Assistant Secretary, Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs
October 4, 2011
As delivered
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Members, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere and House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Oversight, Investigations & Management. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I have a written statement for the record which I have submitted. I would like to offer a brief oral summary.
Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to spend your time describing the origin, history, and purpose of the Merida Initiative. You know them better than I do. I will say that this has been more of a partnership between two governments than a traditional foreign assistance program, that the Congress has been generous in funding it, and that the Merida Initiative has delivered some concrete successes over the past four years:
1. Since 2009, more than 33 high level cartel leaders have been removed or arrested. This compares with one in the preceding six years.
2. Thanks to Merida Initiative, the Mexican government now has 14 additional helicopters, hundreds of sophisticated non-intrusive inspection suites of equipment, and more than 100 canine teams.
3. More than 52,000 Mexican police and prosecutors have received some professional training under the Merida Initiative.
By the end of this year, we will have delivered more than $900 million worth of equipment and training to Mexico, with more than $500 million delivered this year alone. There is no doubt in my mind, ladies and gentlemen, that the United.States. is better and safer today thanks to our support for the Merida Initiative.
Mr. Chairman, Merida is in transition. Where we once focused on delivering equipment and goods, we now focus more on providing specialized training. For four years, we concentrated on building strong federal institutions; we now concentrate more on state and municipal institutions. And we will initially focus our support in northern Mexico, where the violence is greatest and where we have shared border security interests.
Mr. Chairman, the Merida Initiative was not engraved in stone. It is a living strategy that is modified, adjusted, and corrected as circumstances change on the ground and we learn lessons. Some of those lessons came from the United States Congress, and came from some of Members in this vert chamber. It is a valuable idea to integrate our efforts against illicit drugs, organized crime, and terrorism into a unified, holistic approach to support the Merida Initiative. And we have learned lessons from other theaters of operations around the world that can and should be integrated into our Merida efforts.
But Mr. Chairman, there are two lessons we did not have to learn, because we already knew them. The first is that Merida is a cooperative agreement between the U.S. and Mexico, with the government of Mexico in charge of all activities within their territory. If we do not work together with the Mexican government, then we accomplish little for either the American or the Mexican people.
And second, as I learned the hard way during my years in Colombia, is the lesson of strategic patience. I am an optimist, Mr. Chairman, and I believe we have already made serious progress under this Initiative. But it took our two nations many years to get into this situation, and it is going to take us some years to get out of it.
I thank you Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to your questions.
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Assistant Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Ann Stock, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Western Hemisphere Affairs Matthew Rooney, and Mexican Ambassador to the United States Arturo Sarukhan, met today with 68 Jovenes en Accion (Youth in Action) exchange participants to congratulate them on the successful completion of their program.
Jovenes en Accion is an innovative five-week youth exchange program that develops leadership skills, fosters civic engagement, and supports Mexican public high school students in creating service projects to implement in their communities. State Department photo by Michael Gross
Students Fight Back demands the legalization of all undocumented people and an end to “racist” ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) raids that target the immigrant workers and their families.Whether or not such a demand seems noble depends on the perspective of the individual.While it may seem chivalrous that these activists are fighting against laws and agencies that undermine undocumented workers, they fail to realize how much they the protestors are undermining the millions of immigrants who came here legally and waited years to become citizens.
Being Mexican-American and the grandson of workers who legally immigrated from northern Mexico, the author sympathizes with the plight of the illegal immigrant population and is fully aware of the economic circumstances that inspire people to try to get into this country at all costs.Unfortunately though (and even socialists have to agree on this), only so many cows can get fat on one patch of grass.This theory is proven correct by history within the Eastern Bloc, as the Soviet and Chinese governments regularly relocated millions of their own citizens to various rural areas for various projects meant to advance the socialist cause.[1][2][3][4]Many were even deported.[5][6][7]
Right now, this patch of grass called the United States suffers from anywhere between nine and nineteen percent unemployment (statistics are clouded because many who were unemployed simply lost hope and stopped searching).There are countless Hispanic citizens in the United States who remember their own or their parents’ and grandparents’ achievement of hard-earned U.S. citizenship who are vehemently opposed to their ethnic brothers and sisters who have not waited their turn.[8][9][10]Even if people look past the legal argument, they can see that there aren’t even enough jobs for citizens in this country, let alone non-citizens.Should illegal immigrants be blamed for this job shortage?No—by no means whatsoever.The blame entirely goes to massive debts and unemployment caused by large banks who stretched themselves far too thin on fractional reserve banking and loans with un-payable interest rates, and also large corporations who failed to practice true capitalism by failing to serve consumers and instead serving the higher corporate echelons to the tune of price hikes, mass layoffs of workers, and large bonuses for the higher ups.What that all means is that unemployed U.S. citizens and residents need to get jobs before employers can even think of looking the other way and accommodating undocumented workers.
Regarding the insinuation that ICE is a racist organization, such is absolutely preposterous.There may be a few racist individuals laying low somewhere in the ranks of immigration and border law enforcement, but my no means are the agencies or their raids racist, nor do they exclusively target Hispanics.[11]Due to Mexico being just south of the U.S., the majority of immigrants—legal and illegal—happen to be Hispanic.There are many Hispanic agents in the various U.S. immigration agencies and most of them work on or near the U.S.-Mexico border.While statistics for Hispanic personnel in ICE are currently unavailable, it is confirmed that over fifty percent of the U.S. Border patrol is made of Hispanics, primarily Mexican-Americans.[12]The constant use of the race card by the Left, especially by Students Fight Back and other Marxist-leaning groups is the equivalent of crying wolf, accompanied with a lack of credibility, and the weakening of the accusation can only cause damage, as the public will be tired of hearing ‘Wolf!’ when there truly is a case of racist conduct by a law enforcement agent.
Continued in Part 6: Labor Unions and full employment
[1] What Were Their Crimes? http://gulaghistory.org/nps/onlineexhibit/stalin/crimes.php
[2] Russians left behind in Central Asia. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4420922.stm
[3] Population Transfer and Control. http://www.tibet.net/en/index.php?id=152&rmenuid=11
[4] Liang Heng and Shapiro, Judith. Son of the Revolution. Vintage Books. New York. 1983.
[5] Liquidation of the Kulaks as a Class. http://www.soviethistory.org/index.php?page=subject&SubjectID=1929collectivization&Year=1929
[6] Ukraine after the Great Patriotic War. http://www.soviethistory.org/index.php?page=subject&SubjectID=1947ukraine&Year=1947
[7] Pohl, Otto. Ethnic cleansing in the USSR, 1937-1949.
[8] [Hispanic] Americans for Legal Immigration. http://www.alipac.us/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=14
[9] Antle III, W. James. Hispanics Against Illegal Immigration. http://spectator.org/blog/2010/11/01/hispanics-against-illegal-immi#
[10] CNN: Hispanic Americans Stand Against Illegal Aliens. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laYeI-9nPLU
[11] Greenhouse, Steven. Wal-Mart Raids By U.S. Aimed At Illegal Aliens. New York Times. October 2003. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/24/us/wal-mart-raids-by-us-aimed-at-illegal-aliens.html
I fail to see how and why any self-respecting Mexican-American would feel pride in celebrating a “holiday” that has little or no symbolic value and absolutely no cultural or social value as it is celebrated in the United States.Cinco de Mayo—or Drinko de Mayo, as it is known by police departments throughout the U.S. and by their annual overnight guests—is more of an insult to our culture than words can express.
Contrary to popular belief, May 5th is NOT the Mexican Independence Day (that’s the 16th of September), but rather the date of the Battle of Puebla, in which the Mexican Army defeated the invading French Army.As cool as this may sound (mostly because the French violated the Monroe Doctrine and deserved the 1866 uprising they got), this victory, which was of little strategic importance, is belittled by the fact that the Mexican army LOST THE WAR.The loss of the war to the French led to the formation of the Second Mexican Empire with Austrian Archduke Maximilian established as Emperor of Mexico.Celebrating one victorious battle in a lost war is akin so Southerners throwing a party to commemorate the First Battle of Bull Run despite a certain indiscretion that occurred in April of 1865, or of Americans celebrating how much Viet Cong tail was kicked during the Tet Offensive, despite the fall of South Vietnam seven years later.Clearly this fake holiday, which has little to commemorate, is simply an excuse to party.This is nothing special, since my friends and I party all the time anyway.
The original purpose of inventing the holiday was to introduce Chicano studies into school curriculum—an honorable endeavor, since Mexican-Americans have made great contributions to this country’s history and traditions.Countless Chicanos in this country are teachers, firefighters, police officers, and statesmen, and countless Chicanos have demonstrated their patriotism to the U.S.A. in combat, from the mountains of Korea and the jungles of Vietnam to the deserts of Afghanistan and Iraq—not to mention the earlier wars in which they aided the Stars and Stripes and even the Stars and Bars (ever heard of Texas and Florida?).Being one of the largest ethnic groups in the country, it is absolutely beneficial for the sake of cultural and historical understanding that Chicanos are represented in school curriculum.Unfortunately, celebrating September the 16th is too much of a pain in the neck because it falls at the beginning of the school year—bad time for a holiday—and is also shadowed by the lingering sadness of September 11th.
What Chicanos should have gotten and what they actually got is very different and unfortunate.Even within Mexico, Cinco de Mayo is only regionally celebrated—mostly within the state of Puebla—and not for the purpose of cultural enrichment but more as a reminder of a historical event—akin to having a barbeque following the local Civil War reenactment, though a barbeque less spectacular than those on July 4th and Labor Day.Unfortunately, within the United States this has led to foolhardy celebrations of the abstract. Some are rather tasteful festivals in which dancers, artists, and cooks display the regional art forms and cuisine native to Puebla (which is already done in Puebla and by descendants of Puebla emigrants—and on a greater scale—on September 16th and Day of the Dead).Unfortunately, the vast majority of Cinco de Mayo celebrations in the States are foolish efforts at cultural enrichment, spearheaded by Chicano nationalists whose ignorance is matched only by their militancy, in which tacos and burritos are consumed in a Roman fashion, followed by downing as many bottles of Dos Equis, Tecate, and Corona as humanly possible, with the hopes of dodging both law enforcement and alcohol poisoning.
This does a huge disservice to our Mexican-American culture, whose only spokesmen in the United States seem to be: 1) comedian George Lopez—who frequently has me in stitches—whose comedy and cultural jokes I love and appreciate, but whose loudly proclaimed politics do NOT remotely match mine, nor those of most Mexican-Americans; 2) the serial adulterer and crony collector Antonio Villaraigosa; and 3) the ultra-leftist university professors who try their best to resolve their Chicano Nationalism with their fanatical faith in Marxism and international socialism.I’d rather stay in touch with my ethnic heritage on my own terms, independent of the above vanguards.I do this whenever I mix my own Jamaica drink, when I agree with some of Rudy Acuña’s theses and disagree with others, and when I keep up with the relatives over Facebook.Though the drug war has kept me away from the old country for over three years, my family and I make a point to visit the relatives south of the border as often as possible.This is what it is to be Mexican-American, NOT going out of my way to reinforce every negative stereotype about Mexicans on Drinko de Mayo.
I don’t know about anyone else, but I don’t need a holiday to get drunk or to eat only a small sampling of Mexican food.When I feel like eating some delicious chile rellenos or quesadillas made with Menonite cheese, I’ll do it simply because I want to.Though I am technically keeping the culture alive when I drink horchata or watch a Cantinflas film (I recommend El Padrecito), I do them simply because I want to and have the liberty to do so, not because I feel some overwhelming sense of duty to keep the culture alive.
Being an American, I’m a man of many cultures.My primary culture is the industry-driven, cheeseburger-eating, car driving 9-to-5 Anglo culture.This is my daily life and the norm for my countrymen.Then there is my ethnic culture, which I observe around the household, with family members, and with other Mexican-Americans.When I’m neither eating a Big Mac and discussing the joke that is the contemporary U.S. Congress, I’m enjoying a plate of Pad Thai noodles and Pad Soo Eu, washing them down with either a Thai Ice Tea or a Singha.When I have the time, I’ll watch some of my favorite Asian films—most of them from South Korea—such as Tae Guk Gi, JSA, and 71: Into the Fire.Many a Saturday night have I spent enjoying various rolls at the Sushi Bars in Rowland Heights (jokingly called Asian Heights by its proud inhabitants and their neighbors from Hacienda Heights).When I drink beer with the boys, I prefer a Belgian white ale and fondly remember the breweries whose magical elixirs I sampled in Germany, Belgium, and Luxemburg when I wasn't admiring cathedrals and museums.Furthermore, I’m not alone in this uniquely Americanmulticulturalism.Therefore, why do we need to invent useless holidays when we observe cultural rites every day?
WASHINGTON - According to CBS, the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has been involved in undercover operations to smuggle high-powered weapons into Mexico, probably as some sort of tracking operation. Now many of those weapons are in the hands of ruthless drug traffickers, which they are using to intimidate and kill people.
Libertarian Party chair Mark Hinkle issued this statement today:
"This is another sad chapter in the long story of the terribly destructive War on Drugs. Now our own government is apparently involved in smuggling weapons to drug lords in Mexico. This story is as bizarre as it is depressing.
"The War on Drugs has caused far more death and destruction than it has prevented. The War on Drugs is a failure in almost every measurable way. The War on Drugs should end.
"It's becoming more and more unclear whether the U.S. government even wants the violence to decrease. More drug violence means more jobs for federal drug agents. More drug arrests mean more jobs for prison construction and management contractors. There are a lot of people whose income depends on a big, thriving, unsuccessful War on Drugs.
"If the War on Drugs were halted, there would no longer be any such thing as 'drug trafficking.' Violence in Mexico would decrease very dramatically, as drug lords would quickly go out of business.
"A lot of liberals and libertarians were hoping that President Obama and a Democratic Congress might at least tone down the War on Drugs, but they have done nothing of the kind. They have kept this war going as strong as ever.
"It looks like those of us opposed to the War on Drugs can forget about help from the Democratic Party. Only the Libertarian Party will fight to end the misguided, wasteful, and destructive War on Drugs.
"One of the things that saddens me is that our foolish and unjust drug laws are leading to the deaths of thousands of Mexican citizens. Those Mexicans can't vote in our elections to change our drug laws -- they just have to wait and hope they aren't the drug lord's next victim.
"We Libertarians call for an end to the War on Drugs: an end to federal prohibition of the possession and sale of narcotics. Would that lead to increased drug abuse? It's hard to know -- probably not much -- but nothing could be worse than the death and destruction our government has unleashed with its War on Drugs."
For more information, or to arrange an interview, call LP Executive Director Wes Benedict at 202-333-0008 ext. 222.
The LP is America's third-largest political party, founded in 1971. The Libertarian Party stands for free markets, civil liberties, and peace. You can find more information on the Libertarian Party at our website.
P.S. If you have not already done so, please join the Libertarian Party. We are the only political party dedicated to free markets and civil liberties. You can also renew your membership. Or, you can make a contribution separate from membership.
West Wing Week is your guide to everything that's happening at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. It was a busy week on the 18 acres, with President Obama welcoming the nation's governors, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, and Mexican President Felipe Calderón to the White House. The First Lady and Education Secretary Arne Duncan also helped kick off Education Month at the Library of Congress.
Watch the video at http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/03/04/west-wing-week-green-eggs-and-governors?utm_source=030411&utm_medium=intro&utm_campaign=daily.
MR. CROWLEY: Continuing on. The clock at my podium says and the Secretary’s bilateral with the foreign minister of Nigeria starts at . So what we’ll do is run this for about 20 minutes and then if we don’t get through all your questions after the Secretary’s press availability, we’ll be happy to reengage and continue on.
Just to mention a couple of things to start, the Secretary obviously had a discussion this morning with Israeli chief negotiator Isaac Molho. The meeting lasted for more than an hour, and he also met with George Mitchell and our Middle East team for about three hours. So – and the Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat arrives this afternoon. He will meet later today with our Middle East team as well, and he’ll have a meeting with Secretary Clinton tomorrow morning. Just additionally, the Secretary spoke with President Abbas twice yesterday to work through issues in anticipation of the meeting, follow-on meeting with Saeb Erekat tomorrow morning.
Earlier this morning, the Secretary met with Albanian Foreign Minister Edmond Haxhinasto. They talked about a range of regional issues, including the situation in the Western Balkans, in Kosovo, and ongoing efforts of which Albania has been a very constructive player in working for European integration. Albania itself has elections coming up in May of next year, and the Secretary welcomed perspective on that. And Albania has special forces troops deployed in Afghanistan and continues to make a very significant contribution to ISAF for a relatively small county clearly punching above its weight, as the phrase would go.
And finally, Scott Gration and USAID Assistant Administrator for Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance Nancy Lindborg traveled to El Fashir, Darfur today. They met with the governor and state security committee of North Darfur and senior UNAMID officials to discuss security, assess, and the ongoing peace process. He will continue his three-day visit to Darfur as we continue to seek to build a durable peace for the Darfuri people.
And tomorrow U.S. Ambassador Barry White will attend the Nobel Peace Prize Award Ceremony, reaffirming the importance that the United States places on the Nobel Award. We welcome the committee’s decision to award the peace prize to Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo, and Mr. Liu’s courageous advocacy for political reform and fundamental freedoms, including his role in the drafting of Charter ’08, deserve our admiration. We urge China to uphold its international rights – human rights obligations and to respect the fundamental freedoms and human rights of all Chinese citizens, and we continue to call for Mr. Liu’s immediate release.
QUESTION: P.J., briefly, or not briefly if you want, will – can you give us a little bit more of a flavor of this meeting this morning with Molho?
MR. CROWLEY: I will be very brief. My understanding is that it both reviewed process, as we’ve been indicating, getting a perspective on the Israeli side of how to move forward. And the Secretary and Mr. Molho also engaged in substantive issues. Beyond that, I’ll leave it there.
QUESTION: Well, what do you mean getting perspective on the Israeli – you haven’t – you don’t know what the Israeli’s perspective is?
MR. CROWLEY: Well, again --
QUESTION: I mean, I think their perspective has been pretty clear, hasn’t it, from day one?
MR. CROWLEY: I’m – that’s about all I’m going to tell you at this point.
QUESTION: Right.
MR. CROWLEY: I’m quite sure when you see the Secretary shortly you’ll probably ask her about this as well.
QUESTION: And what about – in terms of her speech tomorrow, do you expect her to say anything that advances the --
MR. CROWLEY: I think in her speech tomorrow, she’ll give our current perspective on where we are and what we believe should be the way to move forward. Again, I’ll leave her speech for tomorrow night.
QUESTION: P.J., you said that the Palestinian negotiator will meet with the Secretary of State this afternoon?
MR. CROWLEY: Tomorrow – no, she’ll meet – he’ll meet with – when he arrives, he’ll meet with our Middle East team this afternoon and this evening, and then he’ll meet with the Secretary tomorrow morning.
QUESTION: Okay. Now, will there be any meeting that – under the auspices of the State Department between the Palestinian negotiator and his counterpart, Mr. Molho? And are there any ideas that you would (inaudible) to explore?
MR. CROWLEY: I would – as we said yesterday, right now I’m not anticipating that there would be a three-sided meeting in Washington.
QUESTION: So what are some of the ideas that you are exploring with Mr. Molho or his counterpart, the Palestinian counterpart?
MR. CROWLEY: Well, as we indicated, from this point forward, we plan to move forward and begin a more substantive engagement to see how, working on the core issues themselves, we can begin to move the process forward, perhaps regain some confidence in the process that has been stalled in recent months, and through this progress continue to impel the parties back into direct negotiations.
QUESTION: The Indian ambassador to the U.S. was subject to pat-down at a airport last week in Mississippi. Are you aware about this? Has the ambassador logged any complaint to you?
MR. CROWLEY: We have actually just learned about this, are looking into it ourselves. But probably the Department of Homeland Security and TSA would be in a better position to describe what happened.
QUESTION: P.J., can you --
QUESTION: P.J., on that same subject, have the Indians made any formal complaint to the State Department about this? Because there are indications that she was pulled aside because of the way that she was dressed.
MR. CROWLEY: As far as I know, at this point, they have not.
QUESTION: And for --
QUESTION: And could you explain just – I’m sorry – could you also just explain to us, because there are a couple of things that came up – the Polish president yesterday mentioned that he had to fill in a visa form and was asked about any connection with prostitution or terrorism. Is it – what are the rules for diplomats? Do they have to --
MR. CROWLEY: Well, actually, all diplomats do, in fact, fill out visa applications because they’re coming here on a business trip. For example, there are countries that are participating in the Visa Waiver Program. Even though an ordinary, say, British citizen traveling in the United States would not have to apply for a waiver, a British diplomat would because the Visa Waiver Program involves travel for tourism.
QUESTION: And is there --
QUESTION: And for TSA, is there any special way that they are treated when they are at the airport, to your knowledge?
MR. CROWLEY: Well, I believe there are guidelines that have been published on diplomats. They are subject to basic security, so everyone at the airport goes through a basic screening. And beyond that, I’ll defer to the Department of Homeland of Security.
QUESTION: Wait, wait. Just so we’re clear about basic security or basic screening, that means that these guidelines – well, two things. One, where are the guidelines published? Two, does that mean that they are subject to – basic security from your point of view that includes the enhanced pat-downs, as it were? I mean there’s no perception for --
MR. CROWLEY: Again, I – look, again, I think from a TSA standpoint, they followed their normal procedures, and I will defer to DHS to explain what happened in this particular instance. We weren’t there.
QUESTION: P.J., would you at least offer some sort of apology? I mean --
MR. CROWLEY: Again, I’ll defer to the Department of Homeland Security.
QUESTION: You’re --
MR. CROWLEY: I mean, it is the responsibility of the Transportation Security Administration to assess each passenger and then work each passenger through security based on what they see. I’m going to defer to DHS on this.
QUESTION: Okay, but P.J. –
MR. CROWLEY: There was – we are aware of the fact that the ambassador was subject to a pat-down. As to the rational that TSA used for this, I’ll let them explain it.
QUESTION: To your knowledge, is there any reason for a foreign diplomat who is traveling domestically within the United States to identify themselves as a foreign diplomat while going – while traveling – while going into an airport, i.e., if they do not have to go through any kind of customs or immigration control?
MR. CROWLEY: All right. I’m – give me – I’m trying to understand the question. I’m not being evasive. I just don’t –
QUESTION: If someone – all right. If I am a foreign diplomat, and I am here on my diplomatic passport with a visa and I’m traveling within the United States, meaning that I am not going through any immigration or customs control, is there any reason for me to identify myself as a foreign diplomat?
MR. CROWLEY: The fact that you’re a diplomat does not necessarily mean that you are not subject to basic screening as is any other passenger on any particular flight.
QUESTION: Has the State Department been in touch with TSA or DHS about people who – about what to do in the case of a diplomat, who can prove that they’re a diplomat, being pulled out of line or going through – just going through security in general.
MR. CROWLEY: Well, again, we recognize – and there’s a policy that all passengers, whether a diplomat or a non-diplomat, are subject to screening before boarding any flight. We understand – we recognize that, and the diplomats themselves recognize that. As to this particular case where the ambassador was pulled aside for secondary screening that involved a pat-down, I’ll refer to TSA as to –
QUESTION: Okay, but I’m not asking –
MR. CROWLEY: -- as to what factors went into that decision.
QUESTION: I’m not asking about this specific case. Just in general, I mean, the State Department issues guidelines to local police departments about what to do when they arrest a foreign national in terms of notification and consular access. You’re in touch with other agencies about how to deal with – like the New York City police – you’re in touch with on how to deal with UN diplomats. So, I’m curious if you have been in touch with TSA about the treatment of diplomats in airport security lines in general. Forget about this case.
MR. CROWLEY: Yes. Yes, I mean, this – there are – there is a – on, I believe, our website there is guidelines published on diplomats and what they can expect as they travel around the United States.
QUESTION: And then –
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
QUESTION: Hold on. I have just one more. Are you aware of whether India has complained or not? I mean, the foreign minister said that they were, but whether you’ve received it or not? I recall that there was a case with some Pakistani visitors, official visitors not so long ago. Is that the last one that you recall where there was a complaint lodged?
MR. CROWLEY: I’ll take that – I mean, every once in a while – I don’t imagine that this is necessarily unique where we’ve – we have had misunderstandings in the past few months with different diplomats and security procedures at airports.
QUESTION: Okay, but I –
MR. CROWLEY: I think this pops up from time to time. DHS also has its own office of international affairs that liaisons with this community as well.
QUESTION: Okay, but you’re not aware in this case if this was a misunderstanding or not?
MR. CROWLEY: Again, the – it’s our understanding the ambassador was pulled out for secondary screening, and DHS has indicated their prepared to talk about this.
QUESTION: Can I just follow up –
QUESTION: Due to the external –
MR. CROWLEY: Hold on Goyal. Hold on, Goyal.
QUESTION: The external affairs minister of India has commented on this. So are you planning to –
MR. CROWLEY: I understand that. All I will tell you is we have had meetings with officials from the embassy since the incident in Mississippi, and, as far as I know, they have not raised it with us yet.
QUESTION: Just a follow-up. It has happened even before, including with the former president of India and other officials in the U.S. airports. What I’m asking you is that when ambassadors, not only the Indian Ambassador, but any ambassador when they travel to different states and different places, do they inform you, or the State Department, or any local authorities that ambassador is coming or a high-level official from international visitors?
MR. CROWLEY: I think there are posts that because of specific restrictions that are placed on travel need to inform us or request permission if they are traveling outside the parameters of – for that particular mission. But I’m not aware that a diplomat traveling across the United States has to inform us in advance. Sometimes they do; sometimes they don’t.
QUESTION: When you said that you just learned about it, is that today?
MR. CROWLEY: I believe today, yes.
QUESTION: So what is the reaction from India?
MR. CROWLEY: All right. Yeah. I mean, that’s – reaction from India, I’ll defer to the Indian Government.
QUESTION: Is the Secretary of State scheduled to meet with Mr. Fayyad tomorrow before they together appear in the event?
MR. CROWLEY: She will meet with Prime Minister Fayyad tomorrow as well, yes.
QUESTION: At State or there?
MR. CROWLEY: I think it will be here.
QUESTION: Any other Middle East related meetings –
QUESTION: Do we know more information like in the morning or in the afternoon?
MR. CROWLEY: I think that one’s in the afternoon.
QUESTION: And any other Mid-East related meetings that she has given the number of people who are coming into town for the –
MR. CROWLEY: That’s all I’m aware of right now.
QUESTION: And briefly on the phone call that the Secretary made to Abbas?
MR. CROWLEY: They had two phone conversations. For the most part, it was to inform – to follow up on other meetings that President Abbas had had in the region and to encourage President Abbas to dispatch Saeb Erekat here for follow-on discussions. And President Abbas agreed.
QUESTION: Is there – does she plan to meet Barak when he’s here?
MR. CROWLEY: I don’t know. If – of course, if there is such a meeting, we’ll let you know.
QUESTION: May I ask who Mr. Steinberg will meet in China next week?
MR. CROWLEY: I’m sure he’ll have multiple meetings. Let me see if I can get more on that for you tomorrow.
QUESTION: Is Mr. Einhorn traveling with him?
MR. CROWLEY: Not to my knowledge. I think it’s Mr. Bader, Mr. Campbell, Sung Kim.
QUESTION: Not Mr. Bosworth?
MR. CROWLEY: Not Mr. –
QUESTION: Despite the importance of North Korea to this trip?
MR. CROWLEY: Well, Sung Kim is the ambassador to the Six-Party process.
QUESTION: Secretary Clinton said on Monday that herself and the other foreign ministers are maintaining close consultations with Russia and China. So we know you’re sending a delegation to China, but are there any plans to send anyone to Russia?
MR. CROWLEY: We are in contact with Russia and will have – and will continue consultations. On this particular upcoming trip, I don’t believe the delegation is going to – what they’re going to, they’ll all go to China and then they’ll split off from there to Korea, to Japan. I don’t think that this particular trip includes Russia.
QUESTION: Still on China. A Chinese statement, Dai Bingguo met Kim Jong-il today in Pyongyang and Chinese Government announced that they reached consensus on their friendly relationship and the KoreanPeninsula crisis. Do you have any reaction on that?
MR. CROWLEY: Well, actually, this is quite fortuitous. When the delegation goes to Beijing next week, we look forward to getting a readout of Chairman Dai’s meetings in Pyongyang today.
QUESTION: Also on China –
MR. CROWLEY: All right, hold on, hold on.
QUESTION: On China, too.
QUESTION: China, thanks. As far as this Nobel ceremony is –
MR. CROWLEY: Goyal, I gave a statement on that earlier.
QUESTION: No, but what I’m asking you is that U.S. law makers are comparing China with Nazi Germany and they said that President – I mean, Secretary must take this issue and it should be (inaudible) to China.
MR. CROWLEY: And my statement addressed that.
QUESTION: Thanks.
QUESTION: I was looking ahead to the Secretary’s upcoming trip to Canada for the foreign ministers meeting. I’m wondering if Canada is going to be asked to do more to help Mexico with its war on drugs. And secondly, wondering what you can tell us about the U.S.-Canada’s perimeter security deal.
MR. CROWLEY: The U.S.-Canada perimeter security deal?
QUESTION: Yeah, apparently it’s in its draft provisions.
MR. CROWLEY: Well, we consult on a regular and ongoing basis with Canada on border issues. But this is the regular meeting that we have with the foreign ministers of Canada and Mexico and I’m sure they’ll talk about a range of issues. Obviously, what’s happening in Mexico is of concern to the United States and Canada as well.
Let’s make this the last one, because then I’ve got to go upstairs.
QUESTION: The special –
MR. CROWLEY: All right, very quickly.
QUESTION: The special tribunal for Lebanon announced today that they are going to issue the indictment in the assassination of Mr. Hariri very, very soon. What expectation do U.S. have that this may have on the situation in Lebanon?
MR. CROWLEY: Well, we look forward to – we support the work of the tribunal, and we look forward to its judgment.
QUESTION: That’s it?
MR. CROWLEY: Right. David and then Matt.
QUESTION: P.J., on Ivory Coast, is the United States contemplating sanctions or any other measures to try to get Mr. Laurent Gbagbo to step aside, aside from verbal --
MR. CROWLEY: Well, the President delivered a letter, or we delivered a letter on the President’s behalf to President Gbagbo in the last few days, made clear that if he makes the wrong choice that will lead to isolation of Ivory Coast and its existing government and we would look at possible sanctions against him and others if necessary.
QUESTION: On Ivory Coast as well, did the U.S. have any election observers in the north of the country for voting day?
MR. CROWLEY: I’ll take that question. I don't know.
QUESTION: And can you check, if you did, if they reported what other observers reported, which was wide – what is alleged to be widespread fraud? And then if that wasn’t the case, why have you been so quick to accept the results favoring the opposition candidate and so quick to reject the complaints of President Gbagbo?
MR. CROWLEY: I mean, all I can say is that we participated in the election observer process. I’ll get more information as to where some of the U.S. observers were situated, and we joined in the international consensus that this was a fair result. Beyond that, we’ll see you in a few minutes.
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton will travel to Canada to participate in the North American Foreign Ministers Meeting on December 13, 2010, in Wakefield, Quebec.
The North American Foreign Ministers Meeting is an important forum for identifying trilateral priorities and ways the United States, Canada, and Mexico can collaborate as partners in North America, the western hemisphere and internationally.
In the trilateral sessions, Secretary Clinton, Minister Cannon, and Secretary Espinosa will discuss key issues that Canada, the United States, and Mexico face individually and as a region, including the state of the economy and North American prosperity, regional security, energy and climate change, the health and safety of citizens, and matters concerning the broader western hemisphere.
The United States, Mexico, and Canada share many opportunities and challenges and work collaboratively on a wide range of issues. The North American Foreign Ministers Meeting is an opportunity to reinforce the close relations among the three nations and to identify common objectives and strategies to ensure greater security and well-being, as well as economic prosperity, for the citizens of North America and the people of the western hemisphere.
