For full meeting notes continue reading or click here for the PDF.

Chairman Menendez opened the discussion on S.960, the Syrian Transition Support Act, by stating that the bill was not a choice between arming and not arming Syrian rebels, but a choice to allow U.S. intervention in a responsible fashion or “leaving it to others who will simply arm the extremists.” He said the bill “includes thorough vetting mechanisms to ensure that we are exceedingly careful about who we arm and train.” He pointed out that the legislation focuses a great deal on training, which would help build relationships and influence the groups the U.S. supports. Senator Corker, who co-sponsored S.960 with Menendez, said the bill would lay out a strategy to cause the balance to change. He argued that the bill “looks at the day after” the fall of Assad and would support moderate groups that would help lead the transition.

Senator Casey argued the “branding element” of S.960 was important because opposition groups should know the aid is coming from the American people. He stated his disappointment that no new assistance was proposed in the bill but said he would support regardless because it is “in our direct national security interests to address this.” Casey then said he would introduce amendments to address medical neutrality, the post-Assad democratic process, transitional justice, and accountability to uphold human rights. Senator Rubio also said the legislation was in the direct national security interest of the United States. He mentioned that America’s ally Jordan fears the “rise of an unfriendly government” in Syria, and argued that the fall of Assad would be one of the “most significant sanctions” on the Iranian regime. Senator Coons said he agreed with Casey and Rubio. Senator McCain argued that the U.S. should be doing more than what S.960 calls for, but said he would support because it will send a message to Assad, the opposition, and the Syrian people. Senator Kaine said he was pleased to support S.960.

Senator Risch said he would support the bill but that it wasn’t easy because he doesn’t have the “same level of confidence” his colleagues have in the Syrian opposition. He pointed out that Syrian society is very complex. Senator Udall said, “We have to ask: ‘who are we arming?’ I don’t think we know.” He asked for more hearings so the committee could hear from the experts. He also pointed out that the Obama Administration was hesitant to arm the rebels. Senator Menendez responded to Udall’s concerns stating, “We have had several hearings,” and argued that the committee knows certain elements of the opposition that it can support. He also called attention to the “strict vetting rules” laid out in S.960. Senator Murphy associated himself with the concerns of Udall. He said the American Congress and Senate Foreign Relations Committee needs to learn from history. “We are not very good at pulling political strings in a region we don’t understand,” he argued. Senator Boxer argued the legislation is clearly not an authorization of force. She said the bill was a way to “shape” the situation in Syria “just a little bit,” and added, “I feel good about it.” She also added that the bill would send a message to Russia that they cannot support a dictator.

The committee then held a vote on Senator Casey’s amendment ensuring protection of civilians, medical neutrality, and a democratic process that uphold human rights after Assad. The amendment was agreed to by a voice vote. Additionally, a Manger’s package of amendments was agreed to by a voice vote.

Senator Paul then stated his concerns with S.960. He said the Syrian conflict was a “murky war” and that it was not a good idea to get involved. He offered an amendment that would not authorize the use of force in Syria. He stated that while his colleagues had good intentions, “in your rush… you may be arming Islamic rebels” who could shoot Christians. Senator Corker responded to Paul’s concerns saying S.960 clearly does not authorize the use of military force but that Paul’s amendment to forbid it could lead to the creation of a terrorist safe-haven in the future. He challenged Paul’s remarks about rebels killing Christians saying the purpose of S.960 was to support moderates in order to avoid that exactly. Senator Rubio also responded to Paul, reiterating the point that S.960 clearly does not authorize the use of force. He added that the conflict was “not the War of 1812″ with two clearly defined sides. He said that currently the best equipped rebel fighters are the radical groups and this creates a “perverse incentive” for moderate rebels to align with the radicals. He noted that Assad was already killing Christians and that S.960 would try to stop that and does not support violence against civilians. Senator Paul’s amendment failed by a roll call vote of 2-15 with Senators Paul and Udall voting in favor.

Senator Udall then introduced an amendment limiting the arms provided to the opposition. It would allow small arms but category II and IV weapons would require a waiver. He said the opposition “must show they can manage and maintain” a chain of custody before heavier weapons are provided. Senator McCain voiced his disagreement with Udall saying, Udall “wants to use shotguns against scud missiles.” McCain said the amendment would limit the opposition to an unfair fight. He added that it would be better to not have S.960 at all if the opposition was restricted under the provisions Udall proposed. Senator Corker urged a “no” vote on Udall’s amendment. Senator Rubio pointed out that pro-Assad forces are well armed and radical Jihad forces are well armed, leaving the moderate opposition with little support. He argued that foreign policy “is about our national influence,” and said that if the U.S. was not involved at all then “we are guaranteed to have no influence in a post-Assad Syria.” Senator Udall argued that McCain’s remarks mischaracterized his amendment. Senator Menendez said the Udall amendment would “neuter” the purpose of S.960 and urged a “no” vote. Senator Udall’s amendment failed by a roll call vote of 4-14 with Senators Udall, Durbin, Murphy and Paul voting in favor.

Senator Paul then offered an amendment to strike Title V from S.960, the title that authorizes the President to provide lethal weapons. He acknowledged that it went “one step further” than the Udall amendment that had just failed but said it was important to get a vote on record. “You will be funding allies of al-Qaeda,” he warned. Senator Menendez rejected the idea of arming al-Qaeda rebels and pointed out that al-Qaeda is already well armed. Senator Rubio “categorically” rejected Paul’s claim. He said no one would vote to arm al-Qaeda, and said that moderate parties are the only ones under-armed at present. He pointed out that the vetting process is very strict in S.960. Senator Corker stated that the “thrust” of S.960 was to shift the strength away from Assad and al-Qaeda. Senator Paul’s amendment failed by a roll call vote of 2-15 with Senators Paul and Murphy voting in favor.

Senator Menendez then called for a committee vote on the bill. S.960, the Syrian Transition Support Act of 2013 was ordered reported by a roll call vote of 15-3. Senators Udall, Paul, and Murphy voted against. Senator Menendez then called for a committee vote on S.Res.143. The World Press Freedom Day Resolution was agreed to by voice vote.

For full event notes continue reading or click here for the PDF.

Senator Menendez opened the hearing by reminding the committee of the importance of America’s international leadership despite budgetary constraints. He said, “National security needs are not bound by any constraints, budgetary or otherwise,” and noted the positive effect foreign assistance and humanitarian aid has on America’s leadership. Senator Menendez also suggested that crises like those in Syria and drought in the Sahel require America to increase humanitarian assistance and urged the international community to follow suit.

Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) expressed concern that the budget request represented a “vague request for open-ended authority rather than a request for funds tied to clear priorities” in the Middle East in particular, referring to the Middle East and North Africa Incentive Fund. “The budget reflects a sense of uncertainty in key areas,” he said, including the lack of a coherent strategy on Syria and security for U.S. personnel serving abroad. Senator Corker also asked Secretary Kerry at the end of the hearing to report on the latest news concerning the Libyan investigation into the American consular attack in Benghazi.  Secretary Kerry said a report was forthcoming.

Secretary Kerry reiterated in his statement his previous assertion that much of foreign policy is economic policy, and similarly echoed remarks by Senator Lindsey Graham that investment in America’s foreign policy is “national security insurance” around the globe. He warned about threats emanating from failed and potentially failing states and highlighted the budget’s $580 Middle East and North Africa Incentive Fund to assist states undergoing democratic transition in the region from sliding into chaos. He similarly exhibited reforms in the budget concerning food aid that will stretch existing funding to two to four million more people at the same cost, and highlighted additional funding to increase consular and security and improvements.

Senator Menendez opened the committee’s hearing by inquiring about U.S. policy on Iran and Syria moving forward. “What do we do going forward?” he asked.  Secretary Kerry expressed disappointment with the recent Almaty talks on Iran’s nuclear program, although said he was confident that Saturday’s meeting in Istanbul with the Syrian opposition would improve the international community’s confidence regarding the creation of a coherent political opposition.

Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) agreed that foreign aid can be “an important component of our foreign and defense policy” and asked Secretary Kerry whether the Syrian opposition was embittered or supportive of the level of American aid, to which Kerry answered that not all situations are conducive to conditionality and that the Syrians certainly want more U.S. support in the conflict.

Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) expressed hope for Saturday’s Istanbul meeting and reiterated that Russia does not agree with the notion of a post-Assad Syria. On the refugee crisis there, she asked that Secretary Kerry push the Gulf States to fulfill their pledges to deliver aid. Secretary Kerry urged the Senate to assist in helping support Jordan as it struggles with the inflow of refugees.

Senator Corker feared the administration did not have a clear national strategy in the Syria conflict and asserted that the country’s interests had changed to prevent al-Qaeda from gaining a foothold. Secretary Kerry agreed that al-Qaeda posed a threat to the stability of Syria’s neighbors and reassured the senator that “a core group of parties” in the opposition had come to the conclusion to isolate the extremist elements, adding that it was important for all partners to reach out to the Alawi community to accommodate a realistic peace settlement.

Senator Benjamin Cardin (D-MD) spoke about a lack of commitment to human rights among East Asian countries and asked Secretary Kerry about what mechanisms were being developed to address this. Secretary Kerry said he raised human rights concerns with all of the America’s partners in the region at each meeting and asserted that the U.S. will continue to count on the ASEAN conference to advance American foreign policy priorities in the region. Senator Cardin asked that Secretary Kerry continue to push Asian partners on adhering to international standards on human rights.

Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA) stressed that more diplomatic work could be done on the crisis in Syria. Repeating his line of questioning during Secretary Kerry’s Senate confirmation hearing, he asked for a clarification on the U.S. approach to the Israel-Palestine issue. Secretary Kerry said a two-state solution was the only way to secure peace, adding, “Time is running out.” He told the committee that Prime Minister Netanyahu was “open and engaged” on the issue.

Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) inquired about Egypt. “People wonder why we continue to send aid to Egypt.” He asked Secretary Kerry to comment on the difference in aid to the Egyptian military and government, and what America’s strategic approach to aid in Egypt is. Secretary Kerry stressed that the administration was direct in its conversations with President Morsi regarding inclusivity and recognition of the opposition. Secretary Kerry added that aid to the Egyptian military has been “the best investment” in the region’s security, praising the institution for fulfilling its promise to deliver elections after the revolution and in securing the Sinai.

Senator Chris Coons (D-DE) addressed the issue of Chinese and Iranian engagement in Africa and asked Secretary Kerry for more insight on what the U.S.’s plan is regarding pressing back on their encroachment in the continent. “China is out-investing us in Africa,” Secretary Kerry said, arguing that the U.S. isn’t competing with the Chinese “per se,” and said the U.S. will need to be more engaged in the future.

Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) asked how the administration was promoting civil society in Russia, noting recent crackdowns. “We have a responsibility to always promote civil society,” Secretary Kerry said, and expressed hope in seeing that the U.S. “gets back on track in Russia.” He likewise credited the Russians on their cooperation with issues concerning Iranian sanctions and condemning North Korea.

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) asserted that many Americans were offended by the aid we give to other countries instead of using it on projects at home, saying it was often “counterproductive” to our international interests. Secretary Kerry added that a large share of American aid is channeled directly into the projects themselves and is often inaccessible to the countries’ leaders. He reminded the committee that U.S. foreign aid only accounts for “one penny on the dollar” of the U.S. budget. Senator Paul warned Secretary Kerry and the committee about engaging in the Syria crisis.

For full notes, continue reading or click here for the PDF.

The hearing began with opening statements from Chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), who discussed the fears raised by the recent developments on Egypt’s political scene. She referred to President Morsi’s constitutional declaration of November 2012, granting himself sweeping powers immune from judicial oversight; the hurried passing of a constitution the following month, which left out “crucial protections” for women and religious minorities; and the uptick in police brutality towards protestors. She criticized the fact that the US has uncritically maintained its military and economic assistance throughout this period of repression and undemocratic behavior, and proposed that the US should reexamine its aid package to Egypt and seek to use it as leverage to push for true democratic reform.

Ranking member Ted Deutch (D-FL) followed the chairwoman’s remarks with a discussion of the need to consider how the shift to an Islamist government in Egypt should be reflected in US policy. He warned that the US could not simply cut its $1.3 billion in assistance to Egypt, as this would have “serious ramifications,” including weakening the Egyptian military—which serves as a key counterweight to President Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood—and strengthening Iran’s hand in the region. He thus proposed that the US should continue to provide assistance to Egypt, but only insofar as we can “be certain that our aid is used in the smartest, most effective way possible.”

Following brief statements by other subcommittee members, the Honorable Elliott Abrams offered his views on a number of troubling developments in Egypt, pointing out that, in the one year since Morsi came to power, more charges have been filed for the crime of insulting the president than had previously been filed since 1892. He thus advised that the US needs to take a “bottom-to-top” look at its assistance to Egypt with an eye to timing, conditionality, and compromise, warning that it is critical to change the pattern of ignoring the country’s domestic policies provided that its foreign policies are acceptable. If this pattern continues, the US risks appearing indifferent to Egypt’s human rights struggle. The full text of Mr. Abrams’ written testimony can be found here.

Dr. Katrina Lantos Swett went on to discuss the state of minority rights in Egypt in view of her recent visit to the country with the US Commission on International Religious Freedom, cautioning that there appears “little reason for optimism about the country’s short-term trajectory under Morsi.” She advised that there has been “increasing radicalization” in Egypt that has negatively impacted women and religious minorities, and that acts of violence have been committed with impunity against the country’s Coptic Christian minority. The situation, she explained, is “complicated and concerning,” and that many in Egypt doubt whether the government has any real desire to protect the civil rights of its minorities. The full text of Dr. Swett’s written testimony can be found here.

Dr. Tamara Cofman Wittes then explained that US policy toward post-revolutionary Egypt has rested on two pillars. First, the US government has focused heavily on maintaining the peace treaty with Israel and ensuring the security of the Egyptian border with Gaza. Second, it has sought to provide economic assistance that would help stabilize the economy. These two pillars, however, neglect a critical third dimension—Egyptian politics—that the US must seek to influence if Egypt is to successfully complete its transition. She advised that the US has the capacity to influence Egyptian politics, although it will be more successful in doing so “with incentives rather than arm-twisting,” noting that Egyptian leaders still care how the US government perceives them. She further argued that the US must engage more broadly with political actors in Egypt—not just the ruling party—tapping into shared interests such as avoiding extremist violence. She added that, while the Muslim Brotherhood has its flaws, the opposition, too, has important lessons to learn about compromise. The full text of Dr. Wittes’ written testimony can be found here.

During the question and answer session, Chairwoman Ros-Lehtinen asked what the coming year might hold for the Egypt-Israel relationship. Mr. Abrams proposed that Morsi has been, and will continue to be, careful in his relations with Israel—as demonstrated by Cairo’s recent decision to flood the smuggling tunnels running from the Sinai to Gaza—as he realizes that any trouble with Israel would be devastating for Egypt on multiple levels. Dr. Swett, however, warned that there is some underlying danger that, if Egypt’s government continues to disappoint on the economy, on human and civil rights, and so forth, the Brotherhood may resort to antagonizing Israel as a means of galvanizing public support.

In response to questions about military and economic assistance, Dr. Wittes expressed her concern over the fact that the US has cut its democracy assistance to Egypt at a time where it is critically important. She also spoke on the need for greater military to military engagement involving training and other programs that would push Egypt’s security forces toward respect for human rights and the rule of law. Mr. Abrams echoed the sentiment that the composition of US military aid should be revisited, and ideally steered away from “very big ticket items” like F-16s that aren’t going to help the Egyptian government keep order in the Sinai or other parts of Egypt.

In response to a question about the possibility of pushing the Muslim Brotherhood toward truly democratic practices, both Dr. Wittes and Mr. Abrams emphasized the importance of helping to produce genuine political competition by working with opposition parties and ensuring the legitimacy of future elections. Given such competition, the Brotherhood may be forced to make important compromises on key issues such as minority and women’s rights.

Photo Credit: Roxbury News

Two weeks ago, the subcommittees for the Senate Appropriations Committee were released to the public. Of note is the State, Foreign Operations subcommittee, which consists of Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA), Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL), Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Senator Mark Begich (D-AK) on the Democratic side. On the Republican side, members consist of Ranking Member Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Senator Mark Kirk (R-IL), Senator Daniel Coats (R-IN), Senator Roy Blunt (R-MO), Senator Mike Johanns (R-NE), Senator John Boozman (R-AR).

For a full breakdown of the subcommittee assignments click here.

• Jordan Election Turnout Exceeds 50 Percent, MB Boycotts

• Sec. Clinton Testifies on Benghazi, Kerry Confirmation Hearing Commences

• Protests Mark Egypt Revolution Anniversary; State of Emergency Declared

• World Bank Approves $500m Loan to Tunisia

• Iraq: Seven Protesters, Two Police Killed in Protests

To continue reading the full Weekly Wire, click here.

Photo Credit:  AP/EduardoVerdugo

Former House Foreign Affairs Committee chairwoman Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) has been named to lead the new Middle East and North Africa subcommittee, and will be replaced as Foreign Affairs chairperson by Rep. Ed Royce (R-CA).  Ros-Lehtinen, the most senior Republican woman in the House, will set the agenda for the revamped subcommittee.  In an open letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton last October, Ros-Lehtinen raised concerns about U.S. aid to the Egyptian Government, stressing that “As Egypt’s Islamist leadership increasingly takes control of the country, place Muslim Brotherhood members as provincial governors and installing radical Islamists…we are concerned for the future of both Egyptian minorities and secular, pro-democracy activists”. In a December statement, she expressed concern that “Egypt has moved from one dictatorship to another while leaving democracy in the dust.” Royce, likewise, has indicated that as chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee he will pursue “conditionality” on Congress’s disbursement of aid citing attempts by foreign governments to incite terrorism. “The attempt is to create leverage to move behavior,” he said.

Photo Credit: Brendan Hoffman

At a Foreign Relations Committee briefing to discuss findings of the Accountability Review Board report on the September 11 Benghazi attack, Deputy Secretary of State William J. Burns lamented that “we have to do better.” Also speaking at the hearing, Deputy Secretary of State Thomas Nides noted that the State Department has already converted recommendations into “60 specific action items” to ensure a similar event does not happen again. Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) said “congress also bears some responsibility here,” adding that “we have asked our State Department to operate with increasingly lesser resources to conduct essential missions. That must change.”

In the wake of a report on the attack that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens, four U.S. State Department officials have resigned. The resigning officials include Eric J. Boswell, Assistant Secretary of State for Diplomatic Security, Charlene R. Lamb, Deputy Assistant Secretary responsible for embassy security, Raymond Maxwell, Deputy Assistant Secretary responsible for North Africa, and another official in the diplomatic security office whom officials declined to identify. Testifying in a hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, top State Department officials vowed “to improve security at U.S. diplomatic posts around the world, some before the end of the year.”

“It seems that, finally, the months after the deadly attack, soberer attitudes prevailed in the discussion of Benghazi on Capitol Hill,” said Sara Sorcher in the National Journal. However, the editorial board at the New York Times noted that “important questions about Benghazi remain unanswered – and the most important piece of accountability remains untackled.” Let’s not forget about the mess we left in Benghazi, argued Marty Fitzgerald and Umar Khan in Foreign Policy. “While heads are rolling in Washington … tensions in Libya’s second largest city continue to rise,” the article said.

For full notes continue reading, or click here for a PDF.

Senator John Kerry opened the session by alluding to Secretary Hillary Clinton’s commitment to appear before the committee, and said she looks forward to giving her testimony in January. He recognized Ambassador Chris Stevens and the three other Americans who lost their lives, thanking them for their service and sacrifice. Kerry said that Congress shares the blame for shortcomings abroad, noting that gridlock and lack of revenue has not allowed them to appropriately address foreign policy objectives. He thanked Ambassador Thomas Pickering and Admiral Mike Mullen for putting together a quality report that tackles head-on the questions of Congress. Kerry pointed out that the international affairs budget is less than one-tenth that of the Department of Defense. He concluded saying, “We need to make certain that we are not pennywise and pound-foolish in supporting America’s vital overseas interests. Allocating funds to international affairs is not spending; it’s investing in our long-term interests in order to enhance our diplomacy.”

Deputy Secretary William Burns pointed out that the State Department had taken three steps to address the Benghazi attack. “We took immediate steps to further protect our people and posts, intensified a diplomatic campaign aimed at combating the threat of terrorism across North Africa, and Secretary Clinton ordered an investigation to determine exactly what happened in Benghazi,” he said. Burns indicated the Accountability Review Board (ARB) recommendations were already being implemented in order to fix problems of security. He said the State Department understands diplomacy must be practiced in dangerous places, and Chris Stevens fully accepted that mission.

Deputy Secretary Thomas Nides said the State Department has a responsibility to provide security to their diplomatic staff, accepts all recommendations of the ARB, and will pursue steps above and beyond the report. He stated that an internal task force had identified 60 action items and that will be implemented by the end of the calendar year. He referenced a review of threat assessments at U.S. embassies around the globe as indication that commitment to security improvements was a high priority, and asked that Congress give it support to the State Department’s efforts.

Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) asked if the State Department would submit a security request that truly reflects its needs. Nides responded saying that embassies will need additional Marines, money for construction, and increased funding for diplomatic security. He pointed out that the Vienna Convention requires host countries to provide security for diplomatic missions, prompting Boxer to request more information on embassies which rely heavily on local militias for protection.

Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) said the ARB report indicates that the “State Department does not think outside of the box.” He wondered why the State Department did not ask for more funding for diplomatic security in Libya prior to the attack. He pointed out that the Department never asked for more personnel. Corker noted that 18 ARBs have been commissioned, none of which have been fully implemented. He said, “The culture at State has to change; the committee and maybe the next Secretary of State can help with this issue.”

Senator Robert Menendez (R-NJ) asked how the State Department could address the problem of confusion over responsibilities on diplomatic security, and hoped that the new threats indentified in the review would be included along with funding requests in the future. Nides said the State Department is working to ensure that communications between headquarters and the field are correct, and committing a lot of “eye balls” to investigate the issues.

Senator James Risch (R-ID) suggested that every host country be treated differently, that rules of engagement ought to be reviewed, and discrimination between countries on security details should be instituted.

Senator Benjamin Cardin (D-MD) said dangerous posts should allow for a division of responsibility for security issues, and should not fall solely on the head of the mission. He asked how the State Department could institutionalize that careful attention to security issues across the board. Burns said the intelligence on violence in Eastern Libya was intra-Libyan, and that the embassy did not expect to be attacked. “W made the mistake of focusing on credible threats, and our shortcomings were highlighted by the ARB,” he added. Nides said there has been an unprecedented cooperation between Department of State and Department of Defense. He went further saying the use of additional Marines would be extremely helpful, and that the State Department is also asking to build barracks for Marines on their compounds.

Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) said he was puzzled that the report placed much of the blame on low-level management and didn’t understand why Libya was not more of a priority given the recent U.S. military action there. Burns said there was no specific discussion on security needs in his meetings with officials in July or September of 2012, but emphasized the importance of security capabilities for Libyan government. He acknowledged that memos had been circulated and there was a general knowledge of security threats beyond the Assistant Secretary level. Burns said the State Department “worked hard to push the Libyans to improve their security forces.”

Senator Bob Casey (R-PA) asked about the timelines for implementation of the ARB recommendations. Burns said development of security institutions for transitional governments is extremely weak and a great challenge, but the State Department is determined to help them grow stronger. Nides said the State Department has asked for additional funding, formed teams to assess threats, took the 29 recommendations and divided up 60 tasks with deadlines, in addition to naming a deputy secretary for high-risk posts.

Senator Johnny Isakson (R-GA) asked, “What is inhibiting our ability to take action on these security issues?” Nides pointed to the process of contracting, bidding, and oversight as the main obstacle to deliver speedy responses. He suggested the departments be given additional authority to expedite security related concerns.

Senator John Barrasso (R-WY) closed by asking if the State Department had identified the terrorists responsible for the attacks. Burns said the question could be best discussed in other settings; however, he pointed out that the FBI is leading the investigation. He maintained that the State Department is very committed to this effort saying, “We don’t have all the answers yet, but we are working hard to find them.”

Photo Credit: Esam al-Fetori/Reuters

An independent review board released a report on the Benghazi attack of September 11, 2012 that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens. The report placed blame on “systematic State Department management and leadership failures for gross security lapses.” The report also found however, no “reasonable cause” that any individuals had “engaged in misconduct or willfully ignored” their responsibilities. The report noted failures made in the Diplomatic Security and Near East Affairs Bureaus which “resulted in a Special Mission security posture that was inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place.” Additionally, the report asserted there were no protests on the day of the attack. Members of the review board Thomas Pickering and Adm. Mike Mullen are scheduled to brief the House Foreign Affairs and Senate Foreign Relations committees in private on 12/19.

“The lack of accountability and detailed explanation for how these lapses occurred and who specifically failed to conduct inquiries, coordinate policy and advice on the growing terrorists problem in Libya is what you’d expect from a government department investigating itself,” fumed Jennifer Rubin in the Washington Post. This Morning Staff of The Wall Street Journal wrote that the report “is likely to rekindle Republican criticism about the administrations handling of the attack.” One of the most notable testimonies missing from the investigation is that of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who “was scheduled to testify in Thursday’s open hearings,” but cancelled due to a concussion. However, Clinton has “accepted the findings,” notes Andrew Quinn in the Chicago Tribune, and “ordered widespread changes to bolster U.S. diplomatic security overseas.”

Photo Credit: Reuters

In an attempt to restore stability in Yemen, the government offered half of the seats at a planned reconciliation conference to southern separatists. The move came as tribal sheikhs, primarily from provinces in northern Yemen, launched an initiative designed to produce an agreement between the groups in the north and separatists in the south. Southern participation in the conference, which separatist leaders had previously boycotted, has been hailed as vital for the success of the talks.

The National Dialogue Conference, previously slated to begin mid-November, has yet to be scheduled. However, the deputy head of the conference’s preparatory committee, Sultan al-Atwani, said a final report outlining the breakdown of dialogue participants will be submitted by President Abdu Rabu Mansour Hadi in the next few weeks. U.N. special adviser to Yemen, Jamal bin Omar, pressed for the dialogue to start, saying “the road towards this agreement took courage and persistence on the part of all involved. The road ahead is no less difficult.”