Secretary Hillary Clinton gave the following remarks in Istanbul, Turkey

Secretary Clinton. I want to thank Prime Minister Erdogan, Foreign Minister Davutoglu and the people of Turkey for hosting us today. Turkey has shown steadfast leadership throughout this crisis. I also want to recognize the continuing contributions of the Arab League and in particular the work of Secretary General Elaraby and the chair of the Syria committee, Prime Minister Hamad bin Jassim. To all my colleagues, and to all our friends and partners around the world, thank you for standing by the Syrian people.

We meet at an urgent moment for Syria and the region. Faced with a united international community and persistent popular opposition, Bashar al-Assad pledged to implement Joint Special Envoy Kofi Annan's initial six point plan. He promised to pull his regime's forces back and silence its heavy weapons, allow peaceful demonstrations and access for humanitarian aid and journalists, and begin a political transition.

Nearly a week has gone by, and we have to conclude that the regime is adding to its long list of broken promises.

Rather than pull back, Assad's troops have launched new assaults on Syrian cities and towns, including in the Idlib and Aleppo provinces. Rather than allowing access for humanitarian aid, security forces have tightened their siege of residential neighborhoods in Homs and elsewhere. And rather than beginning a political transition, the regime has crushed dozens of peaceful protests.

The world must judge Assad by what he does, not by what he says. And we cannot sit back and wait any longer. Yesterday in Riyadh, I joined with the members of the Gulf Cooperation Council to call for an immediate end to the killing in Syria and to urge Joint Special Envoy Annan to set a timeline for next steps. We look forward to hearing his views on the way forward when he addresses the United Nations Security Council tomorrow.

Here in Istanbul, we must take steps of our own to ratchet up pressure on the regime, provide humanitarian relief to people in need, and support the opposition as it works toward an inclusive, democratic and orderly transition that preserves the integrity and institutions of the Syrian state.

First, pressure. On Friday, the United States announced new sanctions against three more senior regime officials: Minister of Defense Rajiha, Deputy Chief of Staff of the Army Adanov and Head of Presidential Security Shalish. A growing list of Syria's worst human rights offenders are learning that they cannot escape the consequences of their actions. I am pleased that the Friends of the Syrian People have agreed to form a sanctions working group, to coordinate and expand our national sanctions and strengthen enforcement. Together we must further isolate this regime, cut off its funds, and squeeze its ability to wage war on its own people.

The United States will also work with international partners to establish an accountability clearinghouse to support and train Syrian citizens working to document atrocities, identify perpetrators, and safeguard evidence for future investigations and prosecutions.

Our message must be clear to those who give the orders and those who carry them out: Stop killing your fellow citizens or you will face serious consequences. Your countrymen will not forget, and neither will the international community.

Turning to the humanitarian effort, the United States is expanding our commitment to help the people of Syria. This week in Washington, I met with the president of the International Committee of the Red Cross and we discussed the urgent needs, especially in the communities suffering under relentless shelling.

In Tunis, I pledged $10 million to fund makeshift field hospitals, train emergency medical staff, and get clean water, food, blankets, heaters, and hygiene kits to civilians who desperately need them, including displaced people. Despite the regime's efforts to deny access, that aid is starting to get through. So in March we added $2 million to our commitment, and today I am announcing more than $12 million for the Syrian people—for a total of nearly $25 million.

But we know that no amount of aid will be enough if the regime continues its military campaign, targets relief workers, blocks supplies, restricts freedom of movement, and disrupts medical services. So the United States fully supports the UN's diplomatic effort to secure safe and unfettered access for humanitarian workers and supplies, including a daily, two-hour ceasefire—beginning immediately— to allow aid to get in and wounded civilians to get out. And I want to thank the governments of Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon, and Iraq for keeping their borders open and serving as generous hosts to Syrians in great need.

The third track is supporting the opposition as it plans for an inclusive, democratic transition.

Here in Istanbul, the Syrian National Council and a wide range of opposition groups are uniting around a common vision for a free, democratic and pluralist Syria that protects the rights of all citizens and all communities. It is a roadmap for saving the state and its institutions from Assad's death spiral. And it is worthy of support from the international community and Syrians from every background.

Turning this vision into reality will not be easy, but it is essential. Assad must go and Syrians must choose their own path. Citizens across the country are already laying the groundwork. Peaceful protests continue to swell, with citizens marching in the streets of Syrian cities and towns, demanding dignity and freedom. The regime has done everything it can to prevent peaceful political organizing, and activists and opposition members have been jailed, tortured, and killed. And yet, local councils have emerged all across the country. They are organizing civil resistance and providing basic governance, services and humanitarian relief, even as the shells rain down around them.

To support civil opposition groups as they walk this difficult path, the United States is going beyond humanitarian aid and providing additional assistance, including communications equipment that will help activists organize, evade attacks by the regime, and connect to the outside world—and we are discussing with our international partners how best to expand this support.

In the unlikely event that the Assad regime reverses course and begins to implement the six-point plan, then Kofi Annan will work with the opposition to take steps of its own. But in the meantime, Syrians will continue to defend themselves. And they must continue building momentum toward a new Syria: free, unified, and at peace.

Now that they have a unified vision for transition, it will be crucial for the opposition to translate it into a political action plan to win support among all of Syria's communities. We've seen here in Istanbul that disparate opposition factions can come together. Despite the dangers they face, the next step is to take their case across Syria, to lead a national conversation about how to achieve the future Syrians want and deserve. That's how the opposition will demonstrate beyond any doubt that they hold the moral high ground, strip away Assad's remaining support, and expose the regime's hypocrisy.

So this is where we find ourselves today: Kofi Annan has given us a plan to begin resolving this crisis. Bashar al-Assad has so far refused to honor his pledge to implement it. The time for excuses is over.

President Medvedev calls this the “last chance” for Syria. I call it a moment of truth.

Together we must hasten the day that peace and freedom come to Syria. That solution cannot come fast enough, and we grieve for every lost day and every lost life.

We are committed to this effort and we are confident that the people of Syria will take control of their own destiny. Let us be worthy of this challenge and move ahead with clear eyes and firm determination.

Thank you.

Secretary Hillary Clinton gave the following interview in Istanbul, Turkey

Q. Madam Secretary, thank you very much for doing this. I want to start with the sanctions, with the pressure. If you look at all of this pressure, something doesn't seem to be working because Assad is still there, and notably, you don't have any major defections from the key top leadership, the people who are close to him. Why is that? Could one of the factors be that the United States and others are saying “we don't want military action, and that could be emboldening him?”

Secretary Clinton. Well, Jill, I think the sanctions are beginning to have an effect, but we have to do more to implement them, and that's why we formed a sanctions committee today. And the United States will be working with the Arab countries, the European countries, North African, and others to have them understand the most effective way to implement sanctions. Because, as one of them said to me, “The Americans have a lot of experience in doing sanctions. We don't.” So we're making progress.

Also the individual sanctions—the travel bans, the visa bans, the kinds of direct personal sanctions—are beginning to really wake people up. They're looking around thinking for the rest of my life, I'm only going to be able maybe to go to Iran; that doesn't sound like a great idea. So we hear a lot from the inside that these sanctions are happening in a timely way. Also, the reserves of the country are being drawn down, marketplaces are not as full of goods as they once were. So this does take time. We're well aware that time is going by, people are being killed, it just is absolutely horrific what's happening. But the Istanbul meeting today was quite consequential in terms of the outcomes, and really increasing the enforcement of sanctions was one of the best.

Q. Let's look at the opposition. A number of them are expats, people who have lived out of the country for years and years. Why should anybody who's inside Syria right now trust them? And do they actually know the real situation on the ground?

Secretary Clinton. Well, what's happening is that the Syrian National Council is expanding. I just met with four representatives, including a young woman who just escaped from Homs. I mean, she is someone who is bearing witness to the horrors of what the Assad regime did to the neighborhoods of her city. And she had very poignant stories of close friends who were tortured and are in hospital, and if they're discovered as having been in the opposition, will be killed. I mean, it's a terrible human tragedy, but she is a witness.

So I think, along with the people who started the Syrian National Council, who are in a position to do so—because they had been driven out by the Assads, father and son, over the course of many years— they're now being joined and, frankly, their credibility is being enhanced by both civilian and military defections. And we think that's significant.

Ambassador Susan Rice gave the following remarks at the UN Security Council

Ambassador Rice. Good afternoon, everyone. Let me provide you with a readout of the Council's meeting this morning with Joint Special Envoy Kofi Annan. The Joint Special Envoy reviewed for the Security Council his efforts so far to address the crisis in Syria. He expressed gratitude for the recent Presidential Statement and for the Security Council unity that it represented. Joint Special Envoy Annan said that in his discussions with the Syrian regime, he emphasized the urgency of the situation and pressed the government to cease troop movements, cease the use of heavy weapons, and pull out of population centers. Mr. Annan reported that the Syrian foreign minister sent him a letter yesterday, in which he said that the Syrian military will begin immediately, and by April 10^th will complete, the cessation of all forward deployment and use of heavy weapons and will complete its withdrawal from population centers. These are steps A through C in the Six-Point Plan, item 2.

Mr. Annan said that he wished that he had this confirmation of action sooner, in other words, that the April 10^th deadline would ideally have been earlier than it is. But he urged the government of Syria to start immediately and to ensure that forces move no further into population centers. And, as he related, that commitment was provided by the Syrian authorities. Mr. Annan reported that he's expecting details from the Syrian government very shortly on the other aspects of his Six-Point Plan, including key requests for humanitarian access, the two-hour daily humanitarian pause, as well as access for the media, and of course, the political process. Mr. Annan's deputy, Nassar al-Qidwa, has also had constructive exchanges with the opposition to urge them to cease their operations within 48 hours of a complete cessation of government hostilities, in other words, their fulfillment of steps A through C.

Mr. Annan said that a DPKO team joined by some of his staff will travel again to Syria this week to continue preparations for a potential monitoring and supervisory mission of the UN. And finally, Mr. Annan asked the Security Council to support the April 10 deadline and, given the urgency of the situation, to begin consideration of a potential UN monitoring mission. Under-Secretary-General Ladsous then briefed in very short terms on DPKO's early-stage contingency planning for such a monitoring mission. All members of the Security Council expressed full support for Joint Special Envoy Annan and called for his Six-Point Plan to be implemented immediately, including a political process leading to a transition that meets the aspirations of the Syrian people for democracy, a key point reiterated more than once by the Joint Special Envoy.

Some members of the Security Council expressed concern that the government of Syria not use the next days to intensify the violence and expressed some skepticism about the bona fides of the government in this regard. But, in general, Council members expressed a willingness to consider Mr. Annan's plan for a monitoring mission if indeed a cessation of violence is achieved.

I'm happy to take a couple of questions. Excuse me. One at a time.

Q. Can you give us an idea of—did Mr. Ladsous make it clear how long it would take? I mean, that you could move rapidly to get a monitoring mission in there, how big it was, any of the details of what it would do?

Ambassador Rice. Let me, on the subject of Mr. Ladsous's briefing, I think DPKO can provide you with the details of their thinking. Essentially, they're looking at a phased approach with the aim of trying to get in a small core of initial monitors that might be drawn with the consent of governments from some of the missions in the nearby region. It will take some time to ramp up to full strength, and I think it better to give DPKO the opportunity to provide the details of their thinking.

Q. Was there any discussion—was there any discussion of the announcement by some of the Friends of Syria that they would begin to pay salaries to the Free Syrian Army or other rebels? And can you also say—the U.S. offered to provide communications equipment. Can you specify a little bit who would get it, whether it could have any lethal usage, and what safeguards are in place?

Ambassador Rice. Well, let me in my capacity as president be clear in saying, I think, if I'm not mistaken, only one delegation raised that issue. Most were focused on the contents of the Joint Special Envoy's briefing today. From the U.S. point of view—now speaking in my national capacity—as you know, we announced our readiness not only to increase our humanitarian assistance now to $25 million but also to begin to provide non-lethal assistance to the opposition, including in the form of communications equipment. That communications equipment is by its nature and by its definition non-lethal, and we will continue to work with other partners in the Friends of Democratic Syria, as was agreed in Tunis, to strengthen our efforts to support the effectiveness and coherence of the opposition.

Q. Ambassador, can you clarify who is going to be actually monitoring the fulfillment of these promises from here until April 10^th, given that you do not have a mechanism for peacekeeping or any such monitoring on the ground? And secondly, can you also clarify if there has been any type of preconditions or conditions attached by the Syrian government to this agreement for April 10 deadline for full-out and whether all the troops will go back to their barracks?

Ambassador Rice. Joint Special Envoy Annan, to answer your second question first, did not specify any preconditions nor was the Council aware of preconditions that had been put in front of that planned withdrawal. The action was to have begun yesterday, on April 1^st, consistent with the commitment that Joint Special Envoy Annan received and be implemented over the course of the subsequent ten days. In terms of monitoring, I mean, you know the issue. There is no independent monitoring mechanism on the ground because that hasn't been permitted by the circumstances, by the lack of violence, and by the posture of the Syrian authorities. There is also obviously a challenge with access for journalists and other independent observers, so we will need to rely on the same sources of information that we have been relying on over the course of the last many months—some of which are formal, some of which are informal—to assess the degree of implementation.

Q. Has Syria totally accepted the April 10th deadline? I mean, it's said there is no hesitation, according to Annan?

Ambassador Rice: As I just said in answer to Raghida, as it was briefed to us, there were no conditions or preconditions specified by the Syrians that we're aware of for implementation of the commitments that it made some days prior to April 1. Now, let's be realistic. We've—now speaking in my national capacity—we have seen over the course of the last many months promises made and promises broken. We have seen commitments to end the violence followed by massive intensification of violence. So the United States, for one, would look at these commitments and say, yet again, that the proof is in the actions, not in the words. And past experience would lead us to be skeptical and to worry that, over the next several days, that rather than the diminution of the violence we might yet again see an escalation of the violence. We certainly hope that is not so. We hope that the Syrian authorities will implement fully the commitments that they have made without any conditions or codicils, and should they do so, we will expect the opposition to follow suit within 48 hours, as specified by Joint Special Envoy Annan.

Thank you very much.

Ambassador Susan Rice gave the following remarks at the UN Security Council

Ambassador Rice. Now, let me turn to the subject of Syria.

As you know, members of the Security Council discussed the letter received this morning from Joint Special Envoy of the United Nations and the League of Arab States Kofi Annan regarding the status of his plan for a peaceful solution to the crisis in Syria. Council members had the opportunity to ask questions regarding the letter of Mr. Annan's deputy, Jean-Marie Guehenno. The members of the Security Council reiterated the need to implement in full its Presidential Statements of March 21th and April 5th. The members of the Council underscored, in particular, the following two elements of the Joint Special Envoy's letter, which I will paraphrase.

The first is the following. the Syrian leadership should now seize the opportunity to make a fundamental change of course. It's essential that the next 48 hours bring visible signs of immediate and indisputable change in the military posture of the Government forces throughout the country, as called upon by the Six-Point Plan, and that items (a), (b) and (c) of paragraph 2 of the Six-Point Plan are fully implemented to enable the cessation of hostilities—cessation of armed violence— on 12 April. The members of the Council therefore echoed the Envoy's call to urge the opposition also to fulfil their commitments to the Six-Point Plan and give no excuse for the Government to renege on its commitments. And they noted the clear declarations coming from the opposition, which the envoy characterized as encouraging in this respect.

The second point the Council wanted to underscore is their deep concern at the state of implementation of the Syrian Government's immediate obligations and stressed the importance that the parties meet the deadline of 12 April. As the envoy said, the cessation of violence in all its forms is a first but essential step. It must not be delayed by new conditions. Violence must stop now.

The members of the Security Council furthermore reaffirmed their support to Joint Special Envoy Annan and his mission and said that they look forward to hearing from Mr. Annan again on April 12. I'm happy to take a few questions.

Q. Yes, Madame President, is the new deadline of April 12th—does it put both the government and the opposition on equal footing in terms of expectations of reversing thus what was in the plan? And did Kofi Annan change the goalposts by skipping over the 10th of April and going straight to the 6am 12 April deadline?

Ambassador Rice. No, I do not see this as a new deadline. The deadline for the government to meet its obligations under the second point (a), (b), and (c), as the Joint Special Envoy's letter reaffirmed, was today. That has not occurred. And obviously members of the Council are unified in their grave concern that this deadline has passed and the violence has not only continued but, over the last 10 days, has intensified.

What Joint Special Envoy Annan has said is that, in his view, there is still an opportunity for the government to fulfill its commitments and that if it does so before the 12^th, there is still an opportunity for there to be a cessation of violence. It is not a new deadline. The deadline has passed for the government's initial steps. Those commitments have not been fulfilled. The opposition has generously indicated that, nonetheless, it is prepared still—were the government to fulfil its steps—to nonetheless meet its commitments as of the 12th, and I think that the letter was a reflection of those realities.

Q. Ambassador, on a different issue, can you please tell us—

Ambassador Rice. Can we stay on Syria for a second? I suspect there will be other questions on Syria and then we can change topics.

Q. The letter seems to say that on April 8th the Asad government asked Kofi Annan to get commitments from regional countries to stop the funding of the opposition, but it doesn't really say what was done on that. What was the position? Was there any discussion in the Council of this idea of regional countries openly saying they would fund the Free Syrian Army? And also, there's this mention of the General Mood—substantial differences emerged during his time there. Was there any Q and A with Mr. Guehenno? What can we say about these differences, and what do they foretell for an observer mission?

Ambassador Rice. Well, with respect to the additional conditions that the government announced on the 8^th, there was general discussion of the additional conditions, and the letter of the envoy as well as the discussion in the Council made clear that nobody is prepared to contemplate or give validity to any additional conditions. There was no specific discussion of the details of those conditions. With respect to the technical assessment mission, the technical assessment mission—or technical mission—of General Mood, there was a bit of discussion about it in the Q and A, and Jean-Marie Guehenno indicated that, at a certain stage, the Government and its engagements with the Mood team were essentially reflecting some of the conditions that they had said publicly, which were not consistent with the envoy's plan and the Six Point Plan endorsed by the Security Council; therefore, it became difficult to continue to productively proceed along those lines. I think we'll get a fuller understanding of those challenges and what next steps, if any, are contemplated with the technical team on the 12^th when Kofi Annan will have had an opportunity to debrief with his team leadership.

Q. Madame President, there has been a lot of travelling to Tehran at the moment and talking about—concerning the Syria crisis. The Turks, before, went there, and tomorrow Kofi Annan will be in Tehran. What do you expect concerning the crisis in Syria? What can come out of this? And then I would like to know. the Security Council is still calling this a crisis. Why we are not calling it a civil war?

Ambassador Rice. Well, first of all, I'm not going to try to speak for Joint Special Envoy Annan and characterize his intentions in Iran. I don't know what to expect, and we will look to hear from him on Thursday as to what he brings back. Really, I don't have anything of substance to add on that point. Your second…

Q. The second is, you just called this a crisis—the Syrian Crisis. Why we are not calling it a civil war?

Ambassador Rice. Well, it is indeed a crisis. It is a crisis that has now cost the lives of an estimated 9,000 people. This is—we need to be clear what this was and how it began. This began as Syrian civilians peacefully protesting, exercising their universally accepted rights to peacefully demonstrate and seek to influence the nature of the government that they must live under. That, over the course of a year, has been met by the most brutal and escalating violence, and over the course of recent months, having been brutally assaulted, these civilians have taken up—some of them and others who were defectors from the military taken up—weapons in self defense. And so there is now a mixed character, obviously, to what has transpired. There are those fighting in self defense. There are those that continue to protest peacefully. But the reality is whatever we choose to call it, we face a moment of truth coming up.

The U.S. view is that it is outrageous, but by no means unexpected or surprising, that the government has yet again made commitments and broken them—and made commitments that are now backed by the entirety of the international community in the form of Special Envoy Annan's Six Point Plan. It's the U.S. view that we face very soon a moment of truth where, if in fact the Government continues to fail to fulfill its obligations, which it gives every indication it will continue to do, the international community and this Council, which have all backed up the Annan plan in its entirety, will have to determine whether they remain unified in support of Joint Special Envoy Annan, his plan, the plan that we as a Council have adopted, which puts the onus on the Syrian government to take the essential, initial steps. And whether we are prepared, if there is continued non-compliance, to take the logical next step, which is to increase the pressure on the Asad regime through collective action. And frankly, if indeed we are, then there will be additional pressure on the Asad regime consistent with the path that this Council is walking down. If not, then it looks quite obvious that what is increasingly becoming a crisis—a violent crisis—will potentially devolve, quite regrettably, into full-scale civil war with all of the consequences that that entails for the people of Syria, for neighboring countries, and the wider international community.

Secretary Hillary Clinton gave the following remarks in Paris, France

Secretary Clinton. Well, Alain, thank you for convening us and hosting us. I think we are all here out of a sense of great frustration and outrage over what we see occurring in Syria. We also are hopeful that, despite the evidence thus far, the mission of Kofi Annan can begin to take root, starting with monitors being sent, but remembering that it's a six-point plan and that it's not a menu of options. It has to be a complete acceptance by the Syrian Government of all six points.

Let me just make a few comments. First, we continue to support the monitoring mission, even though we are aware that the increased violence could jeopardize the deployment of the monitors and put their lives at risk. So we're in a dilemma. We think it's important to get independent sources of observation and reporting on the ground, but we do not want to create a situation where those who are sent in to do this mission themselves are subjected to violence. So we need to continue to work and move toward a Security Council authorization so that we have the authority to proceed when the times are right.

Secondly, I think we have to do more to take tougher actions against the Assad regime. We need to start moving very vigorously in the Security Council for a Chapter 7 sanctions resolution, including travel, financial sanctions, an arms embargo, and the pressure that that will give us on the regime to push for compliance with Kofi Annan's six-point plan.

Now, I'm well aware that at this point such an effort is still likely to be vetoed, but we need to look for a way to keep pressing forward. I met at length with Sergey Lavrov earlier today in Brussels. He was, as usual, very intent upon laying responsibility on all sides, and in particular on the opposition, but he also has recognized that we are not in a static situation but a deteriorating one.

Next, we have to keep Assad off balance by leaving options on the table. And Turkey already has discussed with NATO during our ministerial over the last two days the burden of Syrian refugees on Turkey, the outrageous shelling across the border from Syria into Turkey a week ago, and that Turkey is considering formally invoking Article 4 of the North Atlantic Treaty, which triggers consultations in NATO whenever the territorial integrity, political independence, or security of any of the parties is threatened.

I also believe we have to increase our support for the opposition. I can only speak for the United States. I know that others are pursuing different types of support. But we are expanding our communications, logistics, and other support for the Syrian opposition. And in cooperation with Turkey, we are considering establishing an assistance hub that will try to colocate Syrian activists and help them coordinate the collection and distribution of assistance to opposition groups inside Syria. And we do have continuing dialogue among our high-level officials with the Syrian National Council.

Next, I want to thank you, Alain, and your team for hosting the Sanctions Working Group in Paris here two days ago. About 50 countries attended. They agreed to expand the coalition of countries imposing financial sanctions, expand the scope of the sanctions, and improve the effectiveness of the existing measures by reaching out to the private sector. The next meeting will be co-chaired by the United States and hosted in Washington, likely in mid May.

We also need to strengthen our humanitarian assistance. We've done more over the last month than we had before, but it is still not adequate. And we have to stay in very close touch with Turkey and Jordan about their humanitarian needs because they're bearing the burden of caring for the refugees, and the rest of us need to help them. I think it's also important to hear from both Turkey and Jordan about how they see the situation. I was very pleased that Ahmet was able to brief the G-8 ministers at the meeting I hosted last week and then brief the NATO ministers at our dinner last night.

And finally, we are working to establish an accountability clearinghouse in order to keep track of all of the terrible stories of abuses and crimes against humanity that are coming out of Syria. We think collecting that information can be a useful means of not only keeping track for future purposes but also sending a message to those in the regime and those in the military that they are being watched and a record is being kept.

So I think, Alain, this is a timely moment, because the Security Council is meeting as we speak. And we should, I hope, come to some resolution about what further action we wish out of the Security Council, despite even the fact that the first time around it might not be successful. But we should be, as we say, laying down markers about what is expected.

Secretary Leon Panetta gave the following remarks before the House Armed Services Committee

Secretary Panetta. Chairman McKeon and Representative Smith, thank you for the opportunity to discuss the tense and fluid situation in Syria.

Widespread demands for political change in Syria started more than a year ago. Rather than meeting these legitimate demands, the regime of Bashar al-Assad turned instead to violence against its own people. That violence has been brutal and devastating. It has put the Syrian people in a desperate and difficult situation. It has outraged the conscience of all good people. And it has threatened stability in a very important part of the world.

The United States has made clear that the Assad regime has lost its legitimacy and that this crisis has no effective solution without Assad's departure. As the President has stated, Assad must go.

Recent days are testing whether the Assad regime will live up to all of its responsibilities to the Syrian people and to the international community. Restoring calm to cities and towns across Syria is just one test for Assad in the days ahead. Assad is responsible for fully abiding by the transition plan outlined by Joint Special Envoy Kofi Annan. He also faces deep skepticism about his motives, a skepticism based on a long train of Assad's deceitful actions to date, including broken promises to his own people and to the international community.

The United States is committed to holding the Syrian regime to these obligations. We are leading international efforts to help stop the violence and support a peaceful political transition in Syria.

We know achieving that end is a tough task. From every angle the situation in Syria is enormously complex. There is no silver bullet. At the same time, the situation is of grave consequence to the Syrian people. There are many others who are affected by what happens in Syria, including Syria's neighbors—Turkey, Lebanon, Iraq, Israel, and Jordan—and all nations with a vital interest in the Middle East. Meanwhile, Iran is Syria's only ally in the region. No other country stands to lose more than Iran from the eventual fall of the Assad regime, which is why Iran is supporting the regime with material, financial and technical assistance.

We also know that the complex problems in Syria cannot all be solved through the unilateral actions of the United States or any other country. They demand a coordinated international response that is uniquely tailored to the situation.

There are, however, certain principles that have guided the Administration's response to unrest across the Middle East. These basic principles have shaped our responses in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and now Syria: first, we oppose the use of violence and repression by regimes against their own people; second, we support the exercise of universal human rights; and third, we support political and economic reforms that can meet the legitimate aspirations of ordinary people throughout the region.

Our policy toward Syria is clear: we support a political and democratic transition that fulfills the Syrian people's aspirations. To support that objective, the United States is leading international efforts along five tracks:

First, we are supporting efforts to maintain international pressure and advance transition in Syria. We join with our partners in the United Nations Security Council, including Russia and China, in calling for the urgent, comprehensive, and immediate implementation of all aspects of the Annan plan.

Second, we are further isolating the Assad regime. We are encouraging other countries to join the United States, the European Union, and the Arab League in imposing strong sanctions against it. These sanctions are putting Assad under greater pressure than ever before.

Third, we are strengthening and unifying the non-violent political opposition in Syria. The United States is in the process of providing direct non-lethal support, including communications and medical equipment, to the civilian-led opposition. We are taking these actions in concert with similar steps taken by the Friends of Syria and other international partners to assist the opposition.

Fourth, we are providing emergency humanitarian assistance to the Syrian people, and we are working to broaden our efforts at relief, with a total commitment so far of $25 million.

Fifth, we are reviewing and planning for a range of additional measures that may be necessary to protect the Syrian people.

By acting along these lines, we are increasing pressure on the Assad regime every day. Make no mistake—one way or another, this regime ultimately will meet its end.

There are legitimate questions about what steps are necessary to achieve this end, with some arguing for an approach similar to the one we took in Libya.

The fact is that our recent experience in Libya is helping to inform the approach of the United States to Syria:

First, our efforts are strengthened by multi-lateral, international consensus;

Second, we should maintain clear regional support from the Arab world;

Third, we should offer substantial U.S. contributions where we can bring unique resources to bear;

Fourth, we should have a clear legal basis for our approach;

Fifth, and finally, our approach must keep all options on the table, while recognizing the limitations of military force.

But the situation in Syria is different from the one in Libya in important ways:

In Libya, there was widespread international support in the Arab world and elsewhere, and clear Security Council authorization, for military intervention. No such consensus currently exists regarding Syria;

The opposition is not as well organized and does not control territory;

We must also be mindful, as Secretary Clinton has noted, of the possibility that outside military intervention will make a volatile situation even worse, and place even more innocent civilians at risk.

The United States has made clear that we are on the side of the Syrian people. They must know that the international community has not underestimated either their suffering or their impatience. The Defense Department has reviewed and is continuing to plan for a variety of possible scenarios should the President determine that further steps are necessary. In the meantime, our only clear path is to keep moving diplomatically in a resolute and deliberate manner with the international community to find a way to return Syria to the Syrian people.

Thank you.

Ambassador Susan Rice gave the following remarks at the UN Security Council

Ambassador Rice. Good afternoon, everyone. Pursuant to resolution 2042, last night, as you know, members of the Security Council received a letter from the Secretary-General in which he outlined a proposal for an expanded United Nations monitoring mission in Syria for an initial period of up to three months.

The mission would comprise up to 300 military observers to be deployed in approximately ten locations throughout Syria and would additionally comprise a wide range of civilian experts. The Secretary-General recommended authorization of such a mission, with the understanding that he will consider relevant developments on the ground, including the consolidation of the cessation of violence, to decide on deployments.

This morning, DPKO Assistant-Secretary-General Mulet and Deputy Joint Special Envoy Guehenno provided a frank assessment, stressing that, while it remains challenging to accurately assess developments in Syria, there has been increased violence in recent days, including reports of the use of heavy weapons in Homs and elsewhere and the use of small weapons and abuses by government forces in multiple other areas of the country.

The Deputy Joint Special Envoy also stressed that “the Syrian Government has yet to fully implement its initial obligations” with respect to the cessation of violence or other aspects of the Six-Point Plan. They also reported that the Syrian government had yet to withdraw its troops and heavy weapons from population centers or to return to barracks. Regrettably, it was also reported that little progress has been achieved over the last weeks to provide for the more than one million people in need of urgent humanitarian assistance in Syria.

Council members were unified in their continued concern about the escalation of violence in Syria by the Syrian Government, and the Council is discussing its next steps.

I would like to make a few remarks now in my national capacity.

The Council expressed the intention in resolution 2042 to establish a full supervision mission “subject to a sustained cessation of armed violence in all its forms by all parties.”

In that regard, it's important to read what the Secretary-General wrote in his letter about the sustained cessation of violence. And he wrote—and I quote—“It appears that levels of violence dropped markedly on 12 April and the following days, with a concomitant decrease in reports of casualties. However, the Syrian Government has yet to fully implement its initial obligations regarding the actions and deployments of its troops and heavy weapons or to return them to barracks. Violent incidents and reports of casualties have escalated again in recent days, with reports of shelling of civilian areas and abuses by government forces. The Government reports violent actions by armed groups. The cessation of armed violence in all its forms is therefore clearly incomplete.”

The United States agrees that the cessation of armed violence is incomplete, to say the least. In the six days since this Council adopted resolution 2042, we have seen the regime unleash yet another wave of horrific violence against the Syrian people. It has restricted the movement of the few monitors on the ground.

The advance team must be able to go to vulnerable cities like Homs, today. The shelling of Homs and other cities must end, immediately. The government must pull back its troops and heavy weapons from the population centers, immediately. The government could easily do all of these things today.

The Council expressed its willingness to quickly authorize a monitoring mission, but we have also set forth the conditions necessary for such a force to be deployed—or such a mission to be deployed—effectively. The choice is now with the Syrian government to decide whether or not it will fully end its murderous cycle of violence and allow monitors in Syria under terms that will allow them to operate in safety and to report credibly. The advance mission already authorized by the Council, while still small, is an important test of whether the Syrian government will allow the effective operation of UN monitors.

I'm happy to take a few questions

Q. Madame President, the protocol this morning did not deal with—apparently, according to the Secretary-General, he just told us—with the question of the air support and also the nationalities. Do you see these as time-bombs that might derail the whole process in the future? Because he said, it's unacceptable—according the Secretary-General—unacceptable that they put conditions on nationalities. And also, you just confirmed what the Secretary-General has said, the violence hasn't stopped completely. Would you see this as a hindrance to sending monitors in the future, if it doesn't stop completely?

Ambassador Rice. Well with respect to the conditions that have been laid-out, I really would defer to the Secretary-General, as we've just receive seconds ago a copy of the protocol and haven't had the opportunity even to read it. I would say obviously that we would expect no more and no less out of any potential mission in Syria than we would expect of a mission elsewhere in the world authorized under Chapter VI where we are talking about the dispatch of unarmed monitors. Clearly restrictions on nationality, restrictions on movement, freedom of air support—all of these are key elements of any neutral monitoring mission anywhere in the world. They are also substantially among the expectations outlined in Resolution 2042, so we would certainly support the Secretary-General when he says that those are import aspects of any potential mission.

Q. Ambassador Rice, a question on Syria and then perhaps you can come back to me. I have one on Sudan but after we've dealt with Syria. Mr. Guéhenno made clear that they feel that it's necessary to press ahead as soon as soon as possible with a fuller mission because, despite the risks—despite the persistent violence … is the council now ready to begin work on a resolution that would authorize the deployment while spelling out the conditions that need to be met as you said now?

Ambassador Rice. Well I think we'll see. We certainly had an initial discussion in the Council this morning on the basis of the Secretary-General's report, which as you know, we only received late last night. I think it will need to be studied and considered in respective capitals, and we will continue discussions here in New York. There were a number of members of the Council who expressed an eagerness to respond swiftly and affirmatively to the Secretary-General's recommendations. Although, also many members of the Council expressed concerns that the conditions contemplated and laid-out—in fact, more than contemplated—laid out as requirements in Resolution 2042 have not yet fully been met. And certainly we all agree that they need to be met for any mission to be deployed and operate effectively.

Q. So are you now saying that it is a precondition for the Syrian government to actually pull the forces out of the areas that it's not supposed to be in, including heavy weapons, back to the barracks and that they need to clear—and make clear what are these conditions for the air assets before you are agreed to a resolution in the Security Council regarding an expanded monitoring team?

Ambassador Rice. Well, I would refer you to Resolution 2042, which is the Council's most recent statement on the subject. Obviously, we will all consider very carefully the Secretary-General's report and recommendation, particularly in light of how circumstances evolve on the ground. In our view, in the U.S. view, the onus remains on the Syrian government to demonstrate that it is committed to not just the words of its agreements but are taking actions that are consistent with those agreements on the ground. And we've put important emphasis on the ability of the advanced team, which is already there, to be able to move freely to deploy to the most important hot spot, Homs, and to be able to test the proposition, which is at the heart of the Secretary-General's proposal, and that is that the dispatch of monitors will in fact be an ameliorative addition to circumstances on the ground.

Q. You just need to say for clarity here—did you mean to say that when you put your conditions as an American ambassador that today they need to need to be able to go to Homs, that today they need to this. Are these now preconditions for the US agreement to a resolutions with 300—

Ambassador Rice. Raghida, we, like every other member state, will consider very carefully the Secretary-General's recommendations. But what I'm saying is, that in the U.S. view, the onus remains on the Syrian authorities to demonstrate that it will allow these monitors to do their job, and that's why the role of the advance team is so important. We could authorize—theoretically, the Council could authorize tomorrow the full complement of observers, but if they are not able to move freely, if they're not able to visit the hot spots, if their freedom is hindered then they won't be effective. And obviously we all have a shared interest in any monitoring mission being effective.

Q. Two questions: Is there any point at which the U.S. administration will declare that non-compliance and failure to stand by agreements means that the Six-Point Plan has failed and therefore Plan B or C or whatever needs to be contemplated? And secondly, on the thematic debate, the fact that there's two members of the Security Council right now that are non-NPT signatories and also the events of last week in North Korea and last night in India and so on and so forth. Is there a little disconnect between that and the thematic debate?

Ambassador Rice. Well, let me begin with Syria and say that from our point of view—

Q. Yeah, the question about Syria is, is there any point at which the U.S. administration declares the Six-Point Plan a—

Ambassador Rice. Right. Well, first of all, we're not prepared to prejudge the success or failure of the Six-Point Plan. We and other members of the international community have supported it because we believe it offers the best and perhaps the last best opportunity for this conflict to be resolved through diplomatic means, as opposed to military means. And we think that that's very important. Obviously, it is still uncertain whether that plan will succeed. We now have a new proposal from the Secretary General—another step in the potential implementation of that plan—and we'll consider it carefully. We all remain interested in maximizing the possibility of this conflict being resolved peacefully. And if we assess that the addition of monitors in the current context will help advance that or at least advance the prospects for it, then that will be an important factor in our decision making.

With respect to non-proliferation, we're—I'm going to have to go back and make my statement—but we're very pleased with the session today. We view it as a collective reaffirmation of the commitments made by member states at the summit meeting in 2009 that President Obama chaired and where we adopted resolution 1887. This particular session has a focus within that broad subject matter on nuclear security coming out of the Seoul conference last month, and we will adopt a presidential statement shortly in which all members of the Security Council affirm their commitment to the fundamental principles and interests of nuclear security. So I count that as a positive step, particularly given the complex composition of the Council at present.

And with respect to North Korea, I've addressed that repeatedly. I think the Council did a fine job in conveying swiftly and strongly a message of condemnation on North Korea and making clear that there will be consequences for their failed missile launch. And we're working on that as we speak in the Sanctions Committee. And there would be further action taken should they in fact take other provocative steps, such as a launch or a nuclear test.

Q. Ambassador Rice, on Sudan—we've had increasingly bellicose rhetoric coming out of Khartoum. President Bashir has said that they're going to go “liberate” South Sudan. We've had more rhetoric today. What is your response to this? And is the Council going to react in any way?

Ambassador Rice. The Council has been very plain, and its presidential statement last week still pertains. First of all, we strongly condemned the violence that has erupted, the resumption of hostilities on the border, in particular the occupation of Heglig. And we've called upon the government of South Sudan to remove its forces from Heglig. Also, in particular, the continued aerial bombardment and incursions by Khartoum into South Sudan and, beyond that, the many other instances of violence along the border. We think that—and when I say we, I mean not only the United States but indeed the entire Security Council—that the violence needs to stop without preconditions, and both sides need to return to the negotiating table. The escalation of rhetoric on both sides is indeed worrying. And it's only fanning the flames when we think, to the contrary, the effort ought to be made to reduce the flames, douse them, and return to the table to resolve the outstanding issues that have made relations between North and South so difficult in the wake of independence.

Thank you.

Ambassador Susan Rice gave the following remarks at the UN Security Council

Ambassador Rice. The United States has voted in favor of resolution 2043 authorizing the establishment of a UN supervision mission in Syria, but we are sober about the risks, all the more so given the Assad regime's long record of broken promises, deceit and disregard for the most basic standards of humanity.

The Syrian people, like us, know that the deployment of 300 or even 3,000 unarmed observers cannot, on its own, stop the Asad regime from waging its barbaric campaign of violence against the Syrian people. What can bring a halt to this murderous rampage is continued and intensified external pressure on the Asad regime. The Syrian opposition has said that it welcomes the deployment of the UN military observers and additional human rights and other civilian monitors, because they will be impartial eyes and ears on the ground to bear witness to the Syrian government's flagrant and persistent violations of its commitments. Even more so, the Syrian people expect—and they deserve—that this Council will stand behind today's resolution and ensure that swift and meaningful consequences are imposed should the regime continue to flout its obligations.

Since the adoption of resolution 2042, exactly a week ago, in which this Council unanimously called on the Syrian government to honor all its obligations, including a sustained cessation of violence, the regime has unleashed yet another wave of horrific violence against its own people resulting in the deaths of scores of Syrians daily. The government's use of shelling and heavy weaponry, in particular in Homs, has reached levels that surpass those before the ceasefire. Syrian government troops and armor have not been withdrawn from cities and returned to barracks. Protesters are still being intimidated and murdered by government forces. The status of thousands of detainees remains unclear. And precious little progress had been made on the issue of humanitarian access, with an estimated one million civilians still in urgent need of humanitarian assistance.

The United Nations Security Council has called upon the government to take concrete actions. The Syrian government has ignored this Council. In the United States, our patience is exhausted.

Let me be plain. No one should assume that the United States will agree to renew this mission at the end of 90 days. If there is not a sustained cessation of violence, full freedom of movement for UN personnel and rapid meaningful progress on all other aspects of the six-point plan, then we must all conclude that this mission has run its course. We will not wait 90 days to pursue measures against the Syrian government, if it continues to violate its commitments or obstruct the monitors' work.

We express our deep gratitude to the monitors who are now embarking on this unprecedented and risky mission. We should be under no illusions. They are going to be dependent for security on the very government which is responsible for the main security threats. They are going to be deployed in the midst of protesters who are desperate for a protection that the monitors are not equipped or mandated to provide. And they will be deployed in numbers too small to cover the entire country but large enough to give rise to expectations that will be impossible to meet, if the Syrian government does not fulfill its commitments towards a sustained cessation of violence.

All our experience with UN peacekeeping over the last 65 years teaches us that such missions require there to be a peace to keep, in order to succeed. The opposition has said they want and need this mission, hoping that the presence of these monitors will have a restraining effect on the Syrian government and help uphold the rights of the Syrian people to assemble and express themselves freely. If that hope does not materialize, however, the failure shall be the Syrian government's, and it must be held accountable. And we must be prepared to do so, given the Asad regime's track record to date.

The United States strongly supports full implementation of the Joint Special Envoy's six-point plan. Yet, let there be no doubt: we, our allies and others in this body are planning and preparing for those actions that will be required of us all, if the Asad regime persists in the slaughter of the Syrian people.

Ambassador Susan Rice gave the following remarks at the UN Security Council

Ambassador Rice. Good afternoon. The situation in Syria remains dire, especially for the millions who continue to endure daily attacks and who are in urgent need of humanitarian assistance. The United States has been clear that we want the United Nations mission to succeed. But we have been equally clear that the onus remains on the Syrian regime to create the conditions for that success. And thus far, it is plain that the Syrian regime has not implemented fully any of the six points of the Joint Special Envoy's Six Point Plan.

As the Joint Special Envoy just briefed the Council, unacceptable levels of violence and abuse are continuing. While the use of heavy weapons has declined somewhat in recent days, we have seen an increase in other forms of violence, as scores continue to be killed each and every day. The United States remains focused on increasing the pressure on the Asad regime and on Asad himself to step down. We support international efforts to broker a political solution that ends the violence and facilitates a genuine political transition that meets the legitimate aspirations of the Syrian people. We also support efforts to strengthen the opposition, which we are ourselves contributing to and to address the deteriorating humanitarian situation.

Let me close by thanking the brave UN monitors and civilians who are on the ground, operating in very risky and dangerous circumstances. We appreciate their service and their efforts.

Happy to take a couple questions.

Q. Ambassador, you just said that the U.S. is focused on continuing increasing of pressure on the Asad regime and for Asad himself to step down, whereas the plan that you are supporting through Kofi Annan would require Kofi Annan to even go to speak to President Asad and have him still in the position of appointing an interlocutor. You're supporting that plan, and you make that statement. I'm confused.

Ambassador Rice. I don't think there's any reason for confusion. The United States policy has been and remains that the Asad regime has lost all legitimacy, and he should step down. And we think that the logical outcome of faithful implementation of the Annan plan, particularly its political transition provisions, will be a democratic dispensation—or would be, if it were implemented—a democratic dispensation in Syria, in which the outcome would be a change of government. So, we don't see any contradiction in that. Obviously, however, we are not putting all of our eggs only in one basket. We have implemented very significant economic pressures on a national basis. We have collaborated with other countries in the region and beyond that are doing the same. We are increasing our support to unify and strengthen the opposition through non-lethal assistance. We're stepping up our humanitarian assistance. And we continue to put in place mechanisms that will enable accountability for the crimes that have been created—that have been committed. And so we see all of these as mutually reinforcing of our larger policy goal.

Q. Ambassador Rice, Special Envoy Annan mentioned that he's willing to hear better ideas given that the mission is not going very well. Have those ideas been discussed? And really what are we waiting for to pull the plug on this mission, given that there seems to be a general consensus that it really isn't going anywhere?

Ambassador Rice. Well, first of all, I've not had the opportunity to hear what Mr. Annan said to the press. I did hear what he said in the Council, and he didn't speak to that question. Our view has been very clear that, while we want to see this mission succeed, while we very much support the efforts of Joint Special Envoy Annan, the onus is on the government of Syria—the Syrian regime—to meet its commitments, which it has not done fully across the spectrum of the Six-Point Plan. I do think, though, that the picture is somewhat mixed. There has been some improvement in the security situation to the extent that heavy weapons are not being fired as consistently at civilians, but the fact that they may be trained on them or that they have resorted to other forms of violence remains of grave concern. So we're obviously going to want to make very clear, as we have repeatedly, to the Syrian regime, that it is on them first and foremost to comply and to implement this plan. And if they do not, we've been very clear—and I reiterated in the Security Council this morning—our readiness to look at other means of increasing the pressure on the Syrian regime to comply with the plan, including potentially coming back to this Council for further measures.

Q. Ambassador, is there—are there any other members of the Council that are also looking at further action? And is there any movement on that front?

Ambassador Rice. I can't speak for other members of the Council. I think you can ask them that.

Q. Do you see support for coming back to the Council for something else?

Ambassador Rice. I think that depends on how the situation evolves. There are clearly a number of members of the Council who share our very grave concern that the situation on the ground is not improving rapidly enough and substantially enough and that the violence is persisting. And I think there are a number of members that share the view that, should that persist, we're all going to have to look at what additional steps are required. And indeed our own resolutions say just that. So—but I don't know exactly how many countries will come to the conclusion that that day is tomorrow or a week from now or two months from now. We'll have to see how the situation unfolds. What we were briefed on today is a different situation than we were briefed on a couple of weeks ago.

Q. The Syrian government keeps saying that they're facing terrorism or foreign fighters. The ambassador just waived around a CD saying that these are confessions of foreign fighters, and he said that, if Al Qaeda attacks the United States, immediately people come to the Council but that the same thing should happen in this case. Is that totally specious? Are there any foreign fighters involved and what do you say about it? And I'm going to ask you one more thing about Guinea Bissau, I'm sorry to say, since it's on the Council's agenda—

Ambassador Rice. Hold on. Because Guinea Bissau and Syria are far apart, so let's take them one at a time. With respect to the challenge of terrorism and foreign fighters, I don't think anybody can say with complete certainty that there are not any foreign fighters in Syria. I mean we've seen—frankly seen foreign fighters in Syria—transit Syria—for years on their way into Iraq, and there may be a flow in the opposite direction. But this is substantially a diversion from the main point. The main point is that the government continues to kill its own people, and having done so over the course of more than a year, it has created a situation in which people have taken up arms to defend themselves. Peaceful protesters and those who set out to address their concerns through peaceful means continue to do so. But there are some who have taken up arms in self-defense. And there are some who may be taking advantage of what is increasingly a violent and chaotic situation, who have extremist motivations and who may be doing this for reasons that have nothing to do with the aspirations of the peaceful protesters. And on Guinea Bissau?

Q. Very briefly. Some are saying that what the Council would consider doing or what ECOWAS is doing is essentially rewarding coups leaders—that there was a coup and that now the plan is to give them 12 months to make a transition and then have elections that were supposed to have already been held right about now. Does the U.S. support the ECOWAS plan and how does that comport with its commitment to democracy elsewhere?

Ambassador Rice. Well the United States has been very clear in condemning the coup. We have imposed sanctions on those who have committed the coup, and now Guinea Bissau's assistance is suspended pursuant to U.S. law. Our position on this and other situations where a government is overthrow by force is that that is completely unacceptable. We've said as a Council that there could potentially be consequences, including potentially sanctions on the coup regime. So, we're going to continue in partnership with others to increase the pressure on the regime and work toward the swiftest possible restoration of a democratic government.

Ambassador Susan Rice gave the following remarks at the UN Security Council

Ambassador Rice. Good afternoon. I will just briefly summarize the main points that we made in our discussion. We certainly agree with Kofi Annan that this is a moment where we have reached, in effect, the tipping point, with the events over the weekend being the most recent manifestation of that reality. I think we may be beginning to see the wheels coming off of this bus. And that means that what happens next and the steps that are taken by the Syrian authorities and by this Council could well be dispositive.

The reality is—as I said in our discussion—it's hard to see that there are any more than three potential outcomes at this stage. The political process—which is so crucial to the success of any transition, which is the purpose of the Annan plan—is thwarted by the ongoing, escalating, expanding violence perpetrated by the government and the reality that the opposition cannot possibly be expected to come to the table while the violence is intensifying, escalating, and the government is lying about it. So those three outcomes are as follows. The first and best outcome would be for the government of Syria to finally and immediately implement its commitments under the Annan plan as it's obliged to do under UN Security Council resolutions. That is what Kofi Annan is pressing for, and that is the surest and best way for this to get back on track and for there to be still a live prospect of a political solution. At this point, however, that does not seem to be a high probability scenario.

The second scenario would be—in the absence of that happening very quickly, that the government fulfills its commitments—would be for this Council to assume its responsibilities and to put additional pressure on the Syrian authorities to meet its commitments. And that pressure could include sanctions of the sort that have been alluded to and discussed, and we were among those that raised that possibility.

Now, in either of those first two scenarios, the Annan plan survives, the unity of the Council is preserved, and there is a path forward aimed at putting the political process on track.

In the absence of either of those two scenarios, there seems to me to be only one other alternative, and that is indeed the worst case, which seems unfortunately at the present to be the most probable. And that is that the violence escalates, the conflict spreads and intensifies, it reaches a higher degree of severity, it involves countries in the region, it takes on increasingly sectarian forms, and we have a major crisis not only in Syria but in the region. The Council's unity is exploded, the Annan plan is dead, and this becomes a proxy conflict with arms flowing in from all sides. And members of this Council and members of the international community are left with the option only of having to consider whether they're prepared to take actions outside of the Annan plan and the authority of this Council.

That scenario obviously is the one we all have sought to avoid through support for the Annan plan. The decision rests, in the first instance, with the Syrian government, whether it will fulfill its commitments. And if it does, then the opposition has an obligation to reciprocate. If it doesn't, this Council has a responsibility to act and act swiftly and surely. And if we don't, then we are all resigning ourselves to a third scenario, which we still hope to avoid and that is why we continue to support the Annan plan. And that is why we are continuing to work with colleagues in the Council on a collective way forward.

I'll take a couple questions.

Q. Thank you very much Ambassador. On the Houla massacre, there is evidence that keeps coming out from the eyewitnesses, from General Mood. Is there enough evidence to point to the Syrian militia—the pro-Syrian militias—acting on behalf of the Asad regime in your mind or in the Council?

Ambassador Rice. Certainly from the U.S. point of view, we think that this is not ambiguous. There were massacres committed at close range of over a hundred people, the vast majority of them women and children. Some killed by heavy weapons, the others killed, it seems by every indication, by the shabiha militias acting on behalf of the government. We think it's quite clear cut, and we think there needs to be justice and accountability for those who committed these atrocities. And we think the information needs to be gathered so that those individuals can be held accountable.

Q. Was there any country that immediately dismissed the idea of sanctions or do you see an opening for discussion there? And also on the monitors, are you willing to—are you still reconsidering or considering whether or not to approve them again when it comes up for renewal?

Ambassador Rice. Well, with respect to sanctions, I think it's still fair to say that there are differences of views as to the timeliness and appropriateness of sanctions in the Council. I think there's no doubt that there are some who expressed great skepticism and some who said it's past time. So, that discussion continues, but I think it will continue not only here in New York but in capitals and in other contexts because the Syrian government has made commitments. It has blatantly violated those commitments. And I think it's quite clear, as we've said for many weeks, if they continued to do so, there should be consequences. And that's what we're up against. Let me just finish and answer the other question. [inaudible] Well, pick. I'm answering. You're asking. So take your pick.

Q. Yesterday [inaudible] said that Iran had a role in the Houla massacre. I was wondering if you could expand on that.

Ambassador Rice. I can't expand on that. But what I can say is that Iran by own admission has bragged about its arming of the forces—the Syrian government forces and its own involvement inside of Syria. So I think they're saying it publically themselves. That's been our understanding for quite some while, so whether, specific to who or more broadly, they are very much complicit in the killing that is going on. Your question, your second question?

Q. The monitors next month?

Ambassador Rice. We've been very clear that—and I said as we voted for the resolution that established UNSMIS that—our readiness to renew the mission will be a function of whether—how we deem its effectiveness, and I reiterated that in the Council. I think there has been some important contributions that UNSMIS has made, not least to bring to public light with objectivity what happened in Houla and in other places. On the other hand, there remain limitations on and impediments to the fully effective operation of UNSMIS, and those are things that continue to concern us. But we will look at all sides of this coin, and we've asked the Secretariat to do so. Should it be augmented? Should it be downsized? Should it be shifted in some way? Should it should it be renewed? All of these are important questions. And we want a fact-based assessment of what would be best, and we will make our decisions accordingly. Let me let my colleagues [inaudible].

Secretary Hillary Clinton and Foreign Minister Villy Sovndal gave the following remarks in Copenhagen, Denmark

Q. Thank you. Madam Secretary, as you have stated, Denmark has played an important role in different missions around the world—in Iraq, Afghanistan, and recently in Libya. Right now, the situation in Syria is on top of the agenda. If—and that's my question—if an international coalition could—can be formed, could you then see Denmark take play in such a coalition?

Secretary Clinton. Well, I think we have to take stock of where we are and what is possible. I see Denmark as a contributor to any mission anywhere be it security, be it development, be it humanitarian, because the track record of Danish participation is exemplary. So of course, if there were such an international coalition to do anything to try to alleviate the suffering of the Syrian people, we would certainly reach out as broadly as possible and be consulting closely with the Danish Government.

Right now, we continue to support Kofi Annan and his efforts. And we do so fully aware that thus far Assad has not implemented any of the six points that are part of the Kofi Annan plan. But we also know that the UN observers have performed two important functions. In many of the areas where they are present, violence has gone down. And they serve as independent observers—the eyes of the world, if you will—in reporting back when terrible events like the recent massacres occur to try to cut through the clutter and disinformation coming from the Syrian Government.

We're also aware that there is still a fear among many elements of the Syrian society and the Syrian Government that as bad as the Assad regime is, it could get worse. And we therefore continue to call upon the business leadership, the religious leadership, the military leadership, those voices within the government that know what is going on is leading to the very outcome they fear most, which is a sectarian civil war, to stand up now and call a halt to further support for this regime.

So we're nowhere near putting together any kind of coalition other than to alleviate the suffering, which we are all contributing to, but we are working very hard to focus the efforts of those, who like Denmark and the United States, are appalled by what we see going on, to perhaps win over those who still support the regime inside and outside of Syria to see what options are available to us.

Q. Jim Mannion from Agence France Presse. Madam Secretary, again on Syria, at this point with the Russians refusing a budge on Syria and with the country appearing to tip towards civil war, is it now a live option to move beyond the requirement of an explicit UN mandate to some sort of action outside of the UN? Is that something the U.S. is considering? Is that a possibility at this point?

Secretary Clinton. Jim, we consider all contingencies at all time. I mean, we plan against everything in order to be prepared in the event that action is called for. But I can tell you that right now, we are focused on supporting Kofi Annan, reaching out both inside and outside of Syria, bringing together those who are most directly affected, particularly in the region. In the last several days, I've had numerous conversations—I will have many more over the next few days—with particular attention paid on—to the Russians. Because the Russians keep telling us they want to do everything they can to avoid a civil war because they believe that the violence would be catastrophic. They often, in their conversations with me, liken it to the equivalent of a very large Lebanese civil war, and they are just vociferous in their claim that they are providing a stabilizing influence.

I reject that. I think they are, in effect, propping up the regime at a time when we should be working on a political transition. So I look forward to working with Kofi Annan, with likeminded nations like Denmark and many others, and with the Russians to see if we can't get a way forward.

Secretary Hillary Clinton and Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Stoere gave the following remarks in Oslo, Norway

Q. Secretary Clinton, Vladimir Putin, the president of Russia, just said in Berlin that Russia does not support any side in the Syrian conflict. And he added that they do not supply weapons to parts in the civil war. What are your comments to that?

Secretary Clinton. Well, I heard that President Putin had made those comments. And of course, we are looking forward to finding a way to work with Russia to end the violence and support Kofi Annan's six-point plan. Up until now, as you know, there has not been support for the kind of political transition that is necessary under the Annan plan. We, of course, discussed that between the foreign minister and myself, and we commend Norwegian General Robert Mood, who has brought strong leadership to the UN monitoring mission. But we recognize what a dangerous and difficult mission he and the observers have been given.

So I repeat the appeal that I have made to Russia because their position of claiming not to take a position is certainly viewed in the Security Council, in Damascus, and elsewhere as a position supporting the continuity of the Assad regime. And if Russia is prepared, as President Putin's remarks seems to suggest, to work with the international community to come together to plan a political transition, we will certainly be ready to cooperate.

With respect to arms, we know that there has been a very consistent arms trade, even during this last year of violence in Syria, coming from Russia to Syria. We also believe that the continuing supply of arms from Russia has strengthened the Assad regime. What those arms are being used for, we cannot speak with any accuracy, but the fact that Russia has continued to sustain this trade in the face of efforts by the international community to impose sanctions and to prevent further arms flowing to the Assad regime and in particular the Syrian military has raised serious concerns on our part.

And we will be discussing this further between us. I will be—I talked with Kofi Annan two days ago. I will be speaking with my Russian counterpart. I will be meeting in Istanbul toward the end of next week with representatives of a lot of the regional countries that are deeply concerned about what's happening. So if Russia is prepared to help us implement all of the six parts of Kofi Annan's plan, we are prepared to work with them to do so.

Secretary Hillary Clinton, Prime Minister Frederik Reinfeldt, and Foreign Minister Carl Bildt gave the following remarks in Stockholm, Sweden

Q. Madam Secretary, firstly, how do you see the possibilities of a United Security Council and harsher actions in Syria? And secondly, will you—and how could you—contribute to the reelection campaign of President Obama?

Secretary Clinton. Well, I have to say the second question is easy for me. I am obviously a very strong supporter, and will continue to be. I believe that the President will be and deserves to be re-elected. But in my current position I cannot participate in electoral politics. So I am unable to do more than cast my vote as a citizen and stand very strongly on behalf of the values that the President represents.

With Syria, I think that it's important to ensure that we have a unified voice in the international community. We certainly have done that in order to increase pressure on Assad, including going back to the UN Security Council, seeking further action, including a Chapter VII resolution. I will be meeting in Istanbul on Wednesday night with a number of the countries in the region that are particularly anxious about what is happening in Syria, fearful that we could see a full-fledged civil war with consequences that would bring in the rest of the region in ways that could be quite dangerous and are certainly unpredictable.

I will also continue my outreach and work with the Russians. I have spoken in the last 48, 72 hours with both Kofi Annan and with Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. My message to the Foreign Minister was very simple and straightforward: We all have to intensify our efforts to achieve a political transition, and Russia has to be at the table helping that to occur. The Syrian people want and deserve change, and that should, insofar as possible, come about through peaceful means. And it must be change that represents the rights and dignity of all Syrians, Sunnis, Alawites, Druze, Kurds, Christians, women, all tribes. Every single Syrian, whether they are in the majority or the minority, should be reassured that they have a better future through a democratic process that could lead to them being able to, in effect, govern themselves for the first time.

So, we have to intensify our support on the Annan Plan. And I know that Sweden is certainly doing its part, and we will do everything we can.

Q. Yes, thank you. Madam Secretary, just on your conversation with Minister Lavrov yesterday, while your message is clear, I wanted to ask you if you were able to secure a commitment from him to work together specifically on the political transition, and one that would see Assad leave power. Thank you.

Secretary Clinton. Well, in my conversation with him, I made it very clear that there would be no point to any meeting unless it included all elements of Kofi Annan's plan, and that certainly means we have to focus on a path forward for a political transition.

Assad's departure does not have to be a precondition, but it should be an outcome so that the people of Syria have a chance to express themselves. In my conversations with Foreign Minister Lavrov he himself has referred to the Yemen example. And it took a lot of time and effort with a number of countries who were involved at the table, working to achieve a political transition. And we would like to see the same occur in Syria.

Secretary Tim Geithner gave the following remarks before the Friends of the Syrian People

Secretary Geithner. Thank you to our co-chairs, the Government of Qatar and the Government of Turkey—both leaders in the international community's response to the crisis in Syria.

This is the second meeting of the Friends of the Syrian People International Working Group on sanctions.

More than 55 nations are represented here today—united in our condemnation of the Assad regime's brutality.

United in our support for the aspirations of the Syrian people.

Together we seek to hasten a political change that puts an end to 15 months of violence.

We gather in the shadow of a massacre.

Nothing we say can adequately respond to such an event.

Nor can sanctions alone bring about the change we seek.

But sanctions can play an important role.

Strong sanctions, effectively implemented, aggressively enforced, can help deprive the Syrian regime of the resources it needs to sustain itself and to continue its repression of the Syrian people.

Strong sanctions make clear to the Syrian business community and other supporters of the regime that their future is bleak so long as the Assad regime remains in power.

And strong sanctions can help hasten the day the Assad regime relinquishes power.

So we commend the actions of the Arab League to adopt, for the first time in its history, a strong set of economic sanctions.

We commend the actions of Turkey, whose sanctions are of critical importance, given its position as an immediate neighbor.

We are pleased that the Government of Qatar also took action against Syria International Islamic Bank last week.

And we welcome the expansive sanctions adopted by the European Union and by so many other partners.

Now, to those nations that have not yet adopted formal sanctions against the Syrian regime and its supporters, we urge you to move quickly to do so.

We see no justification for allowing senior members of the Assad regime to have the benefit of accessing the global financial system.

We see no justification for allowing unauthorized funds to flow to the Central Bank of Syria, the Commercial Bank of Syria, or any other financial institution that acts on behalf of this regime.

We see no justification for allowing individuals who provide financial support to the regime to be allowed to use foreign banks.

We see no justification for purchasing Syrian oil. Or for allowing financial institutions in any jurisdiction, or ships flagged in any nation, to facilitate the sale, the insurance, or the transport of Syrian oil.

And there can, of course, be no justification for facilitating the sale of arms to the Assad regime.

Our collective financial sanctions are not intended to target the people of Syria.

The greatest threat to the well-being of the Syrian people is the regime in power there today.

And the longer this regime remains in power, the more the Syrian people will suffer.

The longer Assad's brutality persists, the greater the likelihood of further bloodshed and the greater the risk to a fragile region that is important to the world.

We, the United States, hope that all responsible countries will soon join in taking appropriate economic actions against the Syrian regime, including, if necessary, Chapter 7 action in the UN Security Council, as called for by the Arab League last weekend.

Absent meaningful compliance by the regime with the Annan plan, that is the direction in which we are soon headed.

But in the meantime, we gather here as Friends of the Syrian People.

And as Friends of the Syrian People, our task is to impose maximum financial pressure on the Assad regime and its supporters, as quickly as we can and as effectively as we can, to stop their violence and to yield to conscience and to peaceful political change.

Thank you.

If we are successful, we will help usher in an era of greater prosperity for people in both countries–and, in fact, we will help lead the entire world to a more prosperous place.

Ambassador Susan Rice gave the following remarks at the UN Security Council

Ambassador Rice. Good evening. You've heard from a number of colleagues. And you'll hear from more, so let me be brief and say that we had what was a very candid and forthright discussion in which we heard from all of the gentlemen that were here before us—the Secretary-General of the Arab League, Joint Special Envoy Annan, and Secretary-General Ban—that this initiative we have all supported, the Annan plan, is nearing a critical point. And indeed it is not succeeding because the government of Syria is not fulfilling is obligations under the Annan plan. And we had a very sober and very objective assessment of the circumstances on the ground and the reasons for that failure.

But what was most notable is that all three in essence said to the Security Council that for Council unity to be maintained—for there to be an enduring potential for a political resolution to this crisis as opposed to full-scale conflict—that the Council needed to come together and apply pressure and impose consequences for the non-compliance of the Syrian regime. That was an important, unified message that we have to take on board. It happens also, as you know, to be consistent with what the United States and other members of the Council have now been saying for some while. And so it will undoubtedly inform our considerations and deliberations going forward. Mindful of my colleagues waiting, I'll take two questions.

Q. Madame Ambassador, Mr. Kofi Annan was asked about the participation of Iran—the possible participation in any contact group—and he said Iran is an important country in the region and he hopes it will be part of the solution. Does the United States think that Iran can be part of that contact group and part of the solution?

Ambassador Rice. Well, I think Iran is part of the problem in Syria at the present. There is no question that it is actively engaged in supporting the government in perpetrating the violence on the ground. Now, were it to stop, obviously that would be significant. But it hasn't shown any propensity to stop, and it continues to be actively engaged. So we think Iran has not demonstrated to date a readiness to contribute constructively to a peaceful political solution.

Q. Iran—Iran is excluded. You say they're playing a destructive role. Wouldn't they play—be the spoiler if you left them out of the talks and you didn't take their interests and the fact that they're a stakeholder in mind? Wouldn't that induce them to play the spoiler and to continue to play a destructive role?

Ambassador Rice. They are playing the role of the spoiler.

Q. But if you bring them in…

Ambassador Rice. Let me say this. As you heard from others, this is a very nascent idea. It is just being considered in capitals for the first time. I think there are many aspects of it—much more significant, frankly, than its composition—that need to be considered before it is embraced. For example, you can have all kinds of meetings and all kinds of conferences, and there are no shortage of those. But unless it occurs in a context where the violence is ended and where the government adheres to its obligations, then there's very little that can be done to launch a political process which is the purpose of the suggested contact group. So before we get into the size and the configuration of the table, let's be clear about whether the circumstances are ripe. The purpose has to be to fully support the Six-Point Plan, and for that to be viable, the principal protagonist, the perpetrator of the violence, the government has to indicate its readiness to actually adhere to its commitments under the Six-Point Plan and that's been lacking to date. Thank you.

Secretary Hillary Clinton gave the following remarks in Washington, DC

Secretary Clinton. I spoke with Turkish Foreign Minister Davutoglu yesterday to convey our grave concern about the downing of a Turkish F-4 fighter jet by Syrian forces on June 22. I also told him that our thoughts and prayers are with the missing pilots and their loved ones. The Foreign Minister briefed me on the specifics of the incident, including that the Syrian military shot its plane down without warning. The United States condemns this brazen and unacceptable act in the strongest possible terms. It is yet another reflection of the Syrian authorities' callous disregard for international norms, human life, and peace and security.

The United States reaffirms its strong support for the Turkish Government and its solidarity with the Turkish people in the wake of this incident. We will maintain close contact with Turkish officials as they continue to investigate the incident and determine Turkey's response, including in the Security Council. We will work with Turkey and other partners to hold the Assad regime accountable.

Turkey has been a leader in the international community's effort to address the Syrian regime's violence against its own people. We will continue our close cooperation with Turkey as part of our broader efforts to promote a democratic transition in Syria. This work is urgent, and we will be consulting in New York with the Security Council, in Brussels with NATO and the EU, and in Geneva with Special Envoy Kofi Annan on next steps.

Secretary Hillary Clinton gave the following remarks in Helsinki, Finland

Q. Madam Secretary, in anticipation of a meeting in Geneva on Saturday about Syria and anticipating that one could be announced in the next hour or so, could you tell us what you would expect to be the result of such a meeting? And by that I mean how detailed should the action group get in the plan, in the transition plan? Does it—should it specifically say that Assad should go? Should it specifically say what members of his government now should remain in an interim power-sharing or unity administration? Thank you.

Secretary Clinton. Well, Matt, as you know, I've been in close consultation with Special Envoy Kofi Annan about the prospects for a meeting that would focus on a roadmap for political transition in Syria. I've spoken with him three times in the last 24 hours. And I understand he will be speaking publicly on this subject shortly, so I don't want to get ahead of him. He is the person who is managing this process.

But I will say that he has developed his own very concrete roadmap for political transition. He's been circulating it for comments. And when I spoke to him yesterday, I conveyed our support for the plan that he has put forward. We believe it embodies the principles needed for any political transition in Syria that could lead to a peaceful, democratic, and representative outcome reflecting the will of the Syrian people. If we can meet on the basis of that roadmap, with everyone agreeing before we arrive in Geneva that this will be the document we are endorsing by our presence, then I think a meeting makes a lot of sense. And we support it, but we want to ensure that any country that participates firmly supports the Envoy's transition plan and his original six-point plan.

So we are looking forward to hearing a report about his consultations with those whom he intends to invite. I'm keeping my calendar open for a meeting with a great hope that this perhaps can be a turning point in the very tragic circumstances affecting the Syrian people at this time, and that the international community can get behind a plan that will lead to a better future for them.

Q. Madam Secretary, back to Syria. You said that you hope for a turning point for the better to take place, but it seems to me that the turning point has already taken place this morning when President Assad declared that he's at war and gave orders to destroy his opponents. How does this change the configuration of the international community?

Secretary Clinton. Well, he has been making statements similar to that for quite some time, and he certainly has been taking actions aimed at terrorizing the people of Syria, and in particular, any areas that evidence opposition to his reign. So it may be a more dramatic statement, but it is in line with what we have heard from him now, unfortunately, for some time.

However, he has relied on the support of Russia and China in the Security Council to prevent the international community from taking unified action. If Kofi Annan is able to lay down a political transition roadmap, which is what he intends to do, that is endorsed by countries including Russia and China, for example, that sends a very different message. That's the first time that the international community will really evidence a direction that I think Assad will have to respond to.

Now, we'll wait. We'll see. As I said, I don't want to get ahead of him—Kofi Annan—but I think if he's able to pull off such a meeting, and if he's able to get people there who, up until now, have either been on the sidelines or actively supporting and protecting the Assad regime, then that gives heart to the opposition. It also disheartens a lot of the regime insiders. Just look; in the last week, we've had the defection, along with his plane, of an officer in their air force to Jordan, and a very large defection of military officers, high-ranking generals, and others with their families into Turkey.

So this is a constant effort to put enough pressure on the regime and those around them that you'll begin to see cracks in that regime's unity, which then is the step necessary to get them into a discussion about political transition. So painful, tragic, dangerous, difficult—we know that. But we are moving with as much deliberation and speed as we can, given the circumstances.

Thank you.