THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
January 30, 2018
REMARKS BY PRESIDENT TRUMP IN STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS
U.S. Capitol
Washington, D.C.
My administration has also imposed tough sanctions on the communist and socialist dictatorships in Cuba and Venezuela. (Applause.)
Special Briefing
Senior State Department Officials
Via Teleconference
January 29, 2018
MODERATOR: Thank you so much. Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining us for today’s background call to preview the Secretary’s upcoming trip to Texas, Mexico, Argentina, Peru, Colombia, and also Jamaica. Today we’re joined by [Senior State Department Official One], who will be referred to as Senior State Department Official One. We’re also joined by [Senior State Department Official Two], who will be referred to as Senior State Department Official Two. As a reminder, today’s call is on background; it’ll be embargoed until the end of the call.
And with that, I will turn it over to our senior State Department officials for opening remarks, and then we’ll take a few questions.
QUESTION: ... And a quick question on Cuba: Will the Secretary Tillerson be addressing the situation in Cuba on his trip?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: The State Department, in line with the White House, will use all economic, political, and diplomatic tools at our disposal to address the situation in Venezuela. The upcoming undemocratic transition of political authority in Cuba is likely to be raised at multiple stops throughout the Secretary’s trip.
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
January 23, 2018
PRESS BRIEFING
BY PRESS SECRETARY SARAH SANDERS, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR GENERAL H.R. MCMASTER, AND NEC DIRECTOR GARY COHN
James S. Brady Press Briefing Room
3:47 P.M. EST
Q : One for the General also. General McMaster, there have been reports in the news recently that leaders -- authoritarian leaders in other countries, particularly in Southeast Asia, are using one of the President's favorite phrases, "fake news," to describe reporting that is not flattering and it reflects poorly on their country, and reports inconvenient truths.
And President Trump has made a point of not publicly talking about things like human rights and freedom of speech, freedom of expression. Is he concerned at all, or are you concerned that the President's rhetoric, combined with his silence on these issues, is creating a climate where authoritarian leaders feel they have free rein to do what they want, and the United States will not speak up publicly?
GENERAL MCMASTER: Well, it's just not true. It's just not accurate that the President hasn’t spoken loudly, both in words and in deeds, against those who violate human rights. So I would ask you to go to his speech that he delivered in Warsaw, where he talked about the importance of individual rights and rule of law.
I would say, go to his speech in Riyadh, where he said all nations of the world have to come together to defeat this wicked ideology that perpetuates terrorism.
I would say, look at his U.N. General Assembly speech where he defined sovereignty as strong, sovereign nations who respect the sovereignty of their citizens and the sovereignty of their neighbors.
Look at his deeds -- look at his deeds in confronting the most brutal dictatorial regime in the world, North Korea. How could that not be a human rights issue?
How about in Syria, when the Syrian regime committed mass murder of its own people, with the most heinous weapons on Earth. What did the President do? He struck against that regime's ability to deliver those weapons. How is that not human rights?
Look at the Cuba policy, when the previous policy had done nothing but strengthen the grip of that authoritarian regime. There's a new Cuba policy, which now tries to encourage a more pluralistic economy and different power centers within Cuba that can then better protect the rights of the Cuban people.
Look at what the President has said and done on Venezuela. The list goes on. So this premise -- I mean, this false premise that the President hasn’t spoken on human rights, it's demonstrably false in words but also in deeds.
Thanks for that question.
Media Note
Office of the Spokesperson
Washington, DC
January 24, 2018
The Secretary of State reported on January 12, 2018, to the appropriate congressional committees, consistent with Section 306(c)(2) of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-114; 22 U.S.C. 6021-6091) and pursuant to the authority delegated to the Secretary by the President on January 31, 2013, that he had made the statutorily required determination in order to suspend for six months beyond February 1, 2018, the right to bring an action under Title III of the Act.
In July 2017, The Honorable Thomas Shannon, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, provided the report to the United States Congress. Link to Blog Post:
No reason was provided by the United States Department of State as to why the matter was elevated to Secretary Tillerson.
Media Note
Office of the Spokesperson
Washington, DC
January 23, 2018
As directed in the June 16, 2017 National Security Presidential Memorandum “Strengthening the Policy of the United States Toward Cuba,” the Department of State is convening a Cuba Internet Task Force composed of U.S. government and non-governmental representatives to promote the free and unregulated flow of information in Cuba. The task force will examine the technological challenges and opportunities for expanding internet access and independent media in Cuba.
The Task Force’s first public meeting will take place Wednesday, February 7, 2018, at the Harry S. Truman Building. Information for those wishing to attend will be provided in a Federal Registry Notice.
Federal Register
Washington, DC
22 January 2018
The U.S. Department of State will conduct a public meeting for the Cuba internet Task Force, Wednesday, February 7, 2018, from 10:30 a.m. until 12:00 p.m. at the Harry S. Truman Building, 2201 C Street NW, Room 1406.
In accordance with the National Security Presidential Memorandum of June 16, 2017, on Strengthening the Policy of the United States Toward Cuba (NSPM-5), the Department of State created the Cuba internet Task Force and is announcing the date of its first public meeting. The Cuba internet Task Force is composed of U.S. Government and non-government representatives to examine technological challenges and opportunities for expanding internet access in Cuba.
Those wishing to attend must RSVP due to limited seating. Anyone wishing to attend must contact the Department's Office of the Coordinator for Cuban Affairs, Gilberto Torres-Vela at 202-647-7050 or email WHACCAEconomicUnit@state.gov and provide your name, organization and email address no later than February 2, 2018. Any request for reasonable accommodation must be made prior to February 2, 2018, to the same email address. Requests made after that date will be considered, but might not be possible to fulfill.
Gabriel Escobar,
Coordinator for Cuban Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2018-01038 Filed 1-19-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-29-P
HAVANA, January 20. /TASS/. Russian carmaker Avtovaz delivered 344 Lada cars to Cuba, completing the first shipment of Russian cars to the island nation in more than a decade.
A cargo vessel, carrying 320 Lada Vesta and 24 Lada Largus Cross cars, docked at the port of Havana on Friday. All cars will be handed over to the state-run taxi company Taxis Cuba and are painted in bright orange.
"We have carried out an eight-month test run of several Lada cars. They made a good impression, so we were looking forward to this delivery," Taxis Cuba director general Gorge Luis Dias Hernandez has told TASS.
Avtovaz President Nicolas Maure said earlier that the automaker would train Cuban specialists to provide after-sale services. Cuba is a priority market for car exports, Maure said, and Avtovaz hopes to export Ladas in the coming years "with an increase in amounts."
According to the company, the delivery of cars to Cuba is carried out with the assistance of Vnesheconombank, which provided financing, as well as the Russian Export Center. The previous batch of Avtovaz cars arrived in Cuba 12 years ago.
China, key partner in Cuba's tourism development
2018-01-20
Xinhua
As Cuba's leading trade partner, China has become a key driver of tourism development in the Caribbean island nation.
With investments exceeding 700 million U.S. dollars and an increasing presence of Chinese goods and know-how, China is helping Cuba promote its tourism industry.
"Every day we want to use more Chinese products and technologies in the tourism sector," Jose Daniel Alonso, director of development and investment at Cuba's tourism ministry, told Xinhua in a recent interview.
The tourism sector's potential for growth and capability to generate much-needed foreign revenue makes it a development priority. Local authorities are seeking reliable investors to enhance resorts' infrastructure as well as expand hotel capacity and recreational options.
At local car rental agencies catering to foreign visitors, Chinese car brands of GAC Motor, Geely, BYD, BAIC and Maxus represent 65 percent of the fleet.
Almost the entire fleet of buses of all dimensions are supplied by Chinese companies, mainly Yutong and King Long.
"In addition to the buses and rental vehicles, we have bought air conditioners for rooms in many hotels. We are also assessing other goods for the Cuban hotel industry," Alonso said.
16 January 2018
The Department of State has launched new Travel Advisories and Alerts to make it easier for U.S. citizens to access clear, timely, and reliable safety and security information about every country in the world. For more details and FAQs about our Travel Advisories and Alerts, please see travel.state.gov/travelsafely. You are receiving this because you are enrolled in our Smart Traveler Enrollment Program (STEP). You do not need to take further action to continue receiving these updates. Before any travel abroad, we encourage you to check our safety and security information for your destination at travel.state.gov/destination.
Russia, Level 3: Reconsider travel
Reconsider travel to Russia due to terrorism and harassment. Some areas have increased risk. Read the entire Travel Advisory
Do not travel to:
The north Caucasus, including Chechnya and Mount Elbrus, due to civil unrest and terrorism.
Crimea due to foreign occupation and abuses by occupying authorities.
Terrorist groups continue plotting possible attacks in Russia. Terrorists may attack with little or no warning, targeting tourist locations, transportation hubs, markets/shopping malls, and local government facilities. Bomb threats against public venues are common.
U.S. citizens are often victims of harassment, mistreatment, and extortion by law-enforcement and other officials. U.S. consular assistance to detained individuals is often unreasonably delayed by Russian officials. Russia also enforces special restrictions on dual U.S.-Russian nationals. Due to the Russian government-imposed reduction on U.S. diplomatic personnel in Russia, the U.S. government has reduced ability to provide services to U.S. citizens.
Read the Safety and Security section on the country information page.
If you decide to travel to Russia:
Avoid demonstrations.
Monitor local media for breaking events and adjust your plans based on news information.
Stay alert in locations frequented by Westerners.
Have travel documents up to date and easily accessible.
Visit our website for Travel to High-Risk Areas.
Enroll in the Smart Traveler Enrollment Program (STEP) to receive Alerts and make it easier to locate you in an emergency.
Follow the Department of State on Facebook and Twitter.
Review the Crime and Safety Reports for Russia.
U.S. citizens who travel abroad should always have a contingency plan for emergency situations. Review the Traveler's Checklist.
North Caucasus (including Chechnya and Mount Elbrus)
Civil unrest and terrorist attacks continue throughout the North Caucasus region including in Chechnya, North Ossetia, Ingushetia, Dagestan, Stavropol, Karachayevo-Cherkessiya, and Kabardino-Balkariya. Local gangs have kidnapped U.S. citizens and other foreigners for ransom. There have been credible reports of arrest, torture, and extrajudicial killing of gay men in Chechnya allegedly conducted by Chechen regional authorities.
Do not attempt to climb Mount Elbrus, as travelers must pass close to volatile and insecure areas of the North Caucasus region.
The U.S. government is unable to provide emergency services to U.S. citizens traveling in the North Caucasus region, including Mount Elbrus, as U.S. government employees are prohibited from traveling to the region.
Crimea
There is extensive Russian Federation military presence in Crimea. The Russian Federation is likely to take further military actions in Crimea as part of its occupation of this part of Ukraine. The international community, including the United States and Ukraine, does not recognize Russia's purported annexation of Crimea. There are continuing abuses against foreigners and the local population by theoccupation authorities in Crimea, particularly against those who are seen as challenging their authority on the peninsula.
The U.S. government is unable to provide emergency services to U.S. citizens traveling in Crimea as U.S. government employees are prohibited from traveling to Crimea.
ECONOMIC EYE ON CUBA©
January 2018
November 2017 Food/Ag Exports To Cuba Increased 101%- 1
2017 Exports Will Exceed 2016 Exports- 2
Healthcare Product Exports US$246,735.00- 2
Humanitarian Donations US$883,776.00- 2
Obama Administration Initiatives Exports Substantially Increase- 3
John Deere Exports 86 Metric Tons Of Equipment Valued At US$755,823.00- 3
U.S. Port Export Data- 14
Speaking Schedule- 16
OBAMA ADMINISTRATION INITIATIVES EXPORTS SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE- In 2015 and in 2016, the OFAC and BIS expanded the list of products authorized for export from the United States and from third countries of the Republic of Cuba with a focus upon products (non-durable, durable and consumable) to entities not affiliated with the government of the Republic of Cuba; the government of the Republic of Cuba has generally prohibited these exports. The one United States company with two hotel management contracts, the five United States airlines servicing United States-Republic of Cuba routes, and the two United States companies with agricultural equipment distribution centers have (are) also imported equipment.
In November 2017, US$921,996.00 in products for use at the hotels, for the airlines and at the agricultural product distribution centers (US$755,823.00 of the total) were exported to the Republic of Cuba.
January 2017 through November 2017 exports were US$248,703,676.00. Exports for 2016 were US$232,064,645.00.
UNITED STATES, January 12, 2018.- Cuban and US authorities held a technical meeting in Washington D.C. on cooperation in cybersecurity and the combat against cybercrimes. This meeting falls within the context of the law enforcement dialogue, which was established by both parties in November 2015.
The meeting was held in an ambiance of respect and professionalism. The Cuban delegation was composed of representatives of the ministries of the Interior, Communications and Foreign Affairs while the US delegation was composed of officials of the departments of Homeland Security, Justice and State.
The delegations of both countries shared the view on the importance to advance cooperation in this area and agreed to continue holding these technical meetings in the future. (Cubaminrex)
LINK TO Level 3 Travel Advisory
LINK TO Description Of Travel Advisories
Special Briefing
Michelle Bernier-Toth, Bureau of Consular Affairs Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary For Overseas Citizens Services
Via Teleconference (10 January 2018)
MR GREENAN: Thank you. Good morning, everyone, and thank you all for joining us this morning for an on-the-record with Bureau of Consular Affairs Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Overseas Citizen Services Michelle Bernier-Toth. She’s going to talk to us this morning about the launch of the department’s new Travel Advisories. So I’ll turn it over now to Michelle.
MS BERNIER-TOTH: Thank you, Robert. Good morning, everybody, and thank you for joining us. This is, in our world, a very exciting day. As Robert said, we are launching our new travel advisory program. This is a revamping of our Consular Information Program – which, as you all know, because you follow these things, is the cornerstone of our efforts to keep U.S. citizens safe while they travel or live abroad. The purpose of the Consular Information Program does not change. It’s again, to provide information to people to make timely decisions about their travel plans and their activities while they’re overseas.
But over the years, we’ve come to recognize that sometimes our various documents were not readily understood. And frankly, I personally was tired of explaining the difference between a Travel Warning and a Travel Alert even to some of my colleagues. So about a year ago we began a very intensive analysis of our Consular Information Program and all the Travel Warnings, the Travel Alerts, how we conveyed information to the public, and we realized we needed to do a couple of things.
First, we needed to make it more accessible to people. And that’s why in November we went to a mobile-friendly design for our website. We also needed to make sure that the information was more easily understood, putting it into plain language, making it clearer why we were ranking countries, why we were citing them as a threat or a risk, and making that very obvious to people. And finally, making the information more actionable. We often got questions from people saying, “Well, I’ve read your Travel Warning, but what does it mean? What am I supposed to do?”
So in the new Travel Advisories, we’ve done away with Travel Warnings and Travel Alerts. We’ve done away with emergency and security messages – because, again, that was something that people didn’t always understand the difference – and we have gone to a Travel Advisory for every country, including Antarctica. And within that Travel Advisory, we have gone to a four-level ranking system, starting with a Level 1, which is “Exercise normal precautions.” Level 2 is “Exercise increased caution,” Level 3 is “Reconsider travel,” and level four is “Do not travel.”
And for each country that has a Level 2 or above, we will specify what we think those risks or threats are, why is it that we’re telling people to consider – reconsider travel or to exercise caution or not to travel at all. And those risks and conditions and circumstances are going to be very clearly spelled out with icons – C for crime, T for terrorism, U for civil unrest, H for health issues, N for natural disasters, E for time-limited events such as elections or major sporting events, and O for other, which is our catch-all for the things that don’t fit into those other categories. So it’s going to be very obvious.
We have interactive maps that you can look at and sort of see where things are. The new Travel Advisories will continue to provide what we used to call the country-specific information about things like entry requirements, special circumstances, health issues perhaps, road safety issues and things like that. That’s still all there, but again, it’s laid out in a format that is much more readily accessible, much more easily understandable, and I think far more actionable than our old Travel Warnings, Travel Alerts, and other documents.
So with that, I will stop and take questions.
MR GREENAN: Thank you very much. We’ll now go to our first question.
OPERATOR: And ladies and gentlemen, just a quick reminder, if you do have a question, please press *1 at any time. And we’ll go to Arshad Mohammed with Reuters. Please, go ahead.
QUESTION: Good morning. Thank you very much for doing this and for doing it on the record. I have looked quickly at the excellent and interesting interactive map on your website. Two questions, or three questions. One, do you have anywhere on the website a list that segregates countries that are given a ranking of four – “do not travel” – ranked three, two and one, so that we can see all of those as a group? If you don’t have that, I, just quickly looking at it, have counted about 10 countries that I see that are “do not travel”: Afghanistan, Central African Republic, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Mali, North Korea, Somalia, South Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. Have I gotten all the countries that you advised U.S. citizens not to travel with – not to travel to, or have I missed any?
And then finally, can you explain to us whether – it’s my memory that the U.S. Government does not have the ability to bar U.S. citizens from traveling to countries, but can you please explain to me whether that is correct or not, whether you can, for example, say that a U.S. passport is not valid for travel to country X or Y or Z? Although I suppose the – an individual could use another passport or try to travel to that country without a passport.
MS BERNIER-TOTH: Those are excellent questions. No, we don’t have a space – a place where we separate countries by their – order of their ranking. That’s something that’s of interest, I think. I didn’t catch all the countries that you listed as a Level 4, “Do not travel.” It sounds pretty good. Basically, these are the countries where, under the previous Travel Warnings, we already recommended people not to go to them, places like Somalia, places like Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq. So I’d have to go back and check that list.
But essentially how we assess the threat level in a country hasn’t changed. There’s still a collaborative process that involves our security experts, the intel community, host governments, our embassies and consulates, the information that we – they feed into us that we then assess and determine how we are going to rank a country. That really hasn’t changed. It’s how we describe those conditions and set those levels that has changed.
And you’re absolutely right, we cannot prevent people from traveling to a country. The “do not travel” is our recommendation. But if you read through sort of what the language says behind that, you recognize that, yes, we can’t prevent you from traveling. The exception, though, as I’m sure many of you have – all of you know is that we do have a general travel restriction on the use of a U.S. passport for North Korea. That means that if you – American citizens who wish to travel to North Korea must apply for a one-time waiver and provide justification as to why they need to go, and there’s certain criteria that would allow us then to grant those waivers. That is the only country where we specifically say you cannot use your U.S. passport to travel to, North Korea. And as you say, people could use other documents. That would be their choice. But we want to warn them that there are risks involved in traveling to North Korea, and we have made that clear through the GTR.
MR GREENAN: Okay, thank you. Next question, please.
OPERATOR: And we’ll go to Nora Gamez with The Miami Herald. Please, go ahead.
QUESTION: Hi. Good morning, and thank you for doing this. I just checked the Cuba Travel Warning. The previous warning was “do not travel,” and now Cuba is a Level 3. So have the circumstances in Cuba changed? Why the change in classification?
MS BERNIER-TOTH: Yeah. Again, as we were putting all this together, we did a very careful assessment. We talked to all of our experts, and this is where we came out on Cuba. Whenever we – as you all know, we have significantly reduced our staffing at our embassy in Havana. Whenever we do that, traditionally we have always issued a Travel Warning, and that has not changed. This is reflected now in the Level 3 ranking that we’ve given to Cuba.
MR GREENAN: All right, thank you. Next question, please.
OPERATOR: And we’ll go to Laura Koran with CNN. Please, go ahead.
QUESTION: Hi, thanks so much for doing the call and again for making it on the record. Can you tell me what sort of communications the department has had with foreign governments in advance of this release to advise them on their tier ranking, particularly at those upper levels, tiers three and four? And even though you and your colleagues have said that these rankings are based on security conditions, are you concerned about any pushback or retaliation from countries that don’t agree with their rankings?
MS BERNIER-TOTH: An excellent question. Yes. Where we have given our – we gave our embassies authority to provide their host governments with an advance copy of the final Travel Advisory for their country if they thought that that was important to the host government. By and large, I think there have been no surprises. Again, a country that was previously a “do not travel” sort of ranking is not going to be surprised that we’ve put them at a Level 4. But again, it’s – we did brief various host governments in advance. They – we do not give host foreign governments the ability to change the language. These are not political documents; these are simply based on our assessment of the security situation and what we need to tell U.S. citizens who might be traveling or living in that country.
MR GREENAN: Thank you. Next question, please.
OPERATOR: And we’ll go to Josh Lederman with the Associated Press. Please, go ahead.
QUESTION: Hey, thanks for doing this, and like Arshad said, thanks for doing it on the record. I wasn’t sure I understood the answer to the earlier question on the – on the – Cuba. Regardless of sort of how one previous system transits to the next, I mean, the content of it – like, before you were telling Americans don’t go to Cuba; now you’re putting them at a level where you’re saying something short of that. So can you just be real specific: Have you changed your assessment since the most recent Travel Warning about Cuba about the safety of traveling there? Is this less of a threat level than it was in the previous iteration? Thanks.
MS BERNIER-TOTH: So this was – again, we routinely review our previous Travel Warnings. We will continue to review our Travel Advisories on a regular basis, either because – the Levels 1 and 2 will be reviewed every year, if not more frequently, depending on circumstances. Levels 3 and 4 we review every six months just as we did Travel Warnings. In the process of that review, we will look very carefully and we wanted to make sure that we were being consistent across the globe as to how we were assessing and ranking countries, and I think that’s where we had that change in Cuba. It was looking at it very closely to say what is the situation on the ground right now and how are we going to describe that.
The fact of the matter, though, too, is that we have a very small footprint in our embassy in Havana. We have very, very limited consular resources and our ability to help people in an emergency is extremely limited. So that’s another factor that plays into it.
MR GREENAN: Thank you. Next question, please.
OPERATOR: And we’ll go to Dave Clark with AFP. Please, go ahead.
QUESTION: Hi. A practical question for the journalists on the call. In the future, if following a review or following an incident you change a country’s ranking up or down, will you issue a statement to that effect to us or will we just have to check this website every day?
MS BERNIER-TOTH: Certain aspects of our information program don’t change. When we – when we change – and I should note first, I mentioned earlier the security and emergency messages. We’re doing away with those as well. Instead, we will be issuing alerts. They might be a demonstration alert, a hurricane alert, a terrorist incident alert, but they will be alerts. Those will continue to go out through our Smart Traveler Enrollment Program as well as be posted to the website. So if you’re enrolled in our Smart Traveler Enrollment Program, you are going to get those messages, as well as updates and changes to the Travel Advisories.
MR GREENAN: Thank you, and we’ll go to the next question, please.
OPERATOR: That will be Mark Laiosa with WBAI FM. Please, go ahead.
QUESTION: Good morning. Thank you for taking this on the record. Will the real-time updates for critical areas be posted simultaneously, mobile and online? And also – follow-up – how often will you assess the countries’ statuses?
MS BERNIER-TOTH: Okay. Thank you for that. Yes. I mean, the – when we update to the website, it’s updated – we push out over the STEP program as well. That sort of happens at the same time. And again, as I mentioned earlier, Level 1 and 2 countries, we review those every year, at least on an annual basis, unless something happens that prompts us to review it more frequently. There might be a change in circumstances, there might be a new threat, something like that that would cause us to re-evaluate and reassess more frequently. Levels 3 and 4, we continue to review those on schedule every six months, again, unless something happens that prompts us to do it more frequently.
MR GREENAN: Okay. Take the next question, please.
OPERATOR: That will be Dan Peltier with Skift. Please, go ahead.
QUESTION: Hi, thanks. So I know you’ve laid out your case a few minutes ago about why you’re changing the system and doing away with warnings, but just from my point of view and a lot of people I know, I mean, when a warning was issued in the past, that was very explicit that it’s probably not safe to travel somewhere, whereas an advisory might not be safe to travel to some parts of the country but other parts are perfectly safe. So I’m just wondering if you’re kind of – some people it might be more complicated, and I know you’re trying to make it more simple, but seems like you’re stirring the pot a little bit more, I don’t know, in terms of throwing out the word “warning.” If there was any – if there’s any concern about that still that’s lingering, that people might have a hard time grasping this at first.
MS BERNIER-TOTH: I think there might be a bit of a learning curve, but I think if you look at the actual advisories – and those countries we’ll say “do not travel,” it’s in red. It’s Level 4. It’s pretty obvious that these are countries that have a high threat level that we want people to be aware of. And this – actually, we’ve looked at other – how other countries handle their travel information as well, and this tracks to a degree with them, although in ours I think we have a little bit more detail in terms of what those risk or threat conditions are that are very clearly indicated. So I think people will find it easier to understand than our old Travel Warnings, and again, people often did not understand the difference between a Travel Alert and a Travel Warning, and we shouldn’t need to spend more time explaining the difference between those two documents than we do explaining what the threat actually is.
MR GREENAN: Thank you. We’ll take the next question, please.
OPERATOR: We’ll go to Nick Wadhams with Bloomberg. Please, go ahead.
QUESTION: Hi, thanks very much. Just two questions. One, can you explain why China I guess is the only country on the map so far with the – its advisory status being pending?
And then also, is there any correlation between the advisories you issue here and the change in status for countries and the precautions that will be taken by embassy and consular staff, or do those staff sort of judge security risks or are they advised about security risks based on a different system or protocol?
MS BERNIER-TOTH: Great questions. China is not up simply because of technical issues. It should be up shortly. It’s going to be a Level 2, I can tell you that.
And as far as what advice is given to embassy staff, our entire Consular Information Program is predicated on what we call the “no double standard” policy, and that’s if we have threat information that is – it’s credible, it’s specific, and there’s something we can’t mitigate against, and we provide that information and recommendations on actions to our embassy personnel, we must provide that to the American community. And so that – when you see something that goes up on a Travel Advisory, it’s because we have told our own people very much the same. And as you read through some of the advisories, you’ll see that very clearly spelled out. For example, Mexico – I’m thinking of a couple of them where it’s very specific as to what the restrictions are on U.S. embassy personnel in that country. Again, we can’t tell private Americans what they can – should or should not – what they – we can’t prevent them from doing things, but we want them to know what restrictions we’ve imposed upon ourselves so that if they choose to, they can follow the same guidance.
MR GREENAN: Okay, thank you very much. We’ll take the next question, please.
OPERATOR: And we’ll go to Tomas Regalado with Radio TV Marti. Please, go ahead.
QUESTION: Good morning and thank you very much for taking this call. I have a quick question regarding the Cuba change. My questions are the following: There – I see that there is here on the change it says, obviously, review the crime and safety and also avoid Nacional Hotel – Nacional and Hotel Capri.
My questions are the following: When you go to the travel – the new Travel Advisories, you have C for crime, T for terrorism, CU for civil unrest. The Secretary of State has just asked for a whole new investigation as well as what occurred yesterday with the Senate Foreign Relations. Wouldn’t this be considered, what happened to the diplomats, as a terrorist attack as well? And why wouldn’t T be on there? As well as why the change if diplomats were hurt in this – in these attacks, in these sonic attacks?
MS BERNIER-TOTH: Yeah. I should be clear: There is no change in our assessment of what is going on in Cuba, and I think – to your point, I think there is an – looking at what – there’s an investigation into what happened. We don’t know what happened, so we’re not going to speculate before we have final answers.
MR GREENAN: Okay. Thank you. We’ll take the next question, please.
OPERATOR: We’ll go to Bart Jansen with USA Today. Please, go ahead.
QUESTION: Hello, thanks for holding the call. I wondered when might have been the last of this kind of a major overhaul for this online service.
MS BERNIER-TOTH: This is the first major overhaul in a very long time. I don’t even know when the last one was. We did do some tinkering about 10 years ago with a terminology that we used. As some of you might remember, we used to issue Public Announcements. We did away with those in favor of Travel Alerts. We changed some of our security messaging criteria. But this is the – really the biggest overhaul that we’ve done in a very, very long time.
MR GREENAN: Okay. Thank you. We’ll take the next question, please.
OPERATOR: And we’ll go to Arshad Mohammed with Reuters. Please, go ahead.
QUESTION: Three quick things: Am I correct in understanding that you will continue to issue publicly new Travel Alerts when you make a new decision for authorized or ordered departure at a U.S. embassy?
Second, I still don’t understand – and perhaps it’s that I’m obtuse – the answer on Cuba. I think on October the 3rd, you said do not travel to Cuba, and therefore I don’t understand why you are now saying – why you – why they’re not now in Category 4, particularly since you said that, if I understood you correctly, there had been no changes, that those countries where you had said do not travel previously are now – are now Category 4.
MS BERNIER-TOTH: Thank you for that. So on the authorized and ordered departure, again, our policy does not change there. When an embassy goes to authorized or ordered departure, that automatically puts it into either the Level 3 or Level 4 rankings, which would be the equivalent of an old Travel Warning if it’s not already there. And we will make that information public through the Consular Information Program, through an update to the Travel Advisory and then again – and then through putting out an alert through the STEP program.
On Cuba, I would note if you read further into what the different definitions or explanations of the different levels are, Level 3 is reconsidered travel, but the message behind that is avoid travel due to serious risks. So I think that does not change from where we were on Cuba previously.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR GREENAN: We have time for one last question.
OPERATOR: And that’ll be Jose Diaz with Reforma. Please, go ahead.
QUESTION: Hello?
OPERATOR: Please, go ahead with your question.
QUESTION: Perfect. Yes, my question is regarding Mexico. I see very detailed information on several regions in Mexico. It goes state by state and then very detailed information. Is Mexico a different case than other countries? I see different levels of warning for each of the different states of Mexico.
MS BERNIER-TOTH: That’s an excellent question. Thank you. This gets back to a point I made earlier about the no double standards. The differentiation between states that you see from Mexico relates to the restrictions that our mission in Mexico imposes upon U.S. Government personnel in the country: where they can go, where they’re not allowed to go, where they can go with very specific security precautions.
We wanted to make sure that the U.S. traveling public was aware of all those restrictions and rules that we impose upon ourself in Mexico. And the Mexico Travel Warning, the previous Travel Warning, had that information. I think it’s much more clearly spelled out here in the new Travel Advisory.
MR GREENAN: Thank you very much. Thank you to everyone for joining us this morning. And a special thanks to Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Overseas Citizens Services Michelle Bernier-Toth. This (inaudible) call was on-the-record, so we – hopefully we’ll see some reporting. And we look forward to another call with you in the future.
Thanks so much.
MS BERNIER-TOTH: Thank you.
Special Briefing
I. Steven (Steve) Goldstein
Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs
Washington, DC
January 9, 2018
QUESTION: Has the Secretary communicated his decision on whether or not to create a review board to look into Cuba – the Cuban sonic attacks? And with the FBI seemingly not able to confirm what exactly is causing these, has the State Department considered increasing again its diplomatic presence in Havana, as I believe Senator Flake and others may have suggested?
UNDER SECRETARY GOLDSTEIN: We are going to create, as we’ve said previously, an accountability review board, and I would expect that we would have the announcements of the chair and the members of the board available for release within the next week. And the – we still do not have definitive answers on the source or cause of the attacks. The investigation is ongoing. The most recent medically confirmed attack occurred August 21st, 2017. We believe that the Cuban Government has the answer to this and they should be doing more to assist us in bringing this to resolution.
Paco – Francisco Palmieri, who goes in the department as – the assistant secretary[2], he goes by Paco – testified this morning on the Hill, as did our medical doctor and I believe someone from Diplomatic Security, to this matter at 10:00, and we have – we have his testimony if you have not seen it. But we are not much further ahead than we were in finding out why this occurred, and we need to find that out, and we would expect the Cuban Government to help us in that process.
QUESTION: Is there anything specifically you want the Cubans to do that you can say that they’re not doing currently?
UNDER SECRETARY GOLDSTEIN: We believe that the Cuban Government knows what occurred, and so what we’d like them to do is to tell us what occurred so we can ensure this doesn’t happen again. And you asked me a last question about whether people could go back.
QUESTION: Whether the U.S. was considering restoring staff that had been withdrawn.
UNDER SECRETARY GOLDSTEIN: No, we’re not considering restoring staff.
QUESTION: And are you considering pulling out given that the Secretary’s comments quoted about his concerns about the safety of people? If he can’t ensure that people who’d be sent back would be safe, why are you continuing to staff the embassy? Why are you certain --
UNDER SECRETARY GOLDSTEIN: We’re providing extensive medical care to people that need it, and we have also made it clear that if people do not want to serve in that particular embassy, they do not have to.
Abbie.
QUESTION: The chairman of that committee, Marco Rubio, had some harsh words for the State Department regarding how long it took to put the accountability review board in place. Do you have any response to some of his statements that it’s against the law that it took, rather than 60 or 120 days, almost a year to stand that up?
UNDER SECRETARY GOLDSTEIN: Right. Well, I – we have great respect for the senator, and he shares our concern about trying to reach resolution on this matter. It took time to set up the accountability review board because we were hopeful that we would be able to know what occurred. We were – the investigation has taken longer than we anticipated, and – but it is now time to go forward. And again, we would expect the – I would expect the names to be announced over the next several days. I do have the names, I just can’t – I’m not – I want to make sure that the people have been notified.
QUESTION: Just a follow-up on --
UNDER SECRETARY GOLDSTEIN: Yes, sir.
QUESTION: -- Abbie’s question. The senator basically claimed that the State Department had violated the law --
UNDER SECRETARY GOLDSTEIN: Yes.
QUESTION: -- by failing to announce or create this review board back in July, that the – that you had confirmed that people were seriously wounded by March or May, that the law requires if you know that a State Department personnel is seriously wounded, that you create a review board within 60 days or tell Congress why you’re not doing so. That is the clear letter of the law. You did not follow it. That’s what he claims. What is your response to that?
UNDER SECRETARY GOLDSTEIN: Right. We don’t agree with that. The assistant secretary today made clear, and we have said too, that it took us time to get the investigation in place. The investigation is continuing, and we believe that we have the – had the authority to determine when the accountability review board should be set in place. I think let’s not lose focus here. There’s 24 people that had injuries, and those people are receiving treatment, and we’ve had over 20 conversations with the people of Cuba. We’ve – the government investigators have been down four times; they’re going down again within the next few weeks. And so our primary goal at the present time is to find out why this occurred, to prevent it from happening again in Cuba and the embassy of Cuba or in any other place where American citizens are located.
Tell me your name. I’m sorry.
QUESTION: My name is Cristina Artia with the Spanish news wire EFE.
UNDER SECRETARY GOLDSTEIN: Yes.
QUESTION: My question is also on Cuba. I was at the hearing at – Assistant Director for Diplomatic Security Todd Brown said that the State Department is not sure that the attacks suffer – that the attacks are sonic. Do you have any update on this? Because until now, you have been repeating that the attacks was like sonic attacks.
UNDER SECRETARY GOLDSTEIN: No, I don’t believe we used the word – I’d have to check on that. But no, we’re not sure why – what occurred and why it occurred. But we do know it did occur, and there’s no question about that.
The Ministry of Tourism of the Republic of Cuba reported that 1,173,428 individuals subject to United States jurisdiction visited the Republic of Cuba in 2017.
453,905 individuals of Cuban descent visited in 2017, representing an increase of 137.8% compared to 2016.
619,523 individuals not of Cuban descent visited in 2017, an increase of 217.4% compared to 2016.
Important to acknowledge that some individuals subject to United States jurisdiction visited the Republic of Cuba on more than one occasion, which is especially true for those of Cuban descent who have family and friends in the Republic of Cuba.
The increase in visitors was also meaningfully impacted by the increased frequency and decreased prices of regularly-scheduled commercial airline services which commenced in the fourth quarter of 2016 and increase in cruise ship frequencies.
Established in 1994, the U.S.-Cuba Trade and Economic Council provides an efficient and sustainable educational structure in which the United States business community may access accurate, consistent, and timely information and analysis on matters and issues of interest regarding United States-Republic of Cuba commercial, economic, and political relations.
Economic Eye On Cuba (EEOC)- posts are corrected and revised as new information becomes available
