government violence being inflicted upon the people, would the U.S. accept that?

And in Egypt, American NGO workers have been charged and a trial date has been set. Are you confident the situation can be resolved before a trial and avoid a cutoff of U.S. aid to Egypt?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, Indira, first with respect to Syria, I had the opportunity over the last two days to discuss Syria with a number of my colleagues. And we are all working toward the planned Friends of Syria meeting at the end of this week, which we think will give us a chance to come together and chart a way forward.

I think, like the UN General Assembly resolution that passed overwhelmingly last week, the upcoming meeting will demonstrate that Assad’s regime is increasingly isolated and that the brave Syrian people need our support and solidarity. Their suffering has to be addressed, so we have to focus on humanitarian issues and think of the best ways to deliver the necessary humanitarian aid. We have to work toward an inclusive, democratic process to lead a transition. Every group of Syrians needs to feel that they are represented, that their interests will be respected. We have to prepare for the likelihood that the Syrian regime is going to be under increasing pressure, which will create perhaps more space for all of us to push hard on a transition. And we will intensify our diplomatic outreach to those countries that are still supporting the Assad regime.

This is a challenging process, but mostly for the people of Syria, who every day are living with the results of this brutal crackdown that they are suffering under. So I don’t want to get ahead of the meeting that will be a very large gathering that will demonstrate, once again, the international unity in the face of the Assad regime. We’ll send a clear message to Russia, China, and others, who are still unsure about how to handle the increasing violence, but are, up until now, unfortunately, making the wrong choices. And I think we’ll have more to say as we go through this week and after the meeting.

With respect to Egypt and the NGO situation, I’m not going to speculate on the next steps based on press reports. I want you to understand clearly that we are not only deeply concerned about the situation as it affects not only Americans who are working in NGOs in Egypt, but other nationalities and even Egyptians who have been charged in this case. We’ve had a senior team in Cairo in recent days trying to work through the issues so that they can be resolved as soon as possible. And I think it’s probably better just to continue the hard work of our engagement and hope that we’ll see a resolution soon.

MS. NULAND: Las question, Silva Garduno of Reforma.

QUESTION: Hello.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Hi.

QUESTION: Good afternoon. My questions are related to organized crime. How do you think a forum like this, like G-20, should address transnational organized crime? In this sense, well, last week President Calderon sent a very graphic message about stopping the traffic of arms from the U.S. The sign actually read, “No more weapons in the border.” What is your answer to that message?

And finally, and very briefly, what do you think about organized crime infiltrating the highest levels of government in Mexico? And by this, I mean Mexican former governors of border states with the U.S. currently being investigated. Thank you.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, those are very important questions. And I want to begin by underscoring our support for the courage that President Calderon, the Mexican Government, law enforcement officials, and others have shown in their struggle against these criminal cartels. This is an important struggle, and we are doing all we can to support the Mexican Government as they, slowly but surely, gain ground against transnational crime.

We also believe strongly that transnational crime is a global threat. It’s not just a threat in Mexico or – name any other country. These gangs certainly operate across national boundaries. They pose a serious danger to law-abiding people and governments everywhere. So we are determined to assist the Mexican Government in their very courageous struggle against the cartels. And that means helping to stop the flow of illegal drugs and weapons to and from the cartels that fuel the violence here and elsewhere.

We’ve certainly increased our cooperation, and I would argue we’ve improved our assistance to be responsive to what Mexican Government officials tell us is needed. We are in much more close contact and really following the lead of our Mexican counterparts. We have an aggressive pursuit of illegal gunrunners who operate in the United States. Our goal is to end all illegal movement of guns across our border.

And in fact, President Obama has placed and increased emphasis on stemming the outbound flows of weapons and the flow of criminal proceeds from both weapons and, more significantly, the drug trade. Specials Customs – special Customs and Border Protection teams at the U.S. border are screening outbound rail and vehicle traffic for weapons and bulk currency. We are using cutting-edge technology to screen 100 percent of rail traffic headed into Mexico, and we’ve placed Border Enforcement Security teams along the border to investigate the organizations that are involved in cross-border smuggling.

The United States and Mexico share responsibility for our common border. Most of the times, it’s a border that a billion dollars a day in trade passes across, literally millions of contacts between people, and we want to keep it a vibrant, dynamic border while we work continuously to eliminate the threats that pass back and forth into both of our countries.

So I think we’ve made a lot of progress, but we have a long way to go, because these are violent, vicious gangs. It’s heartbreaking what they are willing to do to fellow human beings. There has been a lot of progress because of the Mexican Government’s leadership in bringing down a lot of the leadership of these gangs.

But we have no illusions about the necessity for the United States to be a strong partner with Mexico. And that includes, certainly on our side of the border, seeking out and arresting corrupt officials and supporting Mexican officials to do the same. Because it is just totally unacceptable that any officials would be profiting from this kind of violence and the terrible results that it has had for so many people in Mexico.

But I just want to end by saying that I think – I have a lot of confidence in the Mexican people and I have no reason to doubt that, as we’ve seen in other countries, Mexico will be successful.

MS. NULAND: Thank you very much.

I just concluded a productive round of meetings with Prime Minister Thaci, President Jahjaga, KFOR, EULEX, and the EU’s new representative to Kosovo. I also had the opportunity to meet local leaders in Gracanica and visit the beautiful monastery. Though my time here is short, I have been impressed by the progress that has been made in building a Kosovo that is inclusive and respects the rights of all its citizens. Like the United States, Kosovo benefits from a diverse and rich cultural heritage, and like the United States, it must work every day to preserve it.

The United States’ strong and enduring friendship with Kosovo is well-known. We are deeply proud of it. We remain committed to Kosovo’s independence, territorial integrity, and sovereignty.

We share the same vision for your country—to see Kosovo take its rightful place in Euro-Atlantic institutions, including NATO and the European Union. We will continue to work with Kosovo leaders and institutions on meeting their obligations in order to end supervised independence and advance Kosovo’s European perspective.

To this end, the United States actively supports the strengthening of democratic institutions in Kosovo. We believe that it is deeply in the self-interest of all who live here—whether you are Serb or Kosovar—as you build a better and more promising future in Europe. In particular, we believe it is extremely important for any democracy and any society to focus on the importance of rule of law. If you look around the world, it is hard to find any example of a society that is successful in combating a problem like corruption unless you have an independent and objective media and an independent judiciary to hold people to account. That is much easier said than done sometimes, but it is an extremely important goal.

The United States is also strongly committed to supporting Kosovo in its work in the EU-facilitated dialogue with Serbia. While the people of Kosovo will obviously judge for themselves what is in their own national interest, the benefits of making progress through this effort are clear. As the United States and our European partners have said many times, we are asking both sides to be flexible and creative to ensure that both Serbia and Kosovo are able to participate in regional fora. Both sides must find a formula with which they can be comfortable.

Let me add that I realize very well how sensitive and complicated this issue is. But it’s important also to realize the opportunity that is now within reach. From our perspective, this whole issue is about how Kosovo can win the right to represent itself in regional organizations and how to lay the foundation for closer relations with Europe. Winning that right, winning the chance to participate as an equal and to represent yourselves, is a major gain for Kosovo. It’s real progress on the road on which Kosovo and the United States have worked so hard together. All the other symbolic and technical questions which attract so much commentary today are less significant in comparison to having your own voice, your own seat at the table. That is what sovereignty is all about.

Finally, let me reiterate that, as Kosovo continues to build on the achievements of recent years, as you chart a path to a more prosperous and peaceful European future, you can count on America’s enduring friendship and support.

There are still significant challenges ahead for Libya. The work of building a strong, open society is arduous, including reintegrating militias into civilian life, securing weapons stockpiles, resettling thousands of refugees and displaced persons, and protecting the human rights of all people in Libya.

As Libya tackles these challenges, the United States, the United Nations Support Mission in Libya, and our other international partners stand ready to help. As they create a new society, the Libyan people have a strong partner in the United States of America, who will not soon forget the hope that began on February 17 or the innumerable sacrifices that followed.

My main message to all political leaders was exactly the same – President Obama and Secretary Clinton are deeply committed to a peaceful, democratic and prosperous Bosnia and Herzegovina. I made clear in all my meetings that we remain steadfast in our support for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Dayton Accords. The U.S. vision remains that of a multi-ethnic, democratic Bosnia and Herzegovina that is a member of NATO and the EU, and we will continue to support efforts to that end.

Bosnia and Herzegovina faces urgent political, economic and social challenges. Progress in forming the Council of Ministers and completing some EU-required reforms shows that leaders can put aside personal differences and narrow political interests, and work on practical solutions that can deliver positive results for this country and its citizens. I urged political leaders to work in the same spirit to resolve a number of outstanding issues, including the Sejdic-Finci case and defense property. I strongly encouraged them to take action soon, so that Bosnia and Herzegovina can activate its participation in NATO’s Membership Action Plan ahead of the May Chicago Summit and to bring the Stabilization and Association Agreement with the EU into force. Ambassador Moon and our Embassy here in Sarajevo stand ready to assist in these efforts.

I also conveyed to High Representative Inzko that the United States will continue its strong support of the Office of the High Representative. I thanked EU Special Representative Sorensen and High Representative Inzko for their close cooperation, and expressed our full support for Ambassador Sorensen and the reinforced EU presence in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

While success depends upon the willingness and the commitment of the leaders and citizens of this country, the U.S. remains a steadfast friend and supporter of a modern, stable, prosperous Bosnia and Herzegovina fully integrated into Europe.

The reasons given for conducting FGM/C, which is generally carried out between infancy and the teen years, encompass beliefs about health, hygiene, women’s sexuality, rites of passage to adulthood, and community initiation rites. Research has shown that all forms of the practice harm women’s health, causing serious pain, trauma, and frequently severe physical complications, such as bleeding, infections, or even death. Long-term complications may include recurrent infections, infertility,2 and difficult or dangerous childbirth that can result in the death of the mother and infant.3

The U.S. Government has supported FGM/C abandonment efforts since the early 1990s, considering the practice not only a public health concern, but also a human rights issue that violates a woman’s right to bodily integrity. In September 2000, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) officially incorporated elimination of FGM/C into its development agenda, issuing an official policy and strategy on FGM/C that underscored FGM/C as a serious health and human rights issue. The U.S. Department of State emphasizes the need to raise awareness amongst communities at the grassroots level and in humanitarian settings to reduce the practice of FGM/C.

The United States pursues regional, national, and local coordination among international donors, governments, and community leaders. U.S. Government agencies are actively engaged with internationally based working groups address FGM/C and are also active in the Donors Working Group (DWG) on FGM/C,4 which is composed of key international governmental and intergovernmental organizations and foundations committed to supporting the abandonment of the practice. USAID was a co-founder of the DWG and is dedicated to expanding and strengthening partnerships and increasing resources for abandonment of this harmful traditional practice. The group has collaboratively issued a Platform for Action that summarizes the collective programmatic approach that focuses on the community approach to social change.

On the occasion of the International Day of Zero Tolerance to FGM/C for 2012, the U.S. Government is supporting the launch of the Kenya Centre of Excellence, which will be based at Nairobi University, to create an Africa-based center for learning and developing innovative research approaches and training leaders and champions for working towards the abandonment of FGM/C and welcomes support from the international community and others to join in this effort.

U.S. Government Efforts

The Secretary’s Office of Global Women’s Issues (S/GWI) funds community-based approaches involving men, boys, and all members of society in public awareness and education campaigns emphasizing the detrimental consequences of FGM/C on the physical and mental health of girls, their families, and overall community in order to promote long-lasting solutions.

The Office of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM) largely supports efforts in humanitarian settings and among refugees with programs designed to prevent and respond
to gender-based violence (GBV), which includes FGM/C. These organizations rely on U.S. Government assistance to provide humanitarian assistance to refugees, conflict victims, internally displaced persons, and stateless persons worldwide. This encompasses a wide variety of assistance, including the provision of protection, shelter, health care, water, and sanitation, as well as the prevention of and assistance to survivors of GBV and FGM/C. PRM also supports targeted activities to prevent FGM/C in Somali and Sudanese refugee populations.

USAID supports implementing partners, both from Washington and at the country level, to provide community-based programs in key countries where the practice is prevalent. The agency’s projects have had targeted programs in Egypt, Ethiopia, Guinea, Kenya, Mali, Nigeria, Djibouti, and Burkina Faso, among others. The projects that are supported consider cultural sensitivities and are integrated with health, economic, social, or democracy and governance programs. USAID programs are community-based, involving community and religious leaders as well as women’s groups, men, and youth to advance the quality and effectiveness of abandonment efforts and to improve conditions that will lead to FGM/C abandonment.

Projects in Country

Egypt – S/GWI supports a project working in the community of Al Darb Al Ahmar in Cairo called Creating Attitudes Favorable to the Elimination of the Practice of FGM/C. Through the dissemination of appropriate and relevant information, coupled with education initiatives and public awareness campaigns, S/GWI supports the Aga Khan Foundation to address and prevent violence against women and girls, including FGM/C, in select Cairo communities. Additionally, the project provides training and capacity building in victim advocacy and mental health for health care providers, community leaders, and volunteers.

In 2008, USAID/Egypt incorporated FGM/C into an existing community-level health program, reinforced by select national-level messaging and educational messaging. The program furthered Egypt’s ongoing efforts to bring about abandonment of FGM/C, as it involved training staff at both the Ministry of Health and nongovernmental organizations to broaden the reach and to coordinate with the Government’s National Council of Childhood and Motherhood to create a coherent national strategy.

Iraq – In coordination with the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, S/GWI is funding a multidimensional program in northern Iraq composed of integrated victim services
and a successful educational campaign for village residents and political and religious leaders, leading to the first-of-its kind declarations of villages being “Female Genital Mutilation Free.”

Kenya – PRM provides resources to nongovernmental organization partners to promote awareness and prevention of FGM/C through community-based institutions and civil society, including men’s groups, youth groups, women’s groups, and religious leaders. Other projects promote social and economic empowerment of women and girls to reduce the risk of exposure to GBV, including FGM/C, while educating participants on the impact of harmful traditional practices, including FGM/C.

USAID conducted studies to better understand the practice of FGM/C among the Somalis in North Eastern Kenya to inform the design and implementation of interventions and to clarify the correct Islamic understanding of FGM/C. The research provided crucial evidence that FGM/C is neither a religious practice nor one sanctioned by Islam, which clearly stipulates provisions for the protection of basic human rights, upholds the sanctity of the human body, and prohibits any practice that violates these rights or causes harm to the body without justification. The conclusions called on religious scholars to collaborate with medical doctors to make verdicts based on scientific facts and to work with their communities to help delink FGM/C from Islam.

Ethiopia – In Northern Ethiopia, the U.S. Government supports an FGM/C awareness-raising program for women and girls living in Shimelba and My’Ayni refugee camps. Specific efforts include coffee discussions with girls, women, boys, and men on GBV-related topics and services and a Girls’ Wellness Week, which will promote adolescent girls’ health through a coming-of-age ceremony without FGM/C.

USAID supported collaboration with the Ministry of Health and the National Committee on Traditional Practices to educate communities on the harmful effects of FGM/C. The program worked on helping women and community leaders to understand the motives of “FGM/C demanders,” respond to their concerns, and provide them with information on the negative impact of the practice. More than 2,250 people participated in FGM/C abandonment activities; a national Anti-FGM/C Women’s Leaders Team was established, and a member of that team drafted a law against FGM/C that the Ethiopian parliament passed in July 2004.

Mali – USAID helped the Ministry of Health develop and pilot a national training curriculum for primary medical providers to increase their capacity to identify, treat, or refer FGM/C complications and educate and counsel clients and community members on the negative aspects of the practice. A network of trained providers was created consisting of extension workers from nongovernmental organizations and community and religious leaders. As a result of their work, the percentage of men and women who said they were in favor of abandoning FGM/C increased from 15 to 62 percent, and the percentage who intended to have FGM/C performed on their daughters decreased from 81 to 33 percent.

Senegal – The Grandmother’s Project (GMP) incorporates FGM/C into a broader girls’ and women’s health and family planning program to bring about positive changes in community traditions by involving grandmothers and elderly women, a once marginalized group, in social change. The project encourages learning and communal decision-making through open discussions about problems confronting the community. The aim for GMP is to have community members identify their problems and reach consensus on possible solutions that best suit their needs, leading to long-term and lasting change.

West Africa – USAID supports Tostan, a participatory education program that works village by village to incorporate democracy, problem solving, basic mathematics, literacy and essential health education, including information about FGM/C, into the learning experiences that ultimately empower the entire community. As a result of this multidimensional approach, thousands of villages in West Africa have publicly abandoned FGM/C and other harmful traditional practices upon completion of the Tostan program.

February 2012

Resources
1. Delinking Female Genital Mutilation Cutting from Islam (2008). Lethome Asman, Ibrahim and Sheikh Abdi, Maryam, FRONTIERS Program, Population Council. http://www.popcouncil.org/pdfs/frontiers/reports/FGM_Islam.pdf.
2. World Health Organization (WHO). (2000). Fact sheet No. 241. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/.
3. WHO Study Group on Female Genital Mutilation and Obstetric Outcome. (2006). Female Genital Mutilation and Obstetric Outcome: WHO Collaborative Prospective Study in Six African Countries. The Lancet, 367,1835-41. http://www.who.int/reproductive-health/fgm.
4. Platform for Action: Toward the Abandonment of Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting (FGM/C) – A Matter of Gender Equality. The Donors Working Group on Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting. http://www.fgm-cdonor.org/publications/dwg_platform_action.pdf

I know that Cathy understands the significance of our cooperation, because she and I have had the opportunity to meet on many occasions in the last several years, and we, again today, had a very comprehensive discussion. Let me just quickly run over a few of the issues.

I will turn first to Iran. We’re very grateful to Lady Ashton for her leadership on the P-5+1. The international community has been looking to Iran to demonstrate it is prepared to come to the table in a serious and constructive way. We have been reviewing Iran’s proposal to resume talks on its nuclear activities and consulting closely between us and with our other P-5+1 partners. This response from the Iranian Government is one we’ve been waiting for, and if we do proceed, it will have to be a sustained effort that can produce results.

Turning to Syria, I know that the high representative joins me in, once again, condemning in the strongest possible terms the ongoing violence against the Syrian people perpetrated by the Assad regime. I also want to extend on behalf of myself and our government our sympathies to the family of Anthony Shadid and to the New York Times for his untimely death. He was somebody I always turned to and read very carefully, and if I didn’t have the time when I got to the press reporting, I would put it aside and read it because he had his pulse on what was happening.

Yesterday’s UN General Assembly vote demonstrated an overwhelming international consensus that the bloody assaults must end. In the face of this global condemnation, the regime in Damascus, however, appears to be escalating its assaults on civilians, and those who are suffering cannot get access to the humanitarian assistance they need and deserve. So we will keep working to pressure and isolate the regime, to support the opposition, and to provide relief to the people of Syria. I will be attending the Friends of Syria conference in Tunisia next week, where a number of nations will work to intensify pressure on the regime and to mobilize the humanitarian relief that is needed. We also hope to coordinate efforts to enable a Syrian-led transition before the regime’s actions tear the country apart. We’re looking for an inclusive democratic process.

Ultimately, our shared values between the U.S. and the EU are the bedrock of our cooperation, and we are promoting those values together. We also discussed the situation in the Balkans. We share the view that the future of both Serbia and Kosovo lies with the European Union, and the United States strongly supports the dialogue that the EU is leading to try to advance Euro-integration for both Serbia and Kosovo. Deputy Secretary Burns is encouraging both sides to remain flexible and open to compromise.

We have a – we have a very long list of what we discussed, but I’ll just end it there and turn it over to Lady Ashton with my appreciation for her leadership and the great partnership we have.

MS. ASHTON: Well first of all, can I say what a pleasure it is to be back here and to be meeting and working as closely as I do with you. It is extremely significant that we’re meeting today, because we meet on the back of having received a letter from Dr. Jalili from Iran in response to my letter from October. As you said, we are consulting colleagues and analyzing closely what this letter would mean. Let me say that I think it’s good to see that the letter has arrived and that there is a potential possibility that Iran may be ready to start talks. We’ll continue to discuss and make sure that what we’re looking at is substantive, but I’m cautious and I’m optimistic at the same time for this. It also demonstrates the importance of the twin-track approach, that the pressure that we have put on together, the sanctions that have been put there because that’s the responsibility of the international community, I believe, they’re having an effect. But we, of course, want to resolve this through talks.

And as you’ve said, Hillary, the situation in Syria is a cause for enormous concern, and we feel extremely worried about the level of violence and terror that is happening within that country. We’ve been very clear that President Assad should stand aside and should enable a process that would bring the people of Syria together, all of them. An inclusive process that can take the country forward. I want to commend the work of Nabil Elaraby, the Secretary-General of the Arab League, who has shown great leadership in bringing together the Arab community, but in coordination, working closely with the international community, to demonstrate that inclusivity and to demonstrate the leadership on the ground. I hope that the meeting next week will give us a chance to consider how we can support humanitarian efforts especially. And I will be working with the UN, the OIC, and the Arab League, as we did through the situation in Libya, on the humanitarian side of the challenges that we face. I hope it will also show, too, the international consensus to try and see the situation in Syria end.

As you said, there are hundreds of things on our agendas at all times, and we keep in constant touch, so we can deal with only some of them at every meeting. The situation in Serbia-Kosovo, of course, is very important to the European Union because we do believe, as you rightly say, the future for both lies within the European Union. The team that we’ve got there at the moment are working closely together to try and support both into their future. I hope that both will be able to work on the plan that we’ve put to them that will enable Serbia to become a candidate, will enable Kosovo to move forward with visas, with trade, with economic support, and eventually to see its future as well with the European Union. Thank you.

MS.NULAND: We have time for two today. We’ll start with The New York Times, Steve Myers.

QUESTION: Madam Secretary, Lady Ashton, thank you. The Iranian letter refers to a readiness for dialogue, talks at the earliest possibility, and also, significantly, no preconditions in it for those talks. And yet you seem somewhat hesitant to embrace this. Is that that you think the letter is not sincere? And what more do you need to see before you could begin, or what next steps could you see for those talks to begin? Thank you.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, first, as I think we both have said, we are evaluating the response. And our unity within the P-5+1 has been absolutely critical in dealing with Iran in the past. It remains so going forward. It takes time to consult and to do so in a thorough manner. So we need to give time to our partners in the P-5+1 process to do their own evaluation.

But we’ve been clear about two things that I want to stress. First, as outlined in Cathy’s October letter to Iran, any conversation with Iran has to begin with a discussion of its nuclear program. And Iran’s response to Cathy’s letter does appear to acknowledge and accept that. And second, we must be assured that if we make a decision to go forward, we see a sustained effort by Iran to come to the table, to work until we have reached an outcome that has Iran coming back into compliance with their international obligations.

So we’re evaluating all of these factors. But I think it’s fair to say – and of course, I’ll let Cathy speak for herself – that we think this is an important step, and we welcome the letter.

MS. ASHTON: Yeah. I mean, exactly. We see the things that you’ve seen in the letter – no preconditions and a recognition of what we’ll be talking about. The next question, really, is to look at then where we left off in Istanbul. And you’ll recall that we put out in Istanbul a series of options for confidence-building measures, things that Iran could do that would help us move forward with the talks, things that the inspectors would be allowed to do, for example. We also said at that time they could come forward with their own ideas about what they wanted to do, so that this was a genuine open process.

So for us, the evaluation now is also about thinking through okay, where did we leave off, where do we need to go next? If we start the talks, we want to sustain them. Therefore, we need to set in train the process whereby we can be clear what it is we mean to achieve and what we’re expecting from the Iranians. And that’s what we’re in the process of doing right now.

QUESTION: Is the TRR still on the table?

MS. ASHTON: Well, when we were talking in Istanbul, there were two sets of issues: one, the confidence-building measures I’ve described; the other was support for the TRR and for, of course, a civil nuclear program. And that’s been – as I’ve acknowledged to the Iranians recently, that’s always been part of what we were offering, was to support them on civil nuclear power.

MS.NULAND: And last question, ITN (inaudible).

QUESTION: Yeah. Robert Moore with the British network ITN. Good morning. A question to you both, if I may. I wonder what your message is today to the embattled residents of Homs and other Syrian cities. Would it not be more honest and therefore more honorable to say you’re on your own, the UN Security Council is paralyzed, there are no good Western diplomatic options, don’t expect our help?

MS. ASHTON: I’m not sure that would be an honest response. I think the honest response is to say this: We are absolutely clear that President Assad should stand aside; you cannot kill your own people, you cannot be a leader, and call this leadership. Secondly, that we want to try and work as close as we can with everyone who’s willing to engage in support of the humanitarian needs of people. And we’ve supported the Arab League in its quest to try and put people on the ground to try and monitor the situation. And as you know, there are discussions going on between the UN and the Arab League about how to take that forward in the future. The honest response is we need to do everything that we possibly can to help.

SECRETARY CLINTON: I think that’s absolutely right. We have marshaled the great weight of international opinion against the Assad regime. The vote yesterday in the General Assembly was overwhelming. So I do want the people of Syria to understand and believe that there are tens of millions of people around the world who are seized with the terrible situation they find themselves in.

And we have not been deterred by the vetoes in the Security Council. We are moving forward with the Friends of Syria. They are not being abandoned. We are doing all we can to determine ways forward to strengthen the opposition, to help them convey to the entire Syrian population that they are seeking an inclusive, peaceful, democratic transition, and that those who are fearful of the future, which is understandable, whether they be Alawites, Sunni, Christian, Druze, Kurd or any Syrian, have to come together to establish a credible opposition that can then serve as their voice in dealing with the regime and dealing with the outside.

So, I think we have to be humble. I mean, this takes a large dose of humility to say we don’t have all the answers and we cannot even imagine the terrible experiences that people are going through with their children and their grandparents under such assault, but we’re doing whatever we can to try to help pave the way toward a better future for Syria.

Thank you all very much. Have a good weekend.

Today the Libyan people are enjoying new liberties, expressing themselves freely, debating new laws, joining civil society organizations, and preparing for the first free and fair elections in the country’s history. Libya’s natural wealth can finally be invested in the people’s future. Libya’s emerging democracy and its institutions will take time to build, and the United States stands ready to assist the Libyan people as they shape their future. The Transitional National Council and government should take full advantage of this historic moment by making decisions openly and transparently. The revolutionaries who fought so hard for liberty now have a responsibility to protect their freedoms by working with the government to establish stability, peace, and reconciliation. Protecting the rights of all the Libyan people will help preserve the unity of purpose that defined the revolution.

We will never forget the voices, images, and sacrifices that we have seen in Libya over the last year, and we are grateful to the American service-members and civilians who helped save lives and stand up to tyranny. The United States was proud to support the Libyan people in their revolution last year, and looks forward to building a close friendship with a free Libya in the years to come.