December 9, 2021

News

News Network

Secretary Antony J. Blinken with Saad Al-Enezi of Sky News Arabia

16 min read

Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State

Kuwait City, Kuwait

The Sheraton Hotel

QUESTION:  I would like to thank Mr. Antony Blinken, U.S. Secretary of State, and thank you for joining us this brief interview.  Hopefully it will shed a light on some major issues.

SECRETARY BLINKEN:  Pleasure to be with you.  Thank you.

QUESTION:  First, let’s talk about – start with Tunisia.  It’s like, been political development and it’s – things are moving in different directions.  What’s your take on this?

SECRETARY BLINKEN:  Well, Tunisia’s been a strong, remarkable example of democracy in recent years, and I think it sends a strong message to see a strong democracy in Tunisia that represents the will and the interests of the people.  So we’ve been concerned by the steps taken to move out of the constitutional order, and that’s a real concern.  I spoke to the president just a few days ago to express those concerns.  We know the devastation that’s occurred in Tunisia through COVID-19, the economy.  We know that the government needs to be responsive to those challenges and to those problems.  But we – we’re urging our friends in Tunisia to move forward in a way that’s consistent with the constitution, that gets back on the democratic path, follows the democratic order, and including unfreezing the parliament and, of course, establishing a government.

QUESTION:  Okay.  Another very important issue for at least people in the Gulf area is the nuclear Iraqi – I mean, Iranian nuclear deal.  You just talked in the press conference about diplomacy will not be forever.  What are other options if these talks fail?  I mean, is the military option on the table?

SECRETARY BLINKEN:  Well, I don’t want to get into hypotheticals other than to say that we are determined that Iran not acquire a nuclear weapon.  And that has been and remains resolutely our policy.  We believe that it’s in our interest and Iran’s interest to come back into compliance with the nuclear agreement, the JCPOA.  But that really depends on Iran making the decision to do so.  It’s not yet made that decision.  Meanwhile, it continues to advance its nuclear program in very dangerous ways, and at some point those advances will be such that returning to compliance with the nuclear agreement won’t solve the problem.  So that’s why I say this can’t go on indefinitely.

Meanwhile, of course, we’ve seen protests in Iran that started outside of Tehran; they’ve now come to Tehran.  In the first instance they were really about people’s deep frustration with the failure of government to meet their basic needs, including water, mismanagement of the economy.  And now we’ve seen them move to people expressing their larger aspirations for freedom and for a government that respects them and respects their rights.  And, of course, we stand with the people of Iran in the desire to have their voices heard, and we urge – strongly urge the government not to use violence and repression to silence those voices.

QUESTION:  Do you think if the talks succeed, and Iran will actually agree to not only the nuclear deal but also the broader picture of the missile problem and the other issues of its behavior in the area, do you think this would open the door, and do you envision seeing normal relation with Iran or even – in the foreseeable future, or maybe Iran become an ally in distant future?

SECRETARY BLINKEN:  Well, we’re focused right now on determining whether Iran is willing to come back into compliance with the nuclear deal, and doing what the nuclear deal did, which is to put its nuclear program in a box and to remove the danger that Iran would be in a position to acquire a nuclear weapon very, very quickly.

At the same time, we’re determined to address the other challenges posed by Iran to us and to other countries in the region, including its destabilizing actions, its support for proxies and other militia that are engaged in violent action, its support for terrorism.  And that requires Iran’s engagement as well.

So our hope would be that we can return to the nuclear agreement and use that as a foundation for engaging Iran on these other issues where its actions are of real concern to us and to partners in the region.  Beyond that, it’s very hard to imagine the future.  We need to be focused on what we can do in the time ahead.

QUESTION:  When people in the region now, they are – some people or some allies maybe, they’re concerned about what they see.  I mean, they see – some people are interpreting what’s happening as U.S. pulling away, they’re questioning the commitment of the U.S. to their security, especially after withdrawing from Afghanistan in the manner it’s happened, and also the pact with Iraq which is rebranding the – your operation to an advisory position or an advisory phase and then reducing some of the defensive assets here in the Gulf.  People are a bit worried, even some of them might say they’re not, but that the United States is moving now to confront China, maybe at their own security – at the expense it.  What do – how do you answer such concerns?

SECRETARY BLINKEN:  Well, I think you have to look at each situation in its own right, which I’ll come to in a second.  But I also think it’s a mistake to equate engagement to the extent of our military presence in any one place.  We remain and we will remain very much present in the region and committed to the defense of our allies and partners.  That’s not going to change.  But my definition of engagement is much broader than the number of forces we may have in any one place.  It’s our economic engagement, our diplomatic engagement, our political engagement, and that is only increasing, including here in the Middle East.  And deepening, strengthening partnerships with countries throughout the region, to include Kuwait where I am today, is very much part of the agenda.

Now, the individual cases, it’s important to look at them, as I say, in their own right.  Afghanistan – we – why did we go to Afghanistan in the first place?  It was because we were attacked on 9/11.  We went there to bring to justice those who attacked us and to try to make sure that that could not happen again from Afghanistan soil.  And we largely succeeded in achieving those objectives.  Osama bin Laden was brought to justice 10 years ago, and al-Qaida as a threat from Afghanistan to us and to others has been vastly diminished.  And we’ll keep an eye on things to make sure it doesn’t reemerge, and if it does, we would take action to deal with that.

And, of course, again, it’s 20 years later, $1 trillion.  Even as we are removing our forces, we’re remaining very much engaged in Afghanistan, supporting Afghanistan economically, development assistance, humanitarian assistance, support for its security forces, and diplomatic engagement to try to bring the parties to the table – the Taliban, the Afghan Government – to negotiate an end to the conflict.  So I think that’s the story on Afghanistan.

When it comes to Iraq, the success of Iraqi security forces is such that we are able to transition the mission that we have in Iraq so that our focus there is on supporting those forces with training and advice to deal with Daesh and any prospect that might reemerge.  Meanwhile, we have a very broad relationship with Iraq economically, diplomatically, politically.  We just had a Strategic Dialogue in Washington with senior Iraqi leadership that is evidence of that partnership.  So again, I think you have to be very careful with equating our engagement in any particular place just by looking at the numbers of American forces there.  I think we’re much more effective when that engagement is broad-based across the board, and on that basis, our engagement has only deepened.

QUESTION:  The last question, Mr. Secretary.  China is coming with a – very strongly in this area with the Silk Road initiative.  Do you have a competing vision from the U.S. to compete now with China for the future in the next decade and other decades?

SECRETARY BLINKEN:  Well, a few things are important here.  First, this is not a question of having to choose between China and the United States.  We know that people have relationships, economic relationships with a variety of countries, including China, and that includes investments from China.  But I think what’s very important is this:  We all have to look very carefully at the investments that are being made.  First, if they’re in sensitive areas involving sensitive technologies, that’s something people have to look at very carefully.  Unfortunately, when it comes to China, there’s really no difference between its so-called private companies and the state.  The state can order the companies to do anything at any time.  And we know that when it comes to human rights, when it comes to privacy, when it comes to protecting intellectual property, China has a different view of those issues than we do and others do.  So there’s that.

Second, in terms of investments, and as countries receive them and are in – doing business, they have to look very carefully at what that might involve.  And if it involves, for example, taking on a tremendous amount of debt that you can’t repay, if it involves workers coming in from another country to do the work – in this case, China – as opposed to having local workers do it, if it involves corruption, if it involves a lack of transparency, if it involves building things to bad standards without care for the environment, well, all of those things have to be factored in.  We do, I think, have an alternative vision, and that is to make investments that are, as we would say, a race to the top, not a race to the bottom, with a focus on making sure that countries don’t take on debt that they can’t manage, with a focus on the rights of workers, being attentive to the environment, making sure that we’re building things to high standards.  So, people can decide and make a choice about what makes the most sense for them.

QUESTION:  Well, thank you very much.  I really appreciate it.  Would love to have more time with you, but our time is out.

SECRETARY BLINKEN:  Thank you.

QUESTION:  Appreciate you being with us.  Thank you.

SECRETARY BLINKEN:  Thank you very much.

More from: Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State

News Network

  • Two Companies and Nine Individuals Indicted for Alleged Large-Scale Visa Fraud Employment Scheme
    In Crime News
    An indictment returned by a federal grand jury in the Southern District of Georgia has been unsealed charging two businesses and nine of their officers and managers located across the country for their roles in an alleged conspiracy to defraud the U.S. government and commit various fraud and criminal immigration offenses for profit.
    [Read More…]
  • Justice Department Settles Sexual Harassment Lawsuit Against Property Manager and Owners of California Apartment Buildings
    In Crime News
    The Justice Department announced today that it has reached an agreement to resolve a lawsuit alleging that Filomeno Hernandez, a property manager of residential apartment buildings near MacArthur Park in Los Angeles, violated the federal Fair Housing Act by sexually harassing female tenants since at least 2006.
    [Read More…]
  • Man Pleads Guilty to Violating Endangered Species Act
    In Crime News
    A New York man pleaded guilty in U.S. District Court to selling a mounted leopard, which is an endangered species.
    [Read More…]
  • Designations of Former Honduran President Porfirio “Pepe” Lobo Sosa and Former First Lady Rosa Elena Bonilla Avila for Involvement in Significant Corruption
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Antony J. Blinken, [Read More…]
  • Seventh U.S.-Thailand Strategic Dialogue
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Office of the [Read More…]
  • Stafford County, Virginia, to Allow Islamic Cemetery in Response to Justice Department Lawsuit
    In Crime News
    The Justice Department today announced that it is dismissing its Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) lawsuit against Stafford County, Virginia, because it achieved the relief it sought in the case. Specifically, in response to the department’s complaint, the County repealed ordinances that prevented the All Muslim Association of America (AMAA) from developing a religious cemetery for persons of the Islamic faith, approved the AMAA’s site plan for the cemetery, and, in a private settlement with the AMAA to resolve the AMAA’s lawsuit, agreed to pay $500,000 in damages to the AMAA.   
    [Read More…]
  • Statement of Attorney General Merrick B. Garland on the Verdict in the Chauvin Trial
    In Crime News
    U.S. Attorney General Merrick B. Garland's statement following the verdict in the state of Minnesota's trial of Derek Chauvin:
    [Read More…]
  • Department Press Briefing – November 9, 2021
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Ned Price, Department [Read More…]
  • French Polynesia Travel Advisory
    In Travel
    Reconsider travel [Read More…]
  • U.S. – Taiwan Working Group Meeting on International Organizations (IO Talks)
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Office of the [Read More…]
  • Bipartisan Competitive Strategy: The “New Normal”?
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Dr. Christopher Ashley [Read More…]
  • Special Guest Remarks at Ocean-climate Ambition Summit
    In Climate - Environment - Conservation
    John Kerry, Special [Read More…]
  • Chinese Energy Company, U.S. Oil & Gas Affiliate and Chinese National Indicted for Theft of Trade Secrets
    In Crime News
    A federal grand jury has returned an indictment alleging corporate entities conspired to steal technology from a Houston-area oil & gas manufacturer, announced U.S. Attorney Ryan K. Patrick and Assistant Attorney General John C. Demers of the Department of Justice’s National Security Division. Jason Energy Technologies Co. (JET) in Yantai, People’s Republic of China; Jason Oil and Gas Equipment LLC (JOG) USA and Chinese national Lei Gao aka Jason Gao, 45, are charged with conspiracy, theft of trade secrets and attempted theft of trade secrets. 
    [Read More…]
  • Anti-Money Laundering: Opportunities Exist to Increase Law Enforcement Use of Bank Secrecy Act Reports, and Banks’ Costs to Comply with the Act Varied
    In U.S GAO News
    Many federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies use Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) reports for investigations. A GAO survey of six federal law enforcement agencies found that more than 72 percent of their personnel reported using BSA reports to investigate money laundering or other crimes, such as drug trafficking, fraud, and terrorism, from 2015 through 2018. According to the survey, investigators who used BSA reports reported they most frequently found information useful for identifying new subjects for investigation or expanding ongoing investigations (see figure). Estimated Frequency with Which Criminal Investigators Who Reported Using BSA Reports Almost Always, Frequently, or Occasionally Found Relevant Reports for Various Activities, 2015–2018 Notes: GAO conducted a generalizable survey of 5,257 personnel responsible for investigations, analysis, and prosecutions at the Drug Enforcement Administration, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Homeland Security Investigations, Internal Revenue Service-Criminal Investigation, Offices of U.S. Attorneys, and U.S. Secret Service. The margin of error for all estimates is 3 percentage points or less at the 95 percent confidence interval. As of December 2018, GAO found that the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) granted the majority of federal and state law enforcement agencies and some local agencies direct access to its BSA database, allowing them to conduct searches to find relevant BSA reports. FinCEN data show that these agencies searched the BSA database for about 133,000 cases in 2018—a 31 percent increase from 2014. FinCEN created procedures to allow law enforcement agencies without direct access to request BSA database searches. But, GAO estimated that relatively few local law enforcement agencies requested such searches in 2018, even though many are responsible for investigating financial crimes. GAO found that agencies without direct access may not know about BSA reports or may face other hurdles that limit their use of BSA reports. One of FinCEN's goals is for law enforcement to use BSA reports to the greatest extent possible. However, FinCEN lacks written policies and procedures for assessing which agencies without direct access could benefit from greater use of BSA reports, reaching out to such agencies, and distributing educational materials about BSA reports. By developing such policies and procedures, FinCEN would help ensure law enforcement agencies are using BSA reports to the greatest extent possible to combat money laundering and other crimes. GAO reviewed a nongeneralizable sample of 11 banks that varied in terms of their total assets and other factors, and estimated that their total direct costs for complying with the BSA ranged from about $14,000 to about $21 million in 2018. Under the BSA, banks are required to establish BSA/anti-money laundering compliance programs, file various reports, and keep certain records of transactions. GAO found that total direct BSA compliance costs generally tended to be proportionally greater for smaller banks than for larger banks. For example, such costs comprised about 2 percent of the operating expenses for each of the three smallest banks in 2018 but less than 1 percent for each of the three largest banks in GAO's review (see figure). At the same time, costs can differ between similarly sized banks (e.g., large credit union A and B), because of differences in their compliance processes, customer bases, and other factors. In addition, requirements to verify a customer's identity and report suspicious and other activity generally were the most costly areas—accounting for 29 and 28 percent, respectively, of total compliance costs, on average, for the 11 selected banks. Estimated Total Direct Costs for Complying with the Bank Secrecy Act as a Percentage of Operating Expenses and Estimated Total Direct Compliance Costs for Selected Banks in 2018 Notes: Estimated total direct compliance costs are in parentheses for each bank. Very large banks had $50 billion or more in assets. Small community banks had total of assets of $250 million or less and met the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's community bank definition. Small credit unions had total assets of $50 million or less. Federal banking agencies routinely examine banks for BSA compliance. FinCEN data indicate that the agencies collectively cited about 23 percent of their supervised banks for BSA violations each year in their fiscal year 2015–2018 examinations. A small percentage of these violations involved weaknesses in a bank's BSA/anti-money laundering compliance program, which could require the agencies by statute to issue a formal enforcement action. Stakeholders had mixed views on industry proposals to increase the BSA's dollar thresholds for filing currency transaction reports (CTR) and suspicious activity reports (SAR). For example, banks must generally file a CTR when a customer deposits more than $10,000 in cash and a SAR if they identify a suspicious transaction involving $5,000 or more. If both thresholds were doubled, the changes would have resulted in banks filing 65 percent and 21 percent fewer CTRs and SARs, respectively, in 2018, according to FinCEN analysis. Law enforcement agencies told GAO that they generally are concerned that the reduction would provide them with less financial intelligence and, in turn, harm their investigations. In contrast, some industry associations told GAO that they support the changes to help reduce BSA compliance costs for banks. Money laundering and terrorist financing pose threats to national security and the U.S. financial system's integrity. The BSA requires financial institutions to file suspicious activity and other reports to help law enforcement investigate these and other crimes. FinCEN administers the BSA and maintains BSA reports in an electronic database that can be searched to identify relevant reports. Some banks cite the BSA as one of their most significant compliance costs and question whether BSA costs outweigh its benefits in light of limited public information about law enforcement's use of BSA reports. GAO was asked to review the BSA's implementation. This report examines (1) the extent to which law enforcement uses BSA reports and FinCEN facilitates their use, (2) selected banks' BSA compliance costs, (3) oversight of banks' BSA compliance, and (4) stakeholder views of proposed changes to the BSA. GAO surveyed personnel at six federal law enforcement agencies, collected data on BSA compliance costs from 11 banks, reviewed FinCEN data on banking agencies' BSA examinations, and interviewed law enforcement and industry stakeholders on the effects of proposed changes. GAO is recommending that FinCEN develop written policies and procedures to promote greater use of BSA reports by law enforcement agencies without direct database access. FinCEN concurred with GAO's recommendation. For more information, contact Michael Clements at (202) 512-8678 or clementsm@gao.gov.
    [Read More…]
  • Title X Family Planning Program Turns 50
    In Human Health, Resources and Services
    Title X of the Public [Read More…]
  • Justice Department Settles with Texas-Based Staffing Company to Resolve Immigration-Related Discrimination
    In Crime News
    The Department of Justice announced today that it reached a settlement with National Systems America, LP (National Systems), a Dallas, Texas-based staffing agency.  
    [Read More…]
  • Supporting a Healthy, Sustainable Mekong River
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Ned Price, Department [Read More…]
  • VA Real Property: Enhanced Communication and Performance Measurement Could Improve Capital Asset Management
    In U.S GAO News
    What GAO Found The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) manages a vast portfolio of capital assets to provide healthcare to enrolled veterans. GAO found that VA has faced and continues to face challenges meeting three of the key GAO-identified characteristics of an asset management framework. These are (1) leadership support that provides necessary resources, such as staffing; (2) communication across traditional agency boundaries; and (3) continuous assessment and improvement of asset management performance. These characteristics are designed to optimize funding and agency decision-making. Staffing resources. Regarding leadership that provides necessary resources, GAO has previously identified staffing challenges that affected VA's ability to manage its assets and that resulted in consequences such as delayed projects and difficulties managing projects. VA officials continued to describe staffing challenges, such as difficulties in planning and executing projects and limits on the number of projects that facilities can undertake. VA officials described efforts they are making to address these challenges. Such efforts include, for example, developing new staffing models and establishing special salary rates for engineers. However, it is too early to determine the extent to which these efforts will improve staffing. Communication. Regarding communication across traditional agency boundaries, VA has taken steps to improve communication among offices with asset management responsibilities. Such steps include issuing an asset management directive that VA officials said would help to facilitate such communication. However, GAO found continuing instances of insufficient (1) communication early in project development between local offices and the Office of Construction and Facilities Management and (2) communication between construction offices and the Office of Information and Technology to ensure information technology needs are met when bringing facilities online. This lack of communication can be attributed, in part, to a lack of direction from VA on how and when to communicate. Improving communication between these offices could help prevent unnecessary delays in projects' development and execution and help VA bring space online more efficiently. Performance measurement. Regarding the need for agencies to continuously assess the performance of their asset management systems and implement necessary improvements, VA lacks sufficient performance goals and measures. Although it collects information on its facilities and has certain broad strategic goals, the agency does not have measurable goals to help assess its asset management and to determine how well that management is helping VA meet those broad strategic goals, such as a goal to reduce the amount of deferred maintenance. Although VA officials acknowledged the importance of such measures, they noted that they had found developing performance measures to be challenging, for reasons such as difficulty in attributing results to agency actions. Nevertheless, GAO's prior work indicates the value of doing so. In the absence of such measures, VA is limited in its ability to determine the extent to which its asset management is helping VA to achieve its strategic goals and objectives. Why GAO Did This Study In providing healthcare to over 9 million enrolled veterans, VA manages a portfolio that includes 5,625 owned and 1,690 leased buildings as of fiscal year 2020. VA has pressing needs associated with these assets, not only maintaining or replacing aging facilities but also adapting to changes in veterans' demographics and needs. GAO was asked to review VA's management of these real property (capital) assets. This report examines: (1) VA's management of its staffing resources for constructing and maintaining its capital assets, (2) VA's communication among offices involved in and supporting capital asset management, and (3) VA's assessment of its performance in capital asset management. GAO reviewed VA documentation and prior GAO and other reports about VA's capital asset management. GAO also interviewed officials at VA headquarters offices involved in asset management, VA officials at a non-generalizable selection of eight geographically dispersed VA medical centers and seven regional offices that managed the various types of VA capital projects, and representatives from four veterans service organizations.
    [Read More…]
  • Secretary Pompeo Travels to India to Advance U.S.-India Comprehensive Global Strategic Partnership
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Office of the [Read More…]
  • Afghanistan: Oversight and Accountability of U.S. Assistance
    In U.S GAO News
    What GAO Found Since 2003, GAO has identified numerous challenges related to U.S. efforts in Afghanistan. Among the various challenges that GAO and others have identified, are the following: the dangerous security environment, the prevalence of corruption, and the limited capacity of the Afghan government to deliver services and sustain donor-funded projects. As illustrated in the figure below, between fiscal years 2002 and 2013, U.S. agencies allocated nearly $100 billion toward U.S. efforts in Afghanistan. Breakout of U.S. Allocations for Efforts in Afghanistan, Fiscal Years 2002-2013 Note: This figure does not include funding provided for U.S. military or other operations in Afghanistan. Percentages may not add up to 100 as a result of rounding. The United States, along with the international community, has focused its efforts in areas such as building the capacity of Afghan ministries to govern and deliver services, developing Afghanistan's infrastructure and economy, and developing and sustaining the Afghan National Security Forces. In multiple reviews of these efforts, GAO has identified numerous shortcomings and has made recommendations to the agencies to take corrective actions related to (1) mitigating the risk of providing direct assistance to the Afghan government, (2) oversight and accountability of U.S. development projects, and (3) estimating the future costs of sustaining Afghanistan's security forces which the United States and international community have pledged to support. In February 2013, GAO reported that while the circumstances, combat operations, and diplomatic efforts in Iraq differ from those in Afghanistan, potential lessons could be learned from the transition from a military- to a civilian-led presence to avoid possible missteps and better utilize resources. As GAO has reported, contingency planning is critical to a successful transition and to ensuring that there is sufficient oversight of the U.S. investment in Afghanistan. This is particularly vital given the uncertainties of the U.S.-Afghanistan Bilateral Security Agreement and the ultimate size of the post-2014 U.S. presence in Afghanistan. Why GAO Did This Study The U.S. government has engaged in multiple efforts in Afghanistan since declaring a global war on terrorism that targeted al Qaeda, its affiliates, and other violent extremists, including certain elements of the Taliban. These efforts have focused on a whole-of-government approach that calls for the use of all elements of U.S. national power to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda and its affiliates and prevent their return to Afghanistan. This approach, in addition to security assistance, provided billions toward governance and development, diplomatic operations, and humanitarian assistance. To assist Congress in its oversight, GAO has issued over 70 products since 2003 including key oversight issues related to U.S. efforts in Afghanistan. This testimony summarizes the key findings from those products and discusses: (1) the challenges associated with operating in Afghanistan, (2) key oversight and accountability issues regarding U.S. efforts in Afghanistan, and (3) the need for contingency planning as the U.S. transitions to a civilian-led presence in Afghanistan.
    [Read More…]

Crime

Network News © 2005 Area.Control.Network™ All rights reserved.