— Domani Spero
[twitter-follow screen_name=’Diplopundit’ ]
Updated 11/14/14: We were told by an official source a couple days ago that no public statement was released since this is not a “new” ordered departure (OD) but phase two of original OD order. According to regs, once the Under Secretary of State for Management (“M”) approves the evacuation status for post—either authorized or ordered—the 180-day clock “begins ticking” (by law, an evacuation cannot last longer than 180 days).
* * *
It looks like the U.S. Embassy is on ordered departure once again. Most recently, the embassy underwent a reduction of personnel in September 2014 (see U.S. Embassy Yemen Now on Evacuation … No, on Temporary Reduction of Staff Status).
— Nabil Abi Saab (@NabilAbiSaab) November 7, 2014
AQAP continues escalation of attacks in Yemen, targets US ambassador: Despite a Nov. 7 announcement that a new… http://t.co/wbygsBEsHl
— The Long War Journal (@LongWarJournal) November 10, 2014
— Zaid Benjamin (@zaidbenjamin) November 8, 2014
We’ve been unable to find the formal statement from state.gov or the US Embassy Sanaa website. Below is the official spox talking about this further reduction of personnel from the Daily Press Briefing of November 10:
QUESTION: There were suggestions that ISIL had laid some bombs or planned to attack the embassy in Sana’a. Obviously, that attack didn’t go ahead, I guess, because we would have heard of it by now. But is that something that you’re aware of? Do you know the details of that?
MS. PSAKI: I don’t have specific details on that. I will say – and we put this out earlier today – that in response to changing security – the changing security situation in Yemen, we have further reduced our American personnel working in Yemen. And this ordered departure refers solely to the reduction in staff numbers due to unstable conditions in the host country. Obviously, we’ve all been watching what’s been happening on the ground there, but I don’t believe it was related to a specific threat.
QUESTION: If you’re reducing the staffing, you’d already reduced it once. Who was left to reduce? Who does it – who does this order cover?
MS. PSAKI: Well, for – let me be clear on one thing we – before I get to that point. We are operating on – we reduced it and then we returned staff.
MS. PSAKI: So we’re operating with reduced staffing until conditions warrant a return, but we still – our consular services are continuing to run, the embassy’s continuing to operate normally, and even consular services have not been affected by implementation of ordered departure.
QUESTION: So it remains open?
MS. PSAKI: Yes.
QUESTION: It is open?
MS. PSAKI: Yes.
QUESTION: Today —
QUESTION: And I wondered if I could ask also about – the U.S. Treasury unveiled some kind of sanctions against former President Saleh and two commanders from the Houthi.
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: Is that in response to the UN resolution or the UN move that was brought in on Friday? Or is it something that’s separate?
MS. PSAKI: It was, as you know, as a member country of the UN Security Council when they put in place sanctions. And obviously, as a member country, we would do that as well. So the Treasury release, which outlines the specifics of it, of course, makes clear that the action was taken in conjunction with the unanimous UN Security Council action that happened on Friday.
QUESTION: What practical effect will it have on —
MS. PSAKI: Well —
QUESTION: I mean, do they have assets in the United States?
MS. PSAKI: As you know, we don’t typically assess that in a public manner. I can go back to Treasury and see if there’s more. But it means that all assets of those designated that are located in the United States or in control of U.S. persons are frozen and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them. But the fact that this was a UN Security Council resolution and these were names, of course, that were approved, means other member countries would likely be implementing this as well. So it’s not just the United States.
QUESTION: What was it that prompted this action particularly?
MS. PSAKI: Well, we’d long, I think, in the UN Security Council resolution – or I should say information they put out, they made clear that this was about individuals who were undermining the political process in Yemen, obstructing the implementation of its political transition as outlined by agreements from November of 2011. So there had been the UN Security Council Resolution 2140 that had been passed to allow for this, and this was just that names were added to that list.
QUESTION: But that – that information that came out on Friday from the – at the UN was pretty specific and quite damning in suggesting that ex-President Saleh conspired with AQAP. Is that – I’m presuming, but I want to make sure, that that is the view of the entire Administration that this guy who Secretary Clinton went and met in Sana’a is actually actively conspiring with one of your – one of the top al-Qaida affiliates.
MS. PSAKI: Well, Matt, I think if we look at the last couple of months in Yemen, we’re talking about specific actions that were taken by those who were designated over the course of that time that have prohibited the implementation of some of these transitions that had been approved some time ago. So we’re talking about recent actions, not actions from a couple of years ago.
QUESTION: Any reaction to the formation of the new government?
MS. PSAKI: Sure, sure. We welcome the formation of a new cabinet in Yemen and commend the efforts of President Hadi, Prime Minister Baha, the country’s political leadership, and Yemen’s diverse communities to come together to form an inclusive government that can better meet the aspirations of the Yemeni people. We remain fully committed – firmly committed to supporting all Yemenis as they work to implement the September 21st Peace and National Partnership Agreement, the National Dialogue outcomes, and the Gulf Cooperation Council Initiative, which collectively form the foundation for a peaceful and prosperous Yemen.
QUESTION: Just to follow up on Yemen —
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: — I think the Treasury also calls Saleh one of the bigger advocates of violence and so on. But let me ask you, since this – the agreement that saw the transition way back then was brokered by the GC – yeah, the Gulf Cooperation Council, GCC – do you expect them also to impose the same kind of sanctions on Saleh?
MS. PSAKI: Well, obviously, individual countries make their decisions, but typically member countries of the UN will follow the UN Security Council resolution.
QUESTION: Because he has – I mean, he has investments and so on in all of these countries and personal loss of money and so on. So this – it’s an area where it can actually have a real bite.
MS. PSAKI: Well, that is the impact of sanctions and why they’re serious when they come from the Security Council.
* * *