Global Market Advisors (GMA) Opens Asia Regional Office in Bangkok, Thailand to Serve Significant Client Demand

BANGKOK, Aug. 15, 2014 /PRNewswire/ — Global Market Advisors (GMA), a leading consulting firm to the casino gaming, hotel, and airline industries, announced today the opening of its Asia regional office. GMA’s new office is located in the central business district of Bangkok, Thailand and will support clients located in the Asian region in advisory areas such as financial feasibility reports, marketing strategies, and government relations for companies in the casino gaming, hospitality, airlines, and financial industries.

Mr. Steven Gallaway, Partner at Global Market Advisors stated, “A significant number of our new and existing clients have retained GMA to guide them in Asia. It’s time for GMA to further expand our presence by making the investment in the Asian region and we are pleased to do so. Our new office in Bangkok provides a central location in Asia to service our clients in the region effectively and with the quality GMA is known for.”

Global Market Advisors, LLC and its casino gaming industry consulting division, Gaming Market Advisors, has a significant history in advising clients in South Korea, Thailand, Singapore, Japan, Taiwan, Philippines, and eastern Russia. The firm also has a strong presence in the United States servicing a myriad of clients in the casino gaming and hospitality industries.

GMA’s new office in Bangkok will act as the firms’ regional headquarters office and will supplement existing GMA offices located in Las Vegas, Nevada and Denver, Colorado. GMA Partners Andrew Klebanow and Jonathan Galaviz will provide oversight to GMA’s new office in Asia.

About Global Market Advisors, LLC

Global Market Advisors (GMA) provides independent project feasibility reports, strategic advice, economic impact studies, and marketing strategies to companies seeking to grow in the global casino gaming, hospitality and airline industries. The firm maintains active clients in the United States, Europe and greater Asia. You can learn more about GMA by visiting

Kim Kosnar

Daily Press Briefings : Daily Press Briefing: August 14, 2014

1:23 p.m. EDT

MS. HARF: Good afternoon. Welcome to the daily press briefing. I have a few items at the top, and then we’ll get started.

First, on Lebanon. As Ambassador Hale announced earlier today in Beirut following his discussions with the prime minister and the defense minister, the United States will soon deliver additional munitions and ordnance for offensive and defensive combat operations by the Lebanese Armed Forces. Following recent attacks in Arsal, this new assistance responds to the LAF’s request for emergency assistance to protect Lebanon from the threat posed by violent extremists. These materials will enhance the LAF’s ability to secure Lebanon’s borders, protect Lebanon’s people, and fight violent extremist groups.

U.S. military assistance will begin arriving in the next few weeks and continue in the months to come. The United States has always stood in support of Lebanon’s security and stability, and we are proud to be a strong partner of the Lebanese Armed Forces and Internal Security Forces, and we will continue to stand with Lebanon and with the LAF and the ISF as they protect the country from the spillover of violence from Syria.

Second, you may have just seen that we put out a statement. At the recommendation of the U.S. Embassy in Sierra Leone, the State Department today ordered the departure from Freetown of all eligible family members not employed by a post. The Embassy recommended this step out of an abundance of caution following the determination by the Department’s medical office that there is a lack of options for routine healthcare services at major medical facilities in Freetown due to the Ebola outbreak, are reconfiguring our Embassy staff to be more responsive to the current situation. Our entire effort is currently focused on assisting U.S. citizens in the country, the Government of Sierra Leone, international health organizations, and the Sierra Leonean people to deal with this unprecedented Ebola outbreak.

I would also note that today marks day 400 since our ambassador was nominated to Sierra Leone, John Hoover. He’s the third-longest waiting Senate – not State – nominee – 400 days is surprisingly not the longest. We haven’t had an ambassador in Sierra Leone since September 2013. John Hoover’s a career diplomat who has extensive experience in Africa, including as DCM in Uganda, political economic chief in Kenya, and director of regional and security affairs in Africa here in D.C., has a long and distinguished track record of crisis management, including in 2003 he led the USG response to the SARS outbreak in Shanghai, China.

So again, we will call on the Senate to confirm John Hoover, a longtime career diplomat. Again, today will be the 400th day since he was nominated to be ambassador to Sierra Leone where we are clearly dealing with a very serious situation.

And finally, on Iraq, as you just heard the President say, we said we would break the siege of Mount Sinjar, and indeed have broken the ISIL siege of that mountain, have saved – helped save many innocent lives at the same time. Our assessment team completed its work, found that our food and water had been reaching people trapped there successfully. We successfully struck ISIL targets which allowed people to leave. The Kurdish forces and Yezidis have been working together to lead the evacuation of people from that mountain. A majority of the U.S. military personnel who were part of that assessment team will be departing Iraq in the coming days, as the President said, and of course, there does remain a major humanitarian and security challenges here. We are working with our international partners and the international community to continue fighting both of those threats, but again, at least a little bit of good news coming from Mount Sinjar today.


QUESTION: Thank you. How would the State Department at this point assess the security of Erbil?

MS. HARF: In general?


MS. HARF: Well, you heard the President when he announced last week what – the different steps we would be taking in Iraq. One was to protect the city of Erbil. We believe we have had some progress in pushing ISIL’s advance towards Erbil back. I don’t know of any on-the-ground updates more specific than that.

QUESTION: Okay. Well, as you heard the President say, that airstrikes will continue to protect our people and facilities in Iraq —

MS. HARF: Yes.

QUESTION: — so I’m just wondering, at this point, if those will be immediately necessary considering that ISIL’s been pushed back at least to some extent?

MS. HARF: Well, I don’t have any prediction about when we’ll take military strikes, and we tend not to say we take them before we take them for, I think, fairly obvious reasons. But under the two goals the President outlined when he announced the military action, we remain and retain the capability to strike at the time and place of our choosing to protect our people, and to protect – with Erbil, it’s obviously a critically, strategically important city. There’s infrastructure there that’s important. So those are all goals that we continue to focus on, and if more strikes are needed, the U.S. military stands ready to take them.

QUESTION: Right, and I guess I’m trying to get to: What is the urgency of the situation of Erbil today, if you have any updates compared to what it was a week ago when some of these strikes started?

MS. HARF: Well, I think we’ve made progress in pushing ISIL back from Erbil. I think there’s still a huge threat, though, so I don’t want to downplay that. But I think we have made some progress, taken upwards, I think, of 20 strikes or close to 20 specifically about defending Erbil specifically.

QUESTION: Twenty specifically on Erbil?

MS. HARF: Well, there were, I think, 25 strikes now. I think seven of the – seven or eight were around Mount Sinjar. I can check on the exact numbers, but taken over a dozen strikes designed to protect the city of Erbil.

QUESTION: Okay. And about the number of U.S. personnel in Erbil, first off, do you have any idea of how many of the military personnel will come out, as you just said?

MS. HARF: A majority. We can check with DOD on specific numbers. I don’t have that in front of me.

QUESTION: Okay. And how – is there any movement to put State Department employees back in Erbil at this point?

MS. HARF: There are a number of State Department employees still in Erbil.

QUESTION: But a number of them came out, so I’m wondering —

MS. HARF: A small number came out.

QUESTION: — will they be returning?

MS. HARF: I can check and see if we have additional adjustments to our staffing that will be happening. Some of the remaining military personnel will stay to help, particularly at the joint operations center. So that’s being staffed by a number of different American folks to help the Iraqis against this threat, but that’s what they’ll be working on mostly. But I’ll check on the State Department people.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: To Anbar? We have an interview with the governor of Anbar who says that the United States has agreed to provide support to Anbar in their – or to the authorities in Anbar in their fight against the Islamic State. It’s not clear from his comments precisely what kind of support that would be, but the suggestion is that – or what he says is that their primary desire is for air support. Have U.S. officials made any – and he says these meetings were with American diplomats and military. Has the U.S. Government made any commitments to assist the Iraqi authorities in Anbar?

MS. HARF: Well, we’ve continued meeting with a range of officials to talk through what the needs might be – the security needs to fight ISIL across the board. Separate from that, you heard the President very clearly outline the current mission that we’re operating under, what the goals of that are. The first is protecting our people and personnel in Erbil, focused on Erbil, and the second was, of course, the humanitarian situation around Mount Sinjar.

So in general, we will continue talking with Iraqi partners about what the needs might be. Nothing to announce in terms of hypothetically what that might look like in the future beyond sort of what we’ve already said about how we make these decisions. But again, nothing to announce or —

QUESTION: My reading of the War – thank you for that – my reading of the War Powers Resolution letter that the President sent to the speaker, and as you just reference, is that it would not cover U.S. military assistance in the form of personnel or airstrikes in Anbar. Is that correct?

MS. HARF: I can take a look at the war powers that we submitted to Congress on this specific – I don’t have that in front of me and I’m not an attorney. But it was focused on these two specific points.

QUESTION: Exactly, protecting your people in Erbil and —

MS. HARF: We also do have people in Baghdad, I would remind.

QUESTION: — right – and the humanitarian situation in that area.

MS. HARF: Well, there are only very specific things that trigger a war powers that needs to be submitted to Congress. So separate from war powers, in the general issue, as I said, I don’t have anything to announce or preview about a hypothetical and whether we’ll help in one place in one way. We have a variety of tools we can use to help, and if the United States military has the capability they can bring to bear and the President makes that decision, we can have that conversation then.

QUESTION: And is he correct that there’s been a commitment made here?

MS. HARF: I don’t have more details for you than that, Arshad. We’re having conversations about what it might look like in the future, but nothing concrete beyond that.

QUESTION: But the President did say, though, that “We’ve increased the delivery of military assistance to Iraqi and Kurdish forces fighting ISIL on the front lines.”

MS. HARF: Correct.

QUESTION: I would assume that Fallujah is a front line —

MS. HARF: Correct. Yes, yes.

QUESTION: — as it has been for months.

MS. HARF: And that’s – I mean, our assistance to them has certainly been ongoing, absolutely. We’ve talked about that quite a bit.

QUESTION: Marie, can I ask you for more specifics about the situation in the mountain?

MS. HARF: Mm-hmm. Yes.

QUESTION: With the President saying that the siege has been broken, is it your understanding that all these Yezidis who had fled there, that the vast majority of them are now safe, have left? Or are there still some remaining Yezidis who need support?

MS. HARF: So, yeah. What we know now is that basically there were a number of Yezidis on the mountain. And some had been slowly trickling off, as we talked about in this room a little bit, but the U.S. airstrikes around the base of the mountain, in the vicinity of the mountain to take out ISIL targets really allowed for humanitarian passage off of the mountain and into safer – safer areas. The Kurdish forces and the Yezidis have really been in the lead on this evacuation off of the mountain, which has been a very good thing. There are some remaining Yezidis on the mountain. Some of the – we do know that food and water has been getting through to them. Some eventually may end up staying, a small number, given some actually live there to begin with.

So we think that the evacuation will continue, will be able to continue. We’re monitoring it, obviously. But as the President said, we don’t at the – it’s not necessarily likely that we’ll have to take additional airdrops there, humanitarian-wise, but obviously we’ll keep monitoring it.

QUESTION: Sure. I mean, just for our own interest, is there a way to quantify it a bit, of roughly how many —

MS. HARF: With numbers? I can check on that. There have been a variety of numbers floating around out there. I can check and see.

QUESTION: Can you speak to that, actually? Because I was —

MS. HARF: I could say on numbers – just one second – on numbers, we do think that about thousands – and I can see if there’s a more specific number – of Yezidis have been able to evacuate from the mountain each night over the last several days since we’ve really upped the airstrikes around them. They’ve been doing the evacuations at night for obvious security reasons. And that’s, I think, what they’ve been focused on operationally.


QUESTION: So DOD said today that there were something like 4,000 still left on Sinjar and about half of them were herders who were indigenous and weren’t going to leave anyway.

MS. HARF: Yeah, that sounds about right.

QUESTION: I’m just kind of wondering where the 40,000 number that was being kicked around a couple of days ago first surfaced.

MS. HARF: Well, we think the numbers were in the tens of thousands, certainly. That was our assessment and that remains our assessment. They have been able to be getting off of the mountain, as we said, because we helped open up these corridors here and broke the siege. So the numbers were fairly high. We always said we also didn’t – it’s hard to quantify exactly what the numbers were on that mountain. So —

QUESTION: Of those who escaped, do you think most of them left by the land corridors, or were airlifted out?

MS. HARF: Uh-huh, yeah. It’s my understanding through the land corridors.

QUESTION: Through the land corridors?

MS. HARF: Yes.

QUESTION: All right.

MS. HARF: That’s my understanding.

QUESTION: Can I go back to Arshad’s question about Anbar? It seems as if the Administration, both from the President on the record and from other officials on background in recent days, have indicated that airstrikes are going to be an open-ended project for the U.S. military because of the threat from Islamic State group. And one official in particular noted the sophisticated capabilities of these fighters, which would indicate that, okay, perhaps they lose some of their equipment and some of their people due to airstrikes, but they can find other ways to get to other parts of the country if that is indeed their intent. Given the ongoing questions about the Iraqi military’s ability to regenerate itself and develop its capability in order to confront IS directly, why isn’t it reasonable to assume that discussions of the sort with the Anbar governor – and it’s his version of events – as well as with other regional leaders across Iraq, aren’t, in fact, happening?

MS. HARF: I said conversations are happening, Roz. I just said they were happening about how we can best help. I said I don’t have anything up here to confirm about what future action hypothetically we might take.

And in terms of being open-ended, I mean, what we’ve been – the President was very clear that the missions he authorized were very discrete missions, and that obviously you don’t put an end date – you don’t want to tell the enemy, okay, we’re going to pick up and stop bombing you on this date, right, when you’re talking about a group that is rapidly moving forward. And in part because the situation is so fluid, right?


MS. HARF: So I think that going forward here, the President will continue looking at the situation on the ground, he will continue making decisions based on what’s our national security interest, but at the same time really helping the Iraqis get back on their feet and fight. And I would take issue with a little bit of what you said, that the Iraqis have been able to actually regroup in some ways. They’ve gotten more arms, they’ve gotten more weapons, and they’ve been able to start pushing back against ISIL, particularly working with the Kurds to do that. So I think they are on the right trajectory here. We just need to help some more, and I think they need a little more time, but we’ll keep working with them.

QUESTION: But how much territory has the Iraqi military been able to retake from IS fighters? How much —

MS. HARF: I don’t have a percentage for you, Roz.

QUESTION: I mean, the dam is still under IS control.

MS. HARF: That is true.

QUESTION: There are —

QUESTION: Fallujah.

QUESTION: Yeah, and Fallujah. I mean, there are still very real gains.

MS. HARF: Huge challenges, yes.

QUESTION: Still very real gains. I mean, the President said so himself late last week, this isn’t going to be done in a matter of weeks.

MS. HARF: I wholeheartedly agree with that.

QUESTION: So why isn’t it reasonable to assume that there is some focused discussion on expanding U.S. airstrikes across other parts of Iraq, whether or not War Powers letters need to be sent or —

MS. HARF: We are having constant discussions internally in our own government and with the Iraqis about how we can help – what that looks like, whether that’s our assistance, whether those are our weapons, whether those are our advisors, whether it’s a different military mission, but the President’s been very clear here that there are not going to be troops on the ground in combat roles and that we need to be very deliberate when making decisions about where to use direct military power here. So the conversations are – I’m not saying the conversations aren’t happening. I’m just saying that there’s – I don’t have any new decisions to outline for you about what we may or may not do.

QUESTION: Well, it seems a bit specious to suggest that there couldn’t be any military actions because in particular, given that Iraq does not have a standing air force with the capabilities of, for example, calling in airstrikes, it looks as if it would be left up to the U.S. to provide that backup that the Iraqi military doesn’t have itself.

MS. HARF: There’s really like 15 different hypotheticals, and I’m not sure what the overall question you’re asking here is. Are we considering a range of options? Yes. I don’t know how much clearer I can be than that. And the Iraqi air force does have – let’s step back. They do have some ability to conduct air support to operations happening on the ground. They’ve done it with the Kurds particularly recently that we think has been fairly helpful. Are we considering a range of options? Yes. I mean, I’m not sure how much more clear I can be. Are we going to outline what those might look like? No.

QUESTION: Let me ask it this way if I may: You’ve said from the podium that the decisions were made heretofore in large part based on protecting American people and American facilities in Iraq. That’s why we saw the strikes against Erbil. That was the first piece of evidence used.

MS. HARF: Yes.

QUESTION: Laying apart the humanitarian aid aspect of this right now —

MS. HARF: That was a huge aspect of it though too, but yes.


MS. HARF: Driving the decision making.

QUESTION: The humanitarian aid?

MS. HARF: Uh-huh.

QUESTION: In Sinjar?

MS. HARF: Correct. But also taking strikes around it to make sure we can get people off. They went hand in hand.


MS. HARF: Yeah.

QUESTION: Well, fine. I guess I’m saying – what I’m asking is: What do you think would change that decision-making process in terms of could the U.S. strike places other than targets where U.S. personnel and facilities are not located?

MS. HARF: Well, on that though, remember we have folks in Baghdad, so obviously the principle that’s applied to Erbil would, of course, apply to protecting our people in Baghdad. However, we felt it was – we needed to do that (a).

QUESTION: Right. But you all have said Baghdad’s not under threat —

MS. HARF: Right.

QUESTION: — the way that Erbil is.

MS. HARF: That’s true.

QUESTION: But Fallujah is, so that’s the distinction I’m trying to make.

MS. HARF: Okay. So you’re asking what our decision-making process internally is like about whether and when we take military action?

QUESTION: I’m asking what would make the decision process change at this point to attack or to launch airstrikes against a city where there are no U.S. interests.

MS. HARF: Well, we’re looking at every situation in Iraq right now – where there are threats strategically, where ISIL has made gains, where the security forces of Iraq might need more support, and we will make decisions based on the threat picture, on the capabilities we have and that we can bring to bear, based on how we think we could be most helpful. And we’ll continue looking at it on a day-by-day basis. There are meetings every single day looking at what more we might be able to do. And in a lot of these places, we’ve increased our – and I keep talking about this, but it’s important – we’ve increased our eyes on our surveillance and reconnaissance so we can help the Iraqis with targets, help find these guys and go after them.

QUESTION: Right. But that’s been going in Fallujah for months now, and IS still —

MS. HARF: It has been, and it’s a really tough fight. And if people think that these things get turned around in a day – I mean, you know that better than anyone. These are – some of these are lengthy, tough fights.

QUESTION: Completely, and what could turn it around is direct U.S. military intervention.

MS. HARF: We will keep looking at what the options are and what we think is in our interests, and we’ll keep working with the Iraqis to help them fight against this threat. I just don’t have more to outline for you on what the internal deliberations are like about where and when we take military action in Iraq.


QUESTION: Marie, can you address reports that Islamic State fighters are massing around the town of Qara Tapa, which is about 70 miles north of Baghdad? Do you have any information on that?

MS. HARF: I’ve seen some of those reports. I don’t. I’ll check again with our team. I didn’t have anything to confirm that one way or the other. I’m not sure it’s not true; I just don’t know. I’ll check.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS. HARF: Yes. Iraq?


MS. HARF: Go ahead.

QUESTION: You said you had an estimate before of 40,000 people on the —

MS. HARF: Well, I didn’t say our estimate was 40,000.


MS. HARF: We actually haven’t set a number from the podium, in part because it was really hard to know. We said tens of thousands.

QUESTION: Did you have an estimate of the number of ISIS fighters who were at the base? Because it sounds as if – I’m not a military expert, but seven – six, seven military – or airstrikes, rather, to break the siege —

MS. HARF: Pretty – they’re pretty big airstrikes.

QUESTION: Right. Well, okay.

MS. HARF: Pretty big bombs.

QUESTION: Right. From the CENTCOM readouts, I mean, there were – they were precision strikes —

MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: — to clear – seven airstrikes to prevent a genocide; sounds like a pretty good deal. So, I mean, what —

MS. HARF: I would agree.

QUESTION: Right. So, I mean, are you looking to – is the President committed to continuing airstrikes to prevent humanitarian catastrophe?

MS. HARF: Everywhere we see humanitarian crises or situations, we look at the best way to do that. And the best way isn’t always the United States military. And there are a number of humanitarian crises – not just in Iraq – but in other places around the world where the U.S. Government is absolutely very deeply involved with the provision of humanitarian assistance – food, water, shelter, helping people just stay alive in some of these situations. So there’s different tools we can bring to bear, and it’s not always the best one to use the U.S. military.

Here, there was a discrete – particularly locationally – a situation where, with a very small number of airstrikes – you’re absolutely right – we were able to break the siege of this mountain. That’s not the case everywhere, and that’s – it’s not always the same.

QUESTION: Sorry, if you got into —


MS. HARF: Let me have him finish and then you can go.

QUESTION: Yeah, yeah, yeah. I was just going to add that is an option that remains on the table in Iraq; theoretically in eastern Syria as well.

MS. HARF: Certainly, we – well, look, the President has always said we maintain the ability to strike at a time and place of our choosing if we believe it’s in our interest to do so, and he’ll make those decisions going forward.

QUESTION: I’m sorry if you got into this, but, I mean, one of – a lot of people think that one of ISIS tactics is to make you think that you’ve dispersed them or broke the siege, and then as soon as the – as soon as you leave the area, that they’ll just start again.

MS. HARF: Well, we have broken the siege of the mountain and —

QUESTION: For now.

MS. HARF: Well, the people that were trapped on it, many of them have been able to leave. So that’s been a good thing. The rest of them who will be leaving – a few thousand may remain up there who, I think, lived there before the siege – are being helped off by Kurdish forces, with the Yezidis helping them. So again, we’ve broken the siege of the mountain. It doesn’t mean there’s not a really horrible humanitarian situation in the north of Iraq that we’re going to keep focused on.

QUESTION: Well, not only a humanitarian situation in terms of aid and things like that, but —

MS. HARF: Security situation.

QUESTION: — there is a security situation.

MS. HARF: That’s right.

QUESTION: And you’re not abandoning that?

MS. HARF: No, not at all. We’re very focused on it. But in terms of the discrete goal of breaking the siege of the mountain, that was done. That doesn’t mean it’s not – as you heard the President say – still a very serious situation.

QUESTION: Have other countries done enough to help with the humanitarian piece? I mean, there was the —

MS. HARF: Yes.

QUESTION: — the video of the British prime minister standing in front of UK aid pallets and we’re weeks into this crisis, and clearly it’s going to get worse as people are now living in tent cities.

QUESTION: We have had a number of partners, and I don’t have the full list in here, but I can get it. Canada, Australia, South Korea, Japan – I think I’m naming all the people – the EU, a number – and then, of course, Saudi Arabia and other partners in the Gulf really stepping up to the plate here helping on the humanitarian side. We have been heartened by, really, the outpouring of aid here that has come in. We are continuing to have conversations with our partners about what more we can all do.

QUESTION: How realistic is it to think about trying to get people to go back to their homes, or is this going to be a mission that’s going to have to be carried out over the coming winter?

MS. HARF: In terms of resettling people in their homes?


MS. HARF: Well, obviously, there’s a number of internally displaced people in Iraq, and I think I got some numbers for you – you asked yesterday: 1.4 million Iraqis have been displaced by violence since January; 2.2 million in total since 2004, I think. So a large, large majority of those have been displaced since January. So we’re working with the UN, with – obviously, USAID plays a key role in this – to help those people, to get them food, water, shelter, urgent medical care. Obviously, we want them to be safe, and so the goal at the end of the day may be for some of them to return to their homes, but these places have to be safe. And in the meantime, we want to help them get what they need, the care they need.

QUESTION: So are we going to be seeing the same kind of IDP camps that resemble Syrian refugee camps?

MS. HARF: We’ll see. I mean, I don’t – we’re working with the UN on how we can keep these people safe. Whatever the best way to do that is, I think, is probably what we’ll do.

QUESTION: New subject.

QUESTION: No, can I ask another on Iraq?

MS. HARF: Yeah.

QUESTION: Go ahead.

QUESTION: Well, if I could just follow up on what you were saying a moment ago. There are a lot of places in the world where there are humanitarian crises, but we don’t necessarily get involved in all of them.

MS. HARF: No, but we always get – we usually always get involved —

QUESTION: Militarily.

MS. HARF: Correct.

QUESTION: Directly militarily.

MS. HARF: That’s a key distinction.

QUESTION: Is sort of the line that’s drawn between where we get involved and where we don’t get involved, is it just a matter of strategic importance? Because we’ve seen other places in the world, as you’ve alluded to, where there have been humanitarian crises leading to the deaths of thousands of people, where the U.S. has very specifically not used the term “genocide,” which it’s used here.

MS. HARF: Potential for genocide here.

QUESTION: Potential for genocide here. But those words have not been used in some of these other crises that were – observers on the ground had used the term “genocide” in Central African Republic; beyond that, Sudan, DRC. What is kind of the reasoning? Where do you decide to get directly militarily involved?

MS. HARF: Right, no, and it’s a good question. And it’s – you can’t draw parallels between any two situations, and we really do judge each of them based on their own merit.

In Iraq we were responding to a very specific request from the government to help and to augment its security forces’ efforts to supply assistance to its citizens. That’s what we were focused on there. And I think the key part of that is we were working with the government. We also – and this is not something we have everywhere – have significant intelligence, reconnaissance, and surveillance in Iraq. So we have eyes on, which helps our ability to use military assets in these kind of situations. So we have greater capacity to take military action in places we have more eyes on. That’s not the case everywhere, and it’s not always a viable option to use the U.S. military.

But in all of those places you mentioned, we have a very robust humanitarian effort, we work with the UN and other international organizations. So we are very deeply involved, just not militarily.

QUESTION: And then, has – with the siege here having been broken, as the President said, is the potential for genocide lessened?

MS. HARF: Certainly, but – but – what we’ve seen with ISIL’s barbaric acts against all Iraqis from different sects and backgrounds, there’s a very, very serious threat here. It’s really a nihilistic group that has – I mean, we’ve seen the photos and images. I’m sure all of us have. So while this specific situation has been much alleviated, I think there’s still huge challenges, and we’re still watching it and helping in any way we can.

QUESTION: But there’s still – I mean, you’ve broken the siege off the mountain, but that doesn’t – as you said, there’s the security situation. And that doesn’t stop ISIL’s kind of desires to eradicate all quote-unquote “infidels.”

MS. HARF: That’s right.

QUESTION: So the potential for genocide technically still exists.

MS. HARF: Right. I was referring specifically on the mountain.


MS. HARF: When we said there was a potential for genocide on this mountain —


MS. HARF: — that has been, in large part, alleviated. But again, we’re watching and there are still people there, and we want to make sure people get off who want to get off of that mountain, right. But yes, broadly speaking, there is still a potential here for genocide when you have a terrorist group that has said they want to find people just because of their religion and kill them, I think they’ve been pretty clear about what they want to do here.

QUESTION: Can I ask – you were asked yesterday about the PKK and their involvement.

MS. HARF: Yes.

QUESTION: Did you get an answer?

MS. HARF: I did, a little bit of one. Let’s see what I have here. Our position on the PKK status has not changed. We are aware that there are many groups that are fighting ISIL in northern Iraq. Our efforts are focused on supporting the Government of Iraq, as part of Iraq the KRG, to provide much-needed security assistance to protect Iraq. So again, we know there are many groups here, but our position on the PKK has not changed.

QUESTION: Have you seen any evidence that the Kurds and the PKK are working together to fight ISIS?

MS. HARF: I can check with my team, but I don’t have anything for you.


QUESTION: I think the question was whether you were concerned about the possibility of their working together and therefore concerned about the possibility of U.S. military —

MS. HARF: I think the question was whether we were working with them. But —

QUESTION: Really? Okay, I thought —

MS. HARF: You can ask a different question.

QUESTION: Let me ask it a different way.


QUESTION: I mean, the question I thought was —

QUESTION: Yeah, I’m looking for evidence that the Kurds and the PKK were working together.

MS. HARF: And I said we’re aware that many groups are fighting ISIL in northern Iraq. I can check and see if they’re working together.

QUESTION: And if they are, or if you think they are, if you have concerns about the possibility of U.S. munitions or anything else that goes to the Kurds ending up with a designated terrorist group.

MS. HARF: To my knowledge, we are not concerned about that.

QUESTION: Okay, thank you.

QUESTION: You’re not concerned about —

MS. HARF: And I did ask that question.

QUESTION: Not concerned about in the sense you don’t think that’s happening or will happen?

MS. HARF: Yeah, it’s not a concern. Obviously, we’re – we look at these things. But I checked with our team, and that didn’t seem to be a concern.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Can I ask a political question about Iraq?

MS. HARF: Yeah.

QUESTION: Is the current prime minister, Mr. Maliki, being as cooperative as the U.S. and others would hope that he would be during this transition period?

MS. HARF: Cooperative with us?

QUESTION: Well, in terms of following the constitutional calendar —

MS. HARF: Well, the process is moving forward and —

QUESTION: But he’s still pushing his legal challenge.

MS. HARF: The process is moving forward, separate and apart from that. And that’s the process the constitution has outlined. We believe that everything’s been done constitutionally and it should proceed.

QUESTION: Does his pursuit of this lawsuit raise any more concerns in this building about whether the transition to an al-Abadi government will take place as scheduled?

MS. HARF: Well, I think we could ask – I’ve gotten asked this question every day for the last three days, and what I’ve said is the process is moving forward. We would reject any efforts to use coercion of the judicial process to change what Iraq’s constitutional process is or impact that process, but there’s a process in place. They’re having meetings about forming a government. The prime minister-designate has broad support, including from Prime Minister Maliki’s own party, and that process is moving forward. So I think we hope we can see some more movement in the coming days.

QUESTION: Have any U.S. officials spoken with Prime Minister Maliki since Mr. al-Abadi – I’m going to learn how to say this —

MS. HARF: I know.

QUESTION: — was named by the president last week?

MS. HARF: We have. We’re not going to outline specifically all of our conversations, but we remain in contact with him and with a variety of Iraq’s leaders.

QUESTION: Why not?

MS. HARF: Why not what?

QUESTION: Why not describe the phone calls, who spoke with him about what topics?

MS. HARF: Because we don’t always outline our private diplomatic communications, but we’ve remained in contact.

QUESTION: Is this an effort to basically dismiss him from the public stage?

MS. HARF: No, this is an effort to see Iraq’s constitutional process move forward as it is outlined in their own constitution.

QUESTION: But if another country were to do this with the – with President Obama once he comes to the end of his second term, I would imagine that this government would have some real concerns about talking to his successor rather to him since he would still have the legal authorities.

MS. HARF: I don’t even want to venture to address that sort of ridiculous hypothetical that in no way is comparable to the Iraqi parliamentary process, by the way, which is totally different than our own government system.

QUESTION: Can we move to Israel?

MS. HARF: If anyone – yeah, we can move to Israel.

QUESTION: Great. There was a report in The Wall Street Journal this morning that claimed that the White House intervened in a typical procedure of delivering munitions to Israel during Operation Protective Edge. Do you have a comment?

MS. HARF: Do I have a comment? I do. And I think some of that was – the tone of some of that wasn’t correct, and so let me go through a little bit of what our response would be —


MS. HARF: — and then I’m sure there will be follow-ups. As you know and as I have said many times, the United States has an unshakable commitment to Israel’s security. No country has done more to support their security than the United States. Just last week, the President signed a bill providing Israel an additional $225 million in Iron Dome funding during the Gaza crisis. We will continue to provide additional security assistance to Israel going forward. And let me be clear: There has been no change in policy, period.

Given the crisis in Gaza, it’s natural that agencies take additional care to review deliveries as part of an interagency process. That is by no means unusual and, again, does not indicate any change in policy, as I think that story sort of alluded to. And it’s not a permanent change in process. Again, it represents additional care that we would take in any crisis, period.


QUESTION: Well, could you explain the additional – could you explain the rationale for the additional care that you’re using right now?

MS. HARF: During any crisis situation, we take additional steps to – through the interagency to look at deliveries. But again, deliveries have moved forward. We’ve put more funding forward. Again, it’s not an unusual step. I guess I’m just a little surprised by the emphasis on it.

QUESTION: Well, so first you mentioned that a defensive system, Iron Dome, was replenished —

MS. HARF: We have continued to provide offensive capabilities as well, as I had mentioned when we talked about resupply a few weeks ago.

QUESTION: Okay. Specifically, was the delivery of Hellfire missiles halted by the White House or by this Administration. Can you speak to that specifically?

MS. HARF: I can check on that specific delivery.


MS. HARF: Usually, we don’t speak about specific deliveries. I can check on that one, but I was making the broader point that there’s been no change in our policy —


MS. HARF: — towards providing Israel with this kind of support. During a crisis, we take additional care just to go over things as we would anywhere. But again, nothing’s changed in terms of our policy here.

QUESTION: When has this happened before?

MS. HARF: I can check, Roz, but there’s a lot – during crises where we are providing munitions and weapons, we tend to take additional care and look at things just a little bit harder.

QUESTION: But certainly, one of the —

QUESTION: So the Secretary looked – what specifically – when you take this care, what specifically are you looking at?

MS. HARF: Well, I’m not going to outline our internal decision-making processes and what we take into account when we make these kind of decisions.


QUESTION: What – decisions for what?

MS. HARF: How things move forward.

QUESTION: So you —

MS. HARF: How deliveries move forward.

QUESTION: The lead of the Journal story says that White House and State Department officials were surprised that Israel was obtaining ammunition from the Pentagon without their approval.

MS. HARF: I would disagree with that notion.

QUESTION: Okay. Good. So one —

MS. HARF: Good. You’re glad we’re all coordinated.

QUESTION: Well, I’m glad it’s a clear answer. What is the normal process for deliveries of ammunition by the Pentagon to another country? And does it require the explicit approval of the White House or the State Department?

MS. HARF: I can check on that, Arshad. I don’t have that —



QUESTION: Because the Pentagon had said when these first reports came out about mortars and bullet-piercing – armor – bullets and tear gas and other equipment, they basically said this is a mil-to-mil relationship, we’ve had this relationship for a very long time and —

MS. HARF: And I repeated that from this podium.

QUESTION: And – but yet, they did not say that they needed to have any oversight, not even from their own secretary, that this was a bureaucratic, longstanding relationship. And the way the Journal story portrays it, it’s as if in light of a lot of the negative publicity that surrounded the story —

MS. HARF: This has nothing to do with publicity, Roz.


MS. HARF: It has nothing to do with publicity.

QUESTION: But the story suggested that.

MS. HARF: Well, I’m saying it doesn’t.

QUESTION: Well, the implication, though, is that – forget about the publicity – but the implication is that there is a concern within various quarters of the Administration that some of the U.S. ammunition was being used and contributed to Palestinian civilian deaths, and that is what triggered the review. Can you speak to that?

MS. HARF: Well, I – let’s take – “review” is a pretty technical term, and I would caution you from using that. No, I’m just responding to the question.

QUESTION: Well, you – I think you said – I think you just —

MS. HARF: I said we take additional steps to look. There’s not a review.


MS. HARF: There’s a difference, Elise. There is, and it matters.

QUESTION: Well, looking at – taking a second look is reviewing to me, but —

MS. HARF: So we made clearly publicly that we thought Israel could do more to protect civilians. We made that very clear publicly.

QUESTION: Yes, I understand.

MS. HARF: We also said our goal all along was to help Israel stop the rocket attacks, prevent them, and to prevent the tunnel attacks as well. So again, we haven’t – there’s no hold on anything – on deliveries to Israel. We haven’t changed our policy in any way.

QUESTION: I didn’t say there was.

MS. HARF: No, I know. I’m just responding to some of the things that were in the story. We haven’t changed our policy in any way. Again, during a crisis, we take additional care to look at these issues as they move forward.

QUESTION: But – I know. You already said that. But what we’re getting at here is that the implication is that the reason, in this particular instance, that extra care is being taken is because of concern in some quarters of the Administration – particularly in the White House and the State Department – that some of this ammunition was being used to contribute to civilian deaths and that’s why – don’t call it a review, taking a second look, whatever you want to call it – is that that’s why —

MS. HARF: I’m not going to give a specific reason behind why, during a crisis, we would take a second look. I just made very clear that we were concerned about civilian deaths on the Palestinian side.

QUESTION: So if you’re very concerned about civilian deaths, then you must be extra concerned that U.S. weapons are being – contributing to those civilian deaths.

MS. HARF: I’m just not going to outline the rationale behind taking a second look at some of these things.


QUESTION: So it didn’t – it wasn’t – I mean, I’m sure it wasn’t lost on you that in your – and you from this podium used words like “appalled,” used words like – I don’t know, help me out, but —

QUESTION: Outraged.

QUESTION: — “outraged, disgraceful,” I don’t know – remember, exactly.

MS. HARF: (Laughter.)

QUESTION: You used those words to describe some of the civilian deaths. I’m sure it was not lost on this Administration in its decision to take a second look, or whatever you want to call it, that U.S. weapons could be playing a part in that.

QUESTION: Just to clarify —

MS. HARF: I just don’t have any more analysis on this for you.

QUESTION: Wasn’t it – it wasn’t a second look, it wasn’t a review. Well, how do you characterize it? Because you said that there is no long-term policy change, but you did say that there was a —

MS. HARF: It is natural that agencies take additional care to review deliveries as part of an interagency process. This is an ongoing process to take —

QUESTION: But you just said (inaudible) a review.

QUESTION: You said “review.”

MS. HARF: To take – to – there’s not a “review.” That’s a specific government term that you know is sort of a formal process.

QUESTION: So this is a review with a lowercase ‘R’.

MS. HARF: To take – exactly.

QUESTION: Okay. So – but the —

MS. HARF: To take – to take – wait, wait, wait – to take additional care to review what we’re doing.

QUESTION: Okay, but —

MS. HARF: We’re taking additional care here. That’s my —

QUESTION: Okay. But if you’re undertaking – even if —

QUESTION: Well, who signs off on these transfers?

QUESTION: If you’re taking – undertaking a review with a lowercase ‘R’, or a second look or – again, whatever you want to call it – that that would stand to reason that perhaps at the end of that look that you might make some kind of policy change.

MS. HARF: Well, the – no, because this is —

QUESTION: So you’re just looking for looking? Okay.

MS. HARF: We’re looking at the deliveries on arms transfers as they come up. Our —

QUESTION: With the aim of what?

MS. HARF: Our – making sure we’re looking at them even more closely, given the ongoing crisis. More broadly, our policy on providing unprecedented support to Israel militarily has in no way changed.

QUESTION: We didn’t say that the overall policy —

MS. HARF: But you said at the end of this there might be a policy change. No. There’s no policy change.

QUESTION: Well, not a policy review, but —

MS. HARF: Right.

QUESTION: Not a policy change, but perhaps a change in the —

QUESTION: Tactical.

QUESTION: — tactical deliveries and time and scope of them.

MS. HARF: We’re moving forward with support to Israel militarily. Again, I don’t have anything else to outline for you on upcoming transfers or what might be transferred.

QUESTION: Just – could I ask – just to go back. I read the lead of the story, and you said that you disagreed with it, I think. And I just want to make sure I understand what you disagree with because there are two elements to it. One element is that the Israeli military was quietly securing supplies of ammunition from the Pentagon without White House or State Department approval. Is that wrong, that they were not getting such ammunition without White House or State Department approval?

MS. HARF: I’m not – so taking a step back here – and these two points are important. One, we are all very closely linked up on what we give to Israel – the White House, the State Department, and the Defense Department. So we all know what we’re all doing. I don’t know legally what approvals in – would be needed for that. But I would strongly disagree with the notion that some of us didn’t know what was going on. I don’t know who needs to “approve” what, Arshad. Do you know what I – does that make sense?

QUESTION: Yeah. I guess I what I’m trying to figure out, though, is just —

MS. HARF: There wasn’t the Defense Department doing something that none of us knew they were doing.

QUESTION: Well – but so – I just – I want to get to the heart of the question, which is whether there were any sort of unauthorized transfers of —

MS. HARF: Not to my knowledge in any way.

QUESTION: Okay. And then the second part is – goes to the other – goes to what you sort of just addressed, that – I used the word “surprised.” The lead of the story says were caught off-guard when they learned about this. Just to be quite explicit, you’re saying nobody was caught off-guard, nobody was surprised, that people – that the relevant people at the White House and the State Department knew about the ammunition transfers.

MS. HARF: We’ve all been very – I mean, I can’t speak for all of those people. We’ve – what I can say is that we – all of those three buildings you just mentioned have all been incredibly closely linked up on this issue, and I haven’t heard anyone say to me that they were caught off-guard or that they didn’t know what was going on.

QUESTION: So why did you – so when did you decide to take this —


QUESTION: — second look?

MS. HARF: I can check and see if there are more details.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MS. HARF: But throughout the crisis, we’ve obviously been giving additional care to how we think about these things, as you would expect.

QUESTION: Well, if State and the White House are going to be taking an extra look at —

MS. HARF: And the Defense Department is as well, by the way.

QUESTION: Right. Well, I mean – well, but before, the Pentagon has said, “We did this; we didn’t have to run this past anyone else. This was a long-standing mil-to-mil relationship. We do this with our allies.” But since there’s going to be this extra level of scrutiny, care, fill in the blank, who in this building is going to sign off on it? Is it the Assistant Secretary for Near East Affairs?

MS. HARF: I don’t know who has to sign off on things, Roz.

QUESTION: Does it have to go to – well, it – but it’s – clearly there is a concern that not enough people knew about this —

MS. HARF: No, I think that I —

QUESTION: — so who’s going – who’s —

MS. HARF: I’m saying there’s – I don’t have that concern and I’m not expressing that concern. I can look at legally who in the State Department has to, quote – or if they have to sign off on things. That’s a legal determination about how we provide military assistance to foreign countries.

QUESTION: Well, I would like to know that.

MS. HARF: I will ask that question.


MS. HARF: And that – but there are a number of people in this building who are very involved in the policy discussions about our support to Israel. So that, from a policy perspective – legally I can check for you on that. It’s a fair a question and I’ll check.

Yes, Michael.

QUESTION: And then you also said – sorry. Sorry, Michael. But – and you also said that this is temporary. How long is temporary?

MS. HARF: Well again, as the crisis is ongoing, it’s part of our decision-making during that. But I would venture to guess that at the end of this we’ll probably not continue, but I just don’t have anything to preview for you on that.

QUESTION: Is this a regular – I’m just going to use the word “review” to fill in the blank (inaudible).

MS. HARF: I’ll let you use the word “review.” (Laughter.)


MS. HARF: I will grant you that.

QUESTION: Right. I mean, there have been operations in the past, I mean, and Cast Lead. Was there a review, or was this —

MS. HARF: Well, I wasn’t here then. I’m happy to check.


MS. HARF: I – the general —

QUESTION: Well, of the aid delivered during those two weeks – I mean —

MS. HARF: The general principle that I know guides us – I can only speak for the time I’ve been here, but I would venture to guess and feel fairly strongly saying this that the general principle that when there’s an ongoing crisis or conflict where we are giving weapons, as much as we believe this is a strategically important relationship and one we care very deeply about, that we take additional care to look at those.

QUESTION: And there’s —

MS. HARF: I would venture to guess that always happens.

QUESTION: And there’s a high level —

QUESTION: You wouldn’t look at them, though, without the potential for tweaking them.


QUESTION: You wouldn’t just look at it to check a box, right?

MS. HARF: Well, no. But we – but also, we look at them always, all the time. We always look at these deliveries before we make them. So it’s not like we’re not looking at them to begin with. We always look at them. And there’s always a potential to tweak it —

QUESTION: But you’re taking a second or you’re taking a —

MS. HARF: — so we’re taking additional looks at it.


MS. HARF: No, but it’s – it’s not an unfair point. It’s not like these things are just on autopilot, right.

QUESTION: Sure, but —

QUESTION: But if there’s a second look, you can to make a change, no?

MS. HARF: You can make a change in the first look, too.

QUESTION: But it – okay. So there’s a —

MS. HARF: Right? Sorry. Michael, go ahead.

QUESTION: No – so there’s a White House-level review that delineates between defensive —

MS. HARF: There’s an – in the interagency process that looks at these deliveries.


MS. HARF: All of us together are taking additional looks at these things before we deliver them. This isn’t the White House or the State Department. This is the interagency doing this together.

QUESTION: Fair enough. But there’s a delineation because you mentioned – you specifically mentioned Iron Dome replenishment, so —

MS. HARF: To make the point that we are clearly moving forward with support to Israel.

QUESTION: Well, it’s a defensive system, so —

MS. HARF: It is a defensive system. We have also moved forward with offensive capabilities as well.

QUESTION: Okay. But can you take the question on the Hellfire missiles? Is that —

MS. HARF: Yeah, I can take that question. We generally do

Secretary’s Remarks: Press Availability on the Attended Ministerial Meetings

SECRETARY KERRY: Good afternoon, everybody. I want to thank President Thein Sein for his government’s warm welcome here during the course of this conference, for his leadership as chair of ASEAN, and for serving as the United States-ASEAN country coordinator.

Burma has made a significant amount of progress over the course of the last years, and when I was last here in 1999, I visited with Aung San Suu Kyi, who was then under house arrest. Today, she sits in parliament, and the people here are openly debating the future direction of this country. The Burmese people have made a very clear statement about their desire to build a democratic, peaceful, and economically vibrant country, and many have struggled and sacrificed in order to reach this stage.

But I do want to emphasize, despite the progress, there is still obviously a lot of work yet to be done, and the leaders that I met with acknowledged that and indicated a willingness and a readiness to continue to do that in order to ensure the full promise of human rights and of justice and of democracy in this country. So yes, there’s work to done – to be done, and we certainly are prepared to work hand in hand with the government in an effort to try to make sure we move continually in the direction that people want.

The government, among other things, still needs to complete the task – the difficult task – of ending the decades-long, multiple array of civil wars involving more than a dozen groups. And they need also to expand the space for civil society, protect the media, address land rights, prevent intercommunal violence, and enshrine into their laws basic freedoms. What is interesting is that some of the freedoms that people enjoy today, because the government has made a decision to permit it, are not exactly yet enshrined in the law themselves, and it is obviously vital that that occur.

The serious crisis in Rakhine State and elsewhere, profound development challenges to raise the country’s standard of living, ethnic and religious violence that still exists, fundamental questions regarding constitutional reform, and of course the role of the military – all of these remain significant challenges of the road ahead.

Next year’s election will absolutely be a benchmark moment for the whole world to be able to assess the direction that Burma is moving in. And it is important – in fact, beyond important – that that election be inclusive, accountable, open, free, fair, accessible to all, that it wind up being a credible election that leads to the peaceful transfer of power in 2016.

I discussed each of these issues directly with the president and the members of his cabinet and the chairmen of key committees and the speaker, and we had a long and – in fact, a long discussion that made us late for everything else the rest of the day. But it was – because it was important and because it was comprehensive that that occurred. Each of the leaders that I met with – the chairmen of committees, the speaker, the president, the members of his cabinet – they indicated that they recognized the job is not complete, they understand the difficulties, and they indicated a willingness to continue to move.

I invited the speaker and his key committee chairmen to come to Washington soon and to spend time with our legislators, with the members of the House and the Senate. And hopefully doing so, which is certainly the conviction that President Obama and I share, is that that kind of exchange can assist them and encourage them as they make decisions about their constitution and the reforms for the country.

One of the things that characterized by conversations with the president and his team was that we were both able to really talk very candidly and very directly about each of these issues. And we talked, I think and I hope, as friends about the full range of possibilities and the challenges facing Myanmar.

Myanmar’s potential is limitless, and it’s blessed by a rich diversity of people and by an abundant source of natural resources. But it’s ultimately up to the leaders to make the right choices in the days, months, and years ahead. If they do and if people in Myanmar can overcome the differences that exist between them, if they can join together in common purpose, then Myanmar can complete the transition to democracy. And the United States will absolutely remain a partner in the effort to help Myanmar be able to do that.

In the last two days, I participated also in five ministerial meetings – the ASEAN-U.S. ministerial, the East Asia Summit, the ASEAN Regional Forum, the Lower Mekong Initiative, and the Friends of the Lower Mekong. All of these meetings underscored the depth and the intensity of the United States engagement with Asia, and they reinforced and strengthened the role of the institutions, which are at the heart of the problem and the heart of the efforts to solve the problems that exist in the Asia Pacific.

In the effort to solve those problems, ASEAN is really a central player. ASEAN is central to regional peace, to stability, to prosperity. And during my meetings with ASEAN foreign ministers, we affirmed our commitment to sustainable economic growth and to regional development. And American companies are already investing responsibility in order to develop jobs and help to create the economic base that could be really transformative for the people of Myanmar.

Ultimately, it is our hope that those investments will produce initiatives, companies, exciting enterprises that can become models for good corporate behavior and improve the standard of living throughout the region. I’m very proud of what our businesses are doing and I look forward to their continued partnership in the effort to help Myanmar develop.

We’re also focused on our shared interest in protecting the environment. We took practical steps to deepen our cooperation with ASEAN on climate change, on – which is a challenge, obviously, that demands elevated urgency and attention from all of us. At the end of the day, some of you may have been there when they rolled out a logo for the meeting that will take place, which China and Malaysia will host, with respect for preparedness for disasters. And as the disasters were listed – the tsunami and the typhoon and one type of disaster after another that comes from the changes of the climate – it became apparent to all that there’s literally trillions of dollars of cost being spent now with greater prospect of that expenditure in the future, where all of it could be impacted by good decisions about energy policy and good decisions to deal with climate change ahead of time.

We also addressed key security issues. There was an extensive discussion on multiple occasions about the South China Sea. I expressed the concerns of many, which are shared, about the rise in tensions that have occurred. But we all underscored the importance of negotiations on a binding code of conduct. And I stressed the importance of everybody clarifying claims under international law and proceeding under the legal process through the law, through arbitration, and also through bilateral relationships in order to try to resolve these issues. And our hope is that the claimants ultimately can agree among themselves and proceed forward.

We did discuss the concept of freezing in place the actions that people choose to take on a purely voluntary basis. And these – this is a way of actually locking into place the very promises that people have already made under the Declarations of Conduct that were made in 2002. And I’m very pleased that there is positive language that came out in the communique issued by ASEAN foreign ministers yesterday as a result of that discussion that embraces this idea of resolving these issues in a thoughtful and peaceful way.

We also discussed North Korea and North Korea’s actions with respect to its nuclear program. These are actions which present a very serious threat to international peace and stability. I reaffirmed the commitment of the United States to the verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. China joined in that, others. I think there is a unanimity within this meeting here – with one exception, needless to say, present this afternoon at the regional forum – about the need to adhere to the United Nations Security Council resolutions and to live up to the international standards with respect to nonproliferation.

So on behalf of President Obama and certainly from myself, I want to thank ASEAN for its committed partnership and very much look forward to continuing what has already been a very productive trip here to the region. I will be meeting with Aung San Suu Kyi later today. And I appreciate enormously the efforts of our hosts to have provided for a very constructive and comprehensive discussion over the course of these two days. And we certainly look forward to President Obama’s visit here in November, when the heads of state will meet to pick up where we left off today.

With that, I’d be delighted to open up to any questions.

MS. PSAKI: The first question will be from Anne Gearan of The Washington Post.

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Two things quickly. On Myanmar, you’ve taken quite a lot of criticism from Congress, including from Democrats, that the Administration has moved too quickly and been too willing to take at face value the assurances from the Burmese leaders that they really were doing all of the things you’ve asked them to do and the things that I gather they’ve tried to show you today that they are doing. In your remarks a moment ago, you invited some Burmese leaders to come to Washington and I take it face its Congressional critics directly. What would you like to see come out of that kind of conversation? And what is your response to the sort of underlying criticism from Congress that you guys have been too eager to get this done quickly?

And then on the South China Sea, you said you were pleased by the language that was enshrined in the ASEAN document, but it doesn’t go quite as far as you all had hoped. China appears to still flatly disagree with the idea that binding international arbitration or the Law of the Sea ought to rule the day here. So where does this all leave you and what’s your next step? Thank you.

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, let me begin with this issue of whether we’re moving too quickly or not. We are not basing anything that we are doing in Myanmar on the basis of blind trust or some naive sense of what the challenges are. I just listed a long list of challenges, and I went through every single one of those challenges with our hosts in a very, very direct way. We talked about the need to end the civil war and the efforts that could be made to do it; we talked about the treatment of minorities; we talked about Rakhine State; we talked about the challenges of putting into law those things that people are allowed to do today but which might disappear in the future if they’re not put into law; we talked about constitutional reform.

The speaker particularly was enthusiastic about what America has done and the way America has done it and the kinds of things that our Constitution has enshrined and was very anxious to be able to come and interact with members of Congress in order to make some of the choices that they will be making as they go forward.

We talked about ethnic and religious violence, about the need to deal with these 12 or 15 or so groups that have been engaged in civil war. This is hard work, but you just don’t achieve results by the consequence of looking at somebody and ordering them to do it or telling them they either do it or else. This is country; these are the people with a history and with their own culture and with their own beliefs and aspirations and feelings and thoughts. And it is an amazing journey that has already been traveled to get to where we are today.

And there is no question about those things that have to happen to get to where we want to go. But I believe the Administration has acted very thoughtfully. Some of the sanctions have been reduced, not all. Sanctions are now very much focused on members of the junta and on key individuals who may still be representing a challenge to achieving some of these goals. But this is fundamentally a new government, in a new moment, with a possibility for an election next year.

Now is everything hunky-dory? No, not yet, absolutely not. And I think Aung San Suu Kyi, who I will visit with shortly, will be the first to say that, and I’ll be the second right behind her, saying that there are still things that need to be done. But the key is to have an effective manner of trying to achieve those things and to recognize where there may be a legitimate effort if, in fact, it is being exhibited.

And we will continue to work very, very carefully, without jumping ahead of anybody’s rights and without turning a blind eye to anything that violates our notion of fairness and accountability and human rights and the standards by which America always stands. And those will be forefront in all of our discussions, as they were throughout the last two days.

The other piece was on the —

QUESTION: South China Sea and whether this language goes far enough.

SECRETARY KERRY: No, I think the language does go far enough. I think we made the points that we came to make. We weren’t seeking to pass something, per se. We were trying to put something on the table that people could embrace. A number of countries have decided that’s what they’re going to do. It’s a voluntary process. We absolutely laid it out as a voluntary series of potential steps. And I think it has helped to be able to achieve the language that we do have. But by the same token, I think there’s a way to achieve some progress, and I think we’ll see some progress with respect to the South China Sea, based on the conversations that we’ve had here.

MS. PSAKI: The next question is from Aye Thu San of 7Day Daily.

QUESTION: Good evening, sir. So I would like to ask —

SECRETARY KERRY: Can you pull it very close so I can hear you? Thank you.

QUESTION: Yes. Good evening, sir. I would like to ask about the relation in United States foreign policy between Myanmar and United States. So in yesterday meeting with the President Thein Sein said to you United States will be – United States will (inaudible) the democratization process in Myanmar rather than talking about the criticisms. So Myanmar have many —

SECRETARY KERRY: I couldn’t hear that. I’m sorry. Rather than talking about what?

QUESTION: Rather than talking about the criticisms.


QUESTION: Yes, yes. Myanmar have many support from United States in the last three year. But Myanmar have to face conflict, human rights (inaudible) issue according to the Congress letter to you. So I will like to ask, how do you see on the democratization process in Myanmar in the last three year? And what is your comments and views on the United States foreign policy about Myanmar? Thank you.

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, let me make it clear to everybody – again, I will reiterate, I think I said this in my opening comments – we had a very frank discussion with the president and with his team. And we raised every single issue that exists with respect to this relationship. It was very comprehensive. We talked about human rights; we talked about the law; we talked about democracy and how you move to it; we talked about the election and the need for it to be open and free and fair; we talked about people’s full participation without penalty; we talked about journalists who recently have been arrested. We talked about all of these things and made it very clear that these are important changes that need to take place in the course of the evolution of Myanmar into a full democracy.

Now it doesn’t happen overnight anywhere. It didn’t happen overnight in the United States of America. We started out with a constitution that had slavery written into it before 100 years later it was finally written out of it. It sometimes takes time to manage change. Now that doesn’t allow you to turn a blind eye to things that are critical, and we’re not. You have to call them to account. And I believe we’ve been very clear about that.

Burma is undertaking very important changes right now, and it clearly faces significant challenges that take time to address. There are some people in the public life of Burma who don’t want to see those changes, and there are some people who are very passionate about them and do want to see them. And so that’s why there’s an election. But this relationship right now is not a relationship about Burma meeting U.S. demands every day. It’s about Burma meeting the potential of the country. And that’s what has to happen over the course of these next months, and particularly this next year leading into the election.

So during this visit, I made it very clear that the country needs to do more. Myanmar needs to do more, and we made that very, very clear. And it will not be able to reach its full potential, whether that’s foreign investment coming in or whether it’s the full participation of people in a democracy here in the country – it just won’t do it unless they address the issues that exist right here at home. And I think we made that very, very clear.

So we want to work with the government. We want to work with the people. And we will be very clear, as I have been here today and was in my conversations, about those things where greater progress needs to be made. But we also need to be realistic about what’s achievable at what pace and at what particular moment. We will never stop fighting for the human rights and basic rights of the people of Myanmar, Burma, whatever somebody chooses to call. That’s what we’re fighting for.

MS. PSAKI: Thank you, everyone.



SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you all very much. Appreciate it.

Danlaw adds AUTOSAR Support to Mx-Suiteā„¢ Test Automation Platform

NOVI, Mich., Aug. 15, 2014 /PRNewswire/ — Danlaw’s Mx-Suite™ now supports the testing of AUTOSAR software components. Using Virtual Micro-Controller’s (Mx-VMC) auto-harnessing capability, test engineers have the ability to quickly integrate their application software with the other parts of their architecture and to run them in a Software in the Loop (SIL) test environment. As a result, more functions can be tested earlier and quicker, saving valuable time and resources.

Photo –  
Logo –  

Mx-Suite makes the whole testing process more transparent with a highly intuitive graphical interface for test case creation and execution.  Basic existing functionality also includes precise specification of behavior with tolerances, pass fail analysis, automated regression test execution, reporting, and enterprise integration with ALM tools.

The new AUTOSAR capability automatically generates the glue code (harness) from formally defined software component description files (.arxml), and simulates the AUTOSAR OS, Run Time Executive (RTE) and parts of the Basic Software. “Programming knowledge is not required and dependency on third party test tools such as ‘NUnit’ is eliminated” says Michael McCormack – Director of Product Development at Danlaw.  Mx-VMC scales to large systems, not limiting the number or size of software components or I/O signal count. Single software components, composite components and service components are supported together with sender-receiver and client-server communication.

The Mx-Suite Embedded Software Test Environment is designed to help automotive ECU module suppliers produce their products more efficiently and with higher quality through continuous integration. Using intuitive graphical diagrams, software requirements are easily documented with performance criteria and tolerances, thereby simplifying software validation. The tool provides traceability from requirements, through design and test. Mx-Suite allows engineers to test development concepts using virtual prototypes, before electronics are available. It is used to validate models (MIL), execute tests on developer-written or auto-coded software including AUTOSAR code, as well as run tests with bench and hardware in the loop (HIL) test equipment. Automotive OEMs and tier 1 suppliers across body, powertrain, chassis, safety and infotainment alike continue to rely on and extend their use of Mx-Suite for its intuitive user interface and its automation and analysis capabilities. As an associate member of the AUTOSAR consortium (, Danlaw is committed to supporting the AUTOSAR development community.

About Danlaw
Danlaw’s 300+ engineering professionals have been providing automotive embedded electronics solutions to OEMs and their Tier-1 supply base for 30 years. Danlaw has facilities in the USA, India and China. Danlaw’s specialty areas include connected vehicles, embedded systems development and testing for Embedded Control Units (ECUs), and vehicle network communications. Their customers include automotive OEMs, automotive electronics suppliers, fleet and automotive insurance companies worldwide.

For more information about Danlaw please visit

For more information about AUTOSAR please visit