U.S. Department of State's Blog, page 10

Daily Press Briefings : Daily Press Briefing - November 1, 2016

John Kirby

Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC

November 1, 2016









Index for Today's Briefing

DEPARTMENT



SECRETARY TRAVEL



IRAQ



ASIA PACIFIC REGION



SECRETARY TRAVEL



PHILIPPINES



LEBANON



PHILIPPINES



SYRIA/RUSSIA



YEMEN/SAUDI ARABIA



PAKISTAN




TRANSCRIPT:

1:37 p.m. EDT

MR KIRBY: Afternoon, guys.

QUESTION: Hello.

MR KIRBY: I have no opening statement today, so we’ll get right to it. Matt.

QUESTION: I don’t have a lot either, but I do need to ask again, just to check to make sure it’s still the same, that still, as far as you know, there hasn’t been any contact, or you haven’t gotten any contact from the FBI regarding --

MR KIRBY: Correct.

QUESTION: -- these emails. Okay.

MR KIRBY: Correct.

QUESTION: All right.

QUESTION: I have a follow-up.

MR KIRBY: On that?

QUESTION: Not with that.

MR KIRBY: How can you follow up on that one?

QUESTION: I’m not. (Laughter.)

MR KIRBY: All right. Go ahead.

QUESTION: I have a follow-up question to something else. Today on the public schedule the Secretary is in New York --

MR KIRBY: Right.

QUESTION: -- meeting on Asia Pacific issues. Can you expand on that? What is he doing? Who is he meeting?

MR KIRBY: I think we’ll have – there’ll be a readout of the discussion later today. So I don’t have a lot of detail right now for you, but he is up in New York meeting with some counterparts on Asia Pacific issues, as I think we outlined in the public schedule. And I think we’ll just wait till later when we have a readout to provide you to --

QUESTION: Is he meeting people from the UN?

MR KIRBY: Again, I think I’d – I’d let the counterparts he’s meeting with speak for themselves and their attendance. I just don’t have much more detail than that right now.

QUESTION: Is it this afternoon?

MR KIRBY: The meeting – actually, meetings – started this morning. They’ll stretch into the afternoon. And again, I think when everything’s complete, there’ll be a readout of it. Okay?

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: Can we go to Iraq?

MR KIRBY: Sure.

QUESTION: Okay. Can you update us on Mosul? It seems that the Iraqi army has made its first foray into Mosul proper, the city.

MR KIRBY: I don’t know that for a fact, Said. I have seen some press reporting to that effect. I am leery, as you know, to get into battlefield updates here. But what I can tell you from what I have learned outside of press reporting is that they are making progress, that their campaign is actually ahead of schedule, and they continue to prosecute the fight against Daesh in and outside Aleppo. But exactly where they are, as you and I speak, I truly don’t know the answer to that.

QUESTION: Now, it’s a little blurry in terms of, let’s say, coalition and aerial bombardment, as far it is concerned. Can you tell us anything – is the U.S. involved in – at least in the battle in terms of, let’s say, fighter jets and so on? Is there participation?

MR KIRBY: That is a better question put to my Defense Department colleagues. I don’t have the order of battle in front of me or what specific air support the Iraqis are getting. It is – I mean, it is a fact that coalition air support has assisted the Iraqi Security Forces on the ground for many, many months, and that the coalition air power was always intended to be part and parcel of the Mosul operation. But exactly what that entails on a day-to-day basis, I just don’t have that information.

QUESTION: Because I just want to follow up on our thing yesterday, as far as air support and the civilian population and so on.

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: And you indicated that it is very precise and so on. But how do you – what kind of reports are you getting in terms of civilian casualties, whether by coalition air power or whether by the Iraqi army, or in – or by Daesh, for instance? So what kind of reports on civilian casualties are you having?

MR KIRBY: I’m not aware that we’ve received any reports or credible allegations of civilian casualties caused by Iraqi Security Forces or the coalition thus far in the campaign. Again, I would encourage you to speak to my colleagues at the Pentagon. They track those things, as they should, more closely than we do here at the State Department. I’m not aware of any allegations of civilian casualties.

And I would say, as I said yesterday, we – we, the United States military in particular – takes extreme care and precautions against trying to – against causing damage to civilian infrastructure or civilians in general. And when we think we’ve done it, we investigate it. And when we know we’ve done it, we own up to that. We put a press release out after the investigation is over. And if people need to be held to account for that, well, we hold them to account. And that makes – that – we hold ourselves to a pretty high standard – and a higher standard, I might add, than virtually any other military in the world. So I guess I just don’t know if there’s been any reports.

QUESTION: John, if I may, can we go back to Asia Pacific issues?

MR KIRBY: Sure.

QUESTION: Malaysia and China have signed today a kind of defense pact. What’s your take on this? Is it bad news for the rebalance and pivot policy of the U.S. toward the Asia Pacific?

MR KIRBY: Well, I’d let those countries talk to their arrangements. Those are sovereign decisions that nations enter into. But as I said yesterday, we’ve long maintained that we believe it’s in our interest to have our – to have other nations in the Asia Pacific region have productive, meaningful, bilateral relationships. This is not a zero-sum game for us. So again, as I said yesterday, for Malaysia and China to enter into some kind of agreement, whether it’s on paper or not, whether it’s just better bilateral relations, that’s all to the good in terms of regional security and stability, in our view.

QUESTION: But Thailand used to be a very close ally to the U.S., Malaysia also, the Philippines also is one of your closest --

MR KIRBY: The Philippines still are.

QUESTION: Yeah, it still – it still is one of your closest ally. Don’t you see any tilt from those countries toward China and drifting away from the U.S. in Southeast Asia?

MR KIRBY: Well, again, I’d let each nation speak for themselves and the diplomatic relations that they’re pursuing. We have long said two things that I think are important. One, the Asia Pacific rebalance is not about China; it’s about the region – a region that will, for the next certainly at least two decades if not longer, have an extraordinary impact on the economic life blood of globalization itself.

And so we – the whole balance, the whole rebalance, is not about posturing about – over China. It’s about more resources, more talent, more time, more energy focused on a region that is and will remain vital to our own foreign policy objectives and, frankly, to the safety and security and prosperity of so many allies and partners that we have in the region.

So other nations making sovereign decisions to have better relationships with China or any other nation, all that, if those relationships can lead to productive and peaceful resolutions of some of the tensions in the South – not the South China Sea but in the region, to include perhaps the South China Sea, again, we would welcome that. We’ve been saying that from the very beginning, that we want these tensions resolved peacefully and diplomatically. So that’s all welcome.

And this idea that people are turning away from the United States and turning to China I think is just not borne out by the facts. Everywhere we go in the Asia Pacific region it’s reiterated time and time and time again how important foreign leaders there view American presence, American economic assistance and participation and trade, as well as American leadership. So we don’t view it, again, as a binary sort of equation, and we don’t view it as a zero-sum game. The whole idea of the rebalance is to foster the kind of dialogue that you’re starting to see happening. And so again, we welcome this.

QUESTION: And I don’t want to get too conceptual here, but what do you mean it’s not borne out by the facts that countries in greater numbers in Southeast Asia are becoming friendlier with China? I mean, it is completely borne out by the facts.

MR KIRBY: Name ‘em.

QUESTION: Well, the Philippines, for one.

MR KIRBY: Okay, there’s one.

QUESTION: Well, then you just said that it wasn’t true. Thailand, perhaps. Cambodia.

MR KIRBY: Perhaps, perhaps. So – but you got one. You got one so far.

QUESTION: Laos.

MR KIRBY: You got one.

QUESTION: Laos.

MR KIRBY: You got one. Laos?

QUESTION: Laos. Cambodia. Malaysia, as we’ve just seen.

MR KIRBY: Okay. So we have two or three, four, whatever. There’s a lot of nations in the Asia Pacific region. My point is that you’re --

QUESTION: There’s only 10.

MR KIRBY: This idea that there’s some sort of --

QUESTION: There’s only 10 in ASEAN.

MR KIRBY: This idea that there’s some sort of landslide movement towards China and away from the United States is simply not borne out by the facts, especially in so many of those countries where we too have strong and improving bilateral relationships. So again, this is not – it’s not – they don’t have to be binary choices. And we don’t – we have nothing to fear from the peaceful, productive rise of China, and we have nothing to fear from nations establishing better and warmer and more productive relationships with China.

QUESTION: Okay. But that’s – that wasn’t the – that wasn’t what you were saying was not true, was not borne out by the facts. The facts are that there are a number of countries in Southeast Asia that are developing better, closer ties with China.

MR KIRBY: I don’t really – I don’t want to get into a debate over semantics.

QUESTION: Anyway, the other – okay. The --

MR KIRBY: The point is – the point I’m trying to make is that the – this idea that by – that there are several nations who are reaching out and to develop warmer relations with China – I’m not disputing that. But the notion behind that, that that is something to be feared, that that is some sort of worrisome trend, that that is something that is not in keeping with the whole idea of the rebalance, that is an inaccurate reading of it.

QUESTION: But wasn’t the rebalance though designed to keep the United States relevant in an area with tremendous potential, economic growth, which is, as you say, a huge transit spot or an area where lots of the world’s commercial trade goes through?

MR KIRBY: It wasn’t – the United States has been and will remain relevant in the Asia Pacific region.

QUESTION: Right. But wasn’t the --

MR KIRBY: The rebalance wasn’t about trying to shore up relevance. It was about recognizing where the economic future of the globe is going to reside --

QUESTION: Right.

MR KIRBY: -- or where it’s going to be deeply affected and to make sure that we were maintaining our focus on that part of the world.

QUESTION: Right.

MR KIRBY: It wasn’t about --

QUESTION: And at the --

MR KIRBY: It wasn’t about some fear that we’re losing relevance.

QUESTION: But it’s – but it was happening at the same time as China was becoming increasingly assertive, looking outward, growing. So if you – if the rebalance was to maintain, keep relevance in the region, it was happening at the same time as the Chinese were expanding their relevance, their influence in the region. I think that’s just an obvious statement of fact. It’s not a --

MR KIRBY: I’m not disputing the fact --

QUESTION: Okay.

MR KIRBY: -- that China is also --

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR KIRBY: Wait a second. I want to finish my debate here. (Laughter.) I’m not taking issue with the fact that China is also – is not also growing or developing their own set of interests and – or frankly, advancing their military capabilities, not at all. We’re not blind to that. But the rebalance wasn’t ever about one country in the region. I mean, the other thing that was --

QUESTION: No.

MR KIRBY: The other thing that’s been going on – wait. The other thing that’s been going on over the last two, three, four years is the growing provocative nature and behavior and conduct and development of nuclear weapons capabilities by North Korea. That’s been a trend as well. And the deepening of our own relationships, particularly with ASEAN nations, that has been a growing trend. I mean, I could go on and on.

QUESTION: Right.

MR KIRBY: There’s lots of trends happening in the Pacific region.

QUESTION: The point is is that when the rebalance began, back in the first term, the whole idea that Secretary Clinton was expressing at the time was that she – was that the United States, under the Bush Administration, had kind of ignored Southeast Asia. And so therefore it was the job of the Obama Administration, when it first came in, to come back and make – and show the Southeast Asian nations that the United States was still relevant, was still an important Pacific power. And all of that was happening at the same time as the Chinese were expanding. So I just don’t – I think it’s hard to make an argument that this has – that the rebalance had nothing to do with China. That’s all I’m saying.

MR KIRBY: But we’ve been making that argument since the rebalance was announced and was talked about from the very beginning, that it’s not about China. And we maintain that today.

QUESTION: All right.

QUESTION: You know four years ago there was a great deal of talk about the pivot to China and a great deal of --

MR KIRBY: The pivot to China?

QUESTION: I’m sorry, to Asia. The pivot to Asia. I take it back. The pivot to Asia.

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: And would you say that this route had been steady or you have been steady in this course in the pivot to Asia, I mean, in light of, let’s say, the PPT and other things that brought in so many countries together to your side, at least as far as trade is concerned. So would you say that it has been successful or you have been successful --

MR KIRBY: I would --

QUESTION: -- in exerting an influence on that part of the world?

MR KIRBY: I would certainly argue that we have remained committed to the rebalance in very real, tangible, practical ways.

Yes.

QUESTION: John, my question is not regarding the policy debate, just a matter of fact. Did the Secretary’s meeting this morning in New York with his counterparts or the meeting going to be in the afternoon with counterparts including those countries that were mentioned?

MR KIRBY: Again, I’m going to let, as I said – while the meetings are still ongoing anyway, I’m going to let the counterparts that he’s meeting with speak for themselves. As I noted, we expect that there’ll be a readout this afternoon. And when it’s done, we’ll make sure that we alert you to it.

QUESTION: John?

QUESTION: Can I stay in Asia? A separate – sorry.

QUESTION: No, no. Go ahead.

QUESTION: A separate question on the Philippines. Do you have anything on the congressional opposition of the planned 26,000 assault rifle sales to police national – to the Philippines national police?

MR KIRBY: Yeah. I would say a couple things on that, Nike. The United States remains strongly committed to our alliance with the Philippines. The president personally attested to that commitment to that alliance when he traveled to the Philippines a year ago to meet with President Duterte’s predecessor and to discuss strengthening and deepening that alliance.

And another note here I would throw out, while we were still on the rebalance, or while I’m at least still mentally on the rebalance, is that five of seven of our treaty alliances are in the Pacific, and that’s – those are enduring commitments that we have. This is one of them.

U.S. forces, as I think you know, have been providing support and assistance in the Philippines for many years at the request of several different Filipino administrations. At the same time, we continue to be deeply concerned by reports of extrajudicial killings by or at the behest of government authorities in the Philippines. We encourage thorough and transparent investigations into all credible reports and allegations of extrajudicial killings and we strongly urge the Philippines to ensure that its law enforcement efforts are consistent with its international human rights obligations.

Our assistance programs are designed to address human rights concerns by expanding Philippine capacity to conduct effective, lawful investigations, and professionalizing the criminal justice system so that it’s more accountable, transparent, effective, and just.

Now, to your specific question, the department is restricted under federal regulations from commenting on the status of commercial export license approvals of proposed commercial defense sales. So we’re going to stay also committed to working closely with members of Congress to deliver security assistance to our allies and partners worldwide, including the Philippines.

QUESTION: So those rifles are commercial sales? They are not government-to-government transfer?

MR KIRBY: These are governed by commercial export license approvals. They’re U.S. commercial sales. They’re not --

QUESTION: Are they --

MR KIRBY: I am prohibited by federal regulation from commenting any further on that.

Yeah.

QUESTION: You said five of seven treaty alliances are in the Asia Pacific?

MR KIRBY: Yes. I’ve been saying that for a long time.

QUESTION: Yeah.

QUESTION: John, (inaudible).

QUESTION: Is it wrong? (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Wait a second. So NATO is – so NATO counts as one?

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: Okay. So of those five that are in the Asia-Pacific, how many are in Southeast Asia?

MR KIRBY: Probably the Philippines, yeah. What’s your point?

QUESTION: Okay. Just that --

MR KIRBY: The Asia Pacific --

QUESTION: -- your only treaty ally in Southeast Asia is aligning itself with the Chinese.

MR KIRBY: Look, we’ve talked about this one now for --

QUESTION: All right.

MR KIRBY: Wait, no, no. No, don’t waive your hand and tell me not to talk.

QUESTION: I’m going to let you go. I’m --

MR KIRBY: There’s --

QUESTION: No, no, no, I’m not saying that.

MR KIRBY: There’s – Matt, we’ve talked about this one for weeks now. I mean, the security alliance that we have with the Philippines is still in effect. It’s 70 years old and it’s still in effect.

QUESTION: I’m not saying it’s not.

MR KIRBY: And while we’ve seen comments and rhetoric from President Duterte and other leaders in the Philippines, what we haven’t seen is any tangible move to break those bonds --

QUESTION: Got it.

MR KIRBY: -- or sever that relationship, and nor do we want to see that happen.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Press reports on Lebanon said that – saying that the Secretary called the new president of Lebanon and congratulated him.

MR KIRBY: He did call President Aoun this morning to congratulate him and to reaffirm our commitment to the future of a bilateral relationship with Lebanon and our desire to see – now that the Lebanese people have a chief executive – to see that Lebanon can move forward.

QUESTION: And he also called the former Prime Minister Hariri?

MR KIRBY: He did also call the former Prime Minister Hariri. But he did call President Aoun to congratulate him, yes.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Do you support the Hariri premiership?

MR KIRBY: We don’t – again, we’re not going to comment or --

QUESTION: Would you like to see --

MR KIRBY: What we --

QUESTION: Because he (inaudible) with the United States.

MR KIRBY: Again, we’re not going to involve ourselves in internal politics in Lebanon.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Just if I could add to the Philippines. This argument that the relations between the U.S. and the Philippines remains strong, it’s just getting harder and harder to believe when it’s not just the president of the Philippines publicly expressing doubt about that relationship; it’s now members of Congress seemingly expressing doubt about the relationship. So I’m just struggling to understand how you can continue to insist this same line that relations remain strong.

MR KIRBY: I can continue to insist it because we continue to believe it’s true. That doesn’t mean that there’s not going to be critics out there that have a different view in our government or their government. And it’s not going to mean that there aren’t people below President Duterte’s level that are also making comments that are of concern to us. I’m not going to whitewash the fact that some of these comments are concerning. And as I’ve said many times, they’re, in our view, strangely at odds with the relationship – relationships that we continue to have in a very tangible, practical, daily way with the Filipino people as well as Filipino institutions, including their security forces.

So we’ve seen in times where things are said and then walked back either by the individual that said them or by officials that work for those individuals. And so we’re not going to get all – to use a military term, we’re not going to get all wrapped around the axle here about every single thing that’s said. We’re focused on the long view. We’re focused on a relationship that, at least from an alliance perspective, is 70 years old and we’re looking for the next 70. And that’s where our focus is going to remain.

So I understand people have a different view, and they’re allowed to have those different views. And we certainly are not immune to the fact that there’s going to be critics of where the relationship is right now or where it may be going. I can only speak for Secretary Kerry and our view here in the Administration, and that’s that we believe strongly in this bilateral relationship. We believe very strongly in our security commitments to the Philippines, and we’re going to continue to meet them.

QUESTION: How important are those bases to the U.S.?

MR KIRBY: Well, we don’t have permanent basing in the Philippines. These are – whatever use there is – and there’s only a small number of American troops that rotate in and out of the Philippines. We don’t have permanent basing there, and it’s in small numbers. So obviously, if you’re going to have a rotational presence, you need some infrastructure to support that presence. So it’s important, clearly, but we don’t have U.S. bases in the Philippines.

QUESTION: So if you left them, it wouldn’t really change anything, really.

MR KIRBY: If we left what?

QUESTION: The bases.

MR KIRBY: Well, it would certainly --

QUESTION: If --

QUESTION: You already did that once.

MR KIRBY: I mean --

QUESTION: Exactly. That’s what I’m saying. (Laughter.)

MR KIRBY: I mean, I’m not sure I follow the --

QUESTION: Twice if you count World War II.

MR KIRBY: I’m not sure I follow the --

QUESTION: I’m just asking how important are these bases to hang onto and --

MR KIRBY: They’re not our bases that we’re hanging on to. As Matt rightly said, we don’t have military bases there anymore. We have a rotational presence of a small number of forces that are helping primarily with the counterterrorism efforts in the Philippines. We think those efforts are important not just for our own national security but for the national security of the Filipino people, and we’d like to see that presence and that CT capability persist.

But obviously, look, we’re – they’re there, as they are anywhere around the world, whether it’s permanent basing or not permanent basing, they’re there at the invitation of the host government, and we respect that. So if you’re asking me if their rotational presence were to go away, would there be an – of course there would be an impact. But we’re not there. I mean, again, as I said numerous times, there’s – for all the rhetoric, there’s been no change – no tangible, practical change – in the relationship on a day-to-day basis, to include from a security perspective.

QUESTION: John --

QUESTION: Yemen?

MR KIRBY: Samir’s been very patient. Yeah. And he got interrupted by Nike.

QUESTION: Sorry.

MR KIRBY: So go ahead.

QUESTION: No, that’s okay. Any update on --

MR KIRBY: It’s not okay with me.

QUESTION: Any update on the Geneva talks?

MR KIRBY: No.

QUESTION: The Russians are saying they going to postpone them because they are not happy.

MR KIRBY: I’ve seen Russian comments about postponing them, but I’m not sure I understand exactly what that means. The way I read it was they were speaking about political talks between the regime and the opposition. The multilateral discussions in Geneva continue. I don’t have an update to give you or any readout from today, but the teams are still at it. The discussions are still ongoing. And I think the Secretary when he was overseas over the weekend talked a little bit about the fact that there are proposals being considered. So that work continues.

Again, I think there’s been a garble in those comments, at least from my reading of it. Maybe I’m wrong, but the impression I got was that the Russian official was talking more about the regime and the opposition talks, which have obviously not resumed. We’re all mindful of that. In fact, one of the reasons why we’ve got teams in Geneva trying to get to a cessation of hostilities is so that we can – if you get that, you can get hopefully to political talks.

QUESTION: Do you have any thoughts on President Assad saying in an interview that he will remain in power until at least 2021?

MR KIRBY: I saw the comments, and all I can tell you is that we’re committed, the ISSG is committed, the UN is committed to trying to get political talks back on track so that we can get a transitional process in place. And from our view in the United States, nothing’s changed about our view that he cannot be part of the long-term future of Syria.

QUESTION: But if your understanding of what the Russian official’s comments were that basically there’s an indefinite postponement in the talk – in the political transition talks, I mean, why is it – why is it hard or impossible to accept that he’s going to be in power for another five years at least?

MR KIRBY: As I said, I don’t know that that’s exactly what they meant. That’s how I took it. But if I’m right and that’s what they were referring to, again, we wouldn’t – we don’t share the same view that there’s an indefinite postponement, and we don’t want to see Bashar al-Assad be part of the long-term future of Syria.

QUESTION: What about for the battle of Raqqa? I mean, that is imminent or looming in weeks, as was suggested by the Pentagon a week or so ago.

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: What if the battle of Raqqa – would you coordinate or work with the Syrian army, Syrian forces? Because after all, that is a Syrian town. That is a Syrian city.

MR KIRBY: Well, look, I’m not going to get ahead of military operations one way or another. I mean, one of the cardinal rules is you don’t talk about future operations. So I’m not going to go there, Said, and I’m not going to speculate about campaign plans one way or the other. And I’m certainly not going to get into timelines or anything like that. Defense officials have spoken to their views of where things are going. What I will say is simply that we recognize that Raqqa is considered, at least by Daesh, as their --

QUESTION: Their capital.

MR KIRBY: -- capital in Syria, if you will. And we know that because Raqqa holds such importance to them and because the citizens there, those that remain, are in – every day in great danger, we know that something’s going to have to be done about their presence in Raqqa, and that there are discussions inside the coalition about what that’s going to be, what that has to look like. But I just won’t get ahead of that.

QUESTION: But it is prudent to have – to marshal --

MR KIRBY: I will --

QUESTION: To marshal all forces available --

MR KIRBY: I will put a – let me – but --

QUESTION: -- to defeat Daesh, right?

MR KIRBY: Let me – but let me be clear, because I don’t want to leave any doubt that there’s no intention, there’s no plan, there’s no focus on working with the regime in any way, shape, or form with respect to the fight against Daesh in Syria. That has been the case in the past; that will be the case going forward. I want to make sure that I put a pin in that right away.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Can we go to Yemen?

MR KIRBY: Go to what?

QUESTION: Yemen.

MR KIRBY: Yemen, okay.

QUESTION: Yes. Yesterday, the UN envoy to Yemen, Ismail Ould al-Haj, during a closed meeting of the Security Council talked about that both sides need to submit good concessions and so on to have some sort of a resolution. But this peace map that he submitted was immediately rejected by the president of the country, Hadi – President Hadi. And in fact, his chief of staff said that a military solution was close or at hand, something akin to that. Do you have any comment on that?

MR KIRBY: I haven’t seen those specific comments, Said, but I’m very comfortable restating again what U.S. policy is here. And that’s that we want to see a ceasefire put in place across the country so that humanitarian aid can get – and this is something we don’t talk about much in Yemen, in terms of humanitarian assistance, but there’s desperate needs throughout the country. So we want to see a ceasefire in place, humanitarian aid delivered, and we want to see a resumption of political dialogue and talks.

And that’s what the Secretary has been very keenly focused on now for many months – working with the special envoy, as well as with the Saudi-led coalition. So I can’t really address those comments except to say – the one thing I will say about that, again having not seen those comments, is that we don’t believe that a military solution is the right solution to what’s going on in Yemen. We believe a political solution is the best approach and that’s what we want to see all parties get back to.

QUESTION: But the United States is – directly or indirectly has taken sides in this fight. I mean, they’re aiding the Saudi-led coalition and so on, providing info and satellite imagery or whatever you are providing. Could you lean on them, because they are the biggest influence or power in that war? I mean, they could influence Hadi.

MR KIRBY: First of all, I’d say we’re on the side of the Yemeni people.

QUESTION: Right.

MR KIRBY: That’s the side that we’re on and that’s why the Secretary is working so hard to get a diplomatic solution to this; to get a ceasefire in place so that there isn’t violence and people aren’t living in fear and we can get them the aid they want and we can get this solved politically and through diplomatic approaches. So we’re on the side squarely of the Yemeni people. That said, and the Secretary said this himself, the – the Saudi Government has a right to defend itself and they are under attack almost every day from across that border. They have a right to defend themselves.

Now, the third thing I would say is we have been nothing but clear and candid with Saudi Arabia, since they’re leading the coalition efforts, about the manner in which military operations are prosecuted and implemented inside Yemen. And we’ve been very open with them about our concerns over certain strikes and reports of civilian casualties. I would note that they have investigated in the past. We’ve talked about the initial results of the October 8th strike already, that they’re continuing to look at that. So I think they recognize the importance of taking a hard look at how they’re prosecuting the war effort.

We’re – we – Saudi Arabia is an ally in the region and they have a huge responsibility to their own people, they have a huge interest in combating terrorism in the region, and they are a member of the ISSG, so there is much to discuss with them. We are not bashful about expressing our concerns where and when they need to be expressed.

But again, I’d just follow back by saying the side we’re on is the side of the Yemeni people. Okay?

Okay, thanks, everybody. Goyal – I tell you, Goyal, I’ll give you the last one today. You were – I didn’t get you yesterday. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you, sir. Two questions, South Asia. One: What is going on in Pakistan now? Two things are going on. One, protest against the civilian government, and backed by the – some member of the military; and second, they are – military is killing innocent people in Karachi, among other things. So what – as far as U.S. security is concerned, is U.S. worried about these massive protests going on? Because now time has also come for the Mr. Sharif. The military chief must or should be resigning or – I mean, he will be replaced by a new military chief. Some believe maybe he may not leave and military may take over.

MR KIRBY: Well, look, I mean, the specific decisions about who leads the military in Pakistan are for – that’s for the Pakistani Government to decide as – those are sovereign decisions that I’m not going to comment on. Obviously, we’re aware of the reports about protest activity, bans on protest activity, decisions to protest or not to protest. Again, those are questions that are better answered by Pakistani authorities.

More broadly – and I’ve said this many times – the United States will continue to support freedom of assembly and freedom of expression. It’s well documented that we do that. We talk about it every day, including the right of peaceful protest. So we want these rights to be exercised responsibly, and all parties should refrain from violence and exercise restraint and respect the rule of law.

Okay, thanks, everybody.

QUESTION: Then can I just --

MR KIRBY: Thank you very much.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:10 p.m.)

 



 

The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department.
External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.

Daily Press Briefings : Daily Press Briefing - October 28, 2016

Mark C. Toner

Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC

October 28, 2016









Index for Today's Briefing

DEPARTMENT



SYRIA/RUSSIA



TURKEY



BURMA



PHILIPPINES



PHILIPPINES/CHINA



MIDDLE EAST PEACE



KENYA



PAKISTAN/COUNTERTERRORISM



YEMEN/SAUDI ARABIA



UNITED NATIONS



BAHRAIN



IRAQ




TRANSCRIPT:

1:36 p.m. EDT

MR TONER: Wow. A Friday at the State Department. Hey, guys. Welcome.

QUESTION: Hello.

MR TONER: We have four White House Fellows in the back; they’re going to be disappointed at the turnout here. (Laughter.)

Welcome to the State Department. I have nothing at the top, so I turn it over to you.

QUESTION: You don’t have anything? Really?

MR TONER: No, but I can guess at what your first question’s going to be. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Yeah, I would think so. So as you know, the FBI director has just informed Congress that they’re – they’ve found new emails that are pertinent to the – their investigation --

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: -- into Secretary Clinton’s server. What do you guys know about it? Do these – do these emails relate to while she was secretary of state? What do you know? Have you been asked to cooperate? Will you cooperate? And --

MR TONER: Yeah, sure. First, what do we know? Not much more than you know – in fact, about the same. We just learned about this when we saw news reports of the letter. So at this point I’d have to refer you to the FBI for any more details about what emails they may be looking at, what they’re looking for – any more details at all. We just don’t know anything about the scope of this new – I’m not even sure it’s an investigation, but this effort to look at additional emails. And we don’t know if these emails pertain to her time while she was at the State Department. We just don’t have any more information at this time.

Your second question was --

QUESTION: Well, I mean, you said that you just --

MR TONER: Was have we been asked to cooperate.

QUESTION: You just – you say that you just learned about it from the letter that he --

MR TONER: No, I – well, I mean, whatever they’re reporting, the --

QUESTION: But that’s a letter to Congress.

MR TONER: Correct.

QUESTION: Has the State Department gotten a letter as well, telling it that --

MR TONER: As far as I know, we’ve not been informed about this, no.

QUESTION: Okay. And so – but --

MR TONER: And I spoke to several people before coming out here. This is the first notification we have.

QUESTION: Can you say – you will cooperate, though, right?

MR TONER: Of course. I mean, as much as we’re needed to cooperate with FBI, as we’ve done in the past, we’ll cooperate to the fullest extent we can.

QUESTION: Okay. Really? So this – you’re just mystified by this whole thing? Is that what you’re saying?

MR TONER: I wouldn’t say we’re mystified, but we’re – we’re just – we’re unaware.

QUESTION: Well, Mark, can I ask --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- has the State Department turned over any emails recently to the FBI that we don’t know about --

MR TONER: Not that I’m aware of, no.

QUESTION: -- or that might be – because I guess people are just trying to understand where --

MR TONER: As are we, to be honest with you. We don’t – I just don’t have any additional details. We’re certainly – stand ready to cooperate, as I said, if we’re asked to do so. But we just don’t have any additional details or information to provide at this point.

QUESTION: The court has ordered you guys to produce several more batches of the emails that the FBI turned over.

MR TONER: Correct. Yeah. Right.

QUESTION: Do you anticipate --

MR TONER: Which is an ongoing process, right.

QUESTION: Yeah, but you anticipate that those releases will continue as per scheduled and that that’s not – in other words, any new investigation by the FBI is not going to interfere – is not going to affect your release of the emails that they gave to you?

MR TONER: I would see them as – and again, I – again, speaking as someone without full vision on the – on this new development, I don’t see how they would – that they would be in conflict. We would – we plan to proceed with publicating – (laughter) – sorry, publishing these emails in accordance with the legal commitments we’ve made.

QUESTION: And you’re not aware if those emails are at all --

MR TONER: Not at all.

QUESTION: -- pertinent to this?

MR TONER: No.

QUESTION: If I may, what about --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- the idea that if these are new Clinton emails, then technically they would be State Department assets, right? They would belong to the State Department if they were Clinton’s emails or someone who was working for her during her tenure as Secretary. So --

MR TONER: Honestly, I mean, I – sure. Go ahead and finish your question.

QUESTION: So the question would be then: Have you – will you, or have you asked the FBI to hand over those documents? And if you haven’t, will you?

MR TONER: So again, I think we’re just at the point here where we’re trying to figure out what these emails even pertain to, whether they’re relevant to her time as Secretary of State. I can’t make any assumptions at this point that they are, but they may be. As much as they are, we’ll certainly see to work with the FBI if they ask us to. But I just don’t have any more details to provide at this point.

Anything else, guys? Can we move on? I just don’t have any – (laughter) --

QUESTION: After these questions?

MR TONER: What’s that?

QUESTION: Well, let’s go --

MR TONER: Yeah, please.

QUESTION: We’ve exhausted your nonexistent knowledge in this subject?

MR TONER: Right. Exactly, exactly. Sorry, guys.

QUESTION: All right. Well, can we just – I realize it’s Friday, but when --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: I presume that you will get more details at some point during the afternoon.

MR TONER: As we get more information about that or we have to more to say about it, we certainly will update you guys, of course.

QUESTION: All right. Let’s go to Syria --

MR TONER: Of course.

QUESTION: -- unless someone has more on this. No? Okay.

You put out a statement this morning in your name about the joint – the fourth report of the Joint Investigative Mechanism --

MR TONER: Right.

QUESTION: -- that was set up to look at alleged chemical weapons attacks in Syria.

MR TONER: Right.

QUESTION: And I’m presuming that this came up for discussion at the UN Security Council yesterday, and the Russians said that they were not convinced of the findings.

MR TONER: That’s correct. That’s correct.

QUESTION: I’m going to assume – presume safely, I think – that your statement means that you fully back the findings of the so-called JIM.

MR TONER: Yes, that is a correct assumption to make, that we do support the JIM. We support these types of mechanisms. They’re doing important work, really shining a light on these uses of chemical weapons in Syria. And I would note that of the four incidents that are noted in the report that took place, the use of chemical weapons that took place in 2014 and 2015, three of them were by the Syrian regime. So in that respect, they outdid Daesh in horrific acts on their own people.

QUESTION: Right. But --

MR TONER: Please.

QUESTION: Isn’t that – isn’t accepting those findings the same thing as accepting that the deal that you guys worked out with the Russians to get rid of chemical weapons in Syria didn’t work?

MR TONER: Well, again, I think – and we’ve been very clear about this – the deal that we worked out with and successfully implemented with the Russians --

QUESTION: Well, that --

MR TONER: -- was declared chemical weapons. And we recognize that --

QUESTION: But you used the --

MR TONER: Please.

QUESTION: Sorry.

MR TONER: Go ahead. That’s okay. Finish.

QUESTION: You say successfully implemented. But doesn’t this finding and your acceptance of it mean that, in fact, it wasn’t successfully implemented if they still have – if they’re still using chemical weapons, whether or not chlorine is a declared – is not being declared --

MR TONER: Well, that’s – so again, when I say declared chemical weapons, I mean exactly that. So why do we – why do I view this as a success that we were able to eliminate a significant quantity – well, all of their declared chemical weapons and a significant quantity of chemical weapons? Because clearly, the regime has shown that it will use these as a weapon of war against its own people, so the fact that they have far less chemical weapons in their arsenal now than they did previously to this successful action that we took is – I don’t want to say a silver lining or a good thing for the Syrian people, but --

QUESTION: Well, I don’t see how you can say if it’s a success if you said – it was supposed to get rid of all chemical weapons.

MR TONER: No, it was – well, I mean, look – we can belabor this.

QUESTION: Well, I mean, what did you think he had stocks of chlorine for? Obviously, there was a lot of it. But I mean, there’s – in the middle of a civil war there’s only so much industrial use for chlorine, and I don’t think there are enough swimming pools there that would need it to, you know. What did you think he was going to do with chlorine? Why wasn’t that part of the agreement with the Russians even if it was a side deal? You didn’t think that with all the chlorine that he’s got it was not going to be used as a weapon, did you?

MR TONER: Well, again, so you’re right in that we only went after the – what was its – what were the known chemical weapons arsenal or, as I said, declared chemical weapons arsenal that it – that the Syrian regime had in its possession. We obviously didn’t remove all their capacity to create chemical weapons. As you mention, the issue of chlorine and chlorine gas as chemical weapons is clearly a concern that they’ve – and they’ve used this as a weapon and shown that they’re capable of doing so. But we significantly reduced their arsenal of chemical weapons, and again, we took away all of the – and neutralized all of the other chemical weapons that they possessed. I know it’s not a complete victory in this case, but it’s a significant one nonetheless --

QUESTION: All right.

MR TONER: -- in that they’re less able to use these against their own people.

QUESTION: If, in fact, they got rid of all of their declared chemical weapons – not – leaving aside the chlorine issue, where do you believe ISIS/ISIL got the mustard gas that it used, according to this report? Did they produce it themselves, or did they take it from the stocks?

MR TONER: It’s unclear how they got it or where they got it.

QUESTION: So again, doesn’t – okay.

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: But if they got it from the Syrian Government stockpile, if they stole it from there, that would also mean that it wasn’t a success, right?

MR TONER: So --

QUESTION: The deal was not a success because it clearly didn’t get rid of all the declared – I mean, mustard gas is a – that’s a --

MR TONER: Yes, that is a chemical weapon. Yes, it is a declared or a recognized chemical weapon. I mean, look, we eliminated through this program about 1200 tons of chemical weapons that was in the possession of the Syrian regime. To the best of our knowledge, we eliminated all of their declared chemical weapons, but we recognize that that didn’t include chlorine. And as far as mustard gas goes, we don’t know how they were able to either make it or get a hold of that. We just don’t have a clear visibility on that. But what’s important is that this mechanism, this JIM is continuing to hold these investigations – rather, carry out these investigations in order to hold the perpetrators accountable. And it’s important that the regime – certainly Daesh, but in this case the Syrian regime is held accountable for the actions it’s taking against its own people.

QUESTION: Mark, was --

MR TONER: Please.

QUESTION: Just some follow-up questions.

MR TONER: Yeah. Sure.

QUESTION: Was it not a significant lacuna to have not gone after precursor chemicals or non-declared chemical weapons?

MR TONER: I mean, I – look, I really would let somebody who’s far more expert in how to identify and go after precursor, as you said, chemicals that can be used or transformed into chemical weapons and used on the battlefield to speak to that. Someone with the OPCW could probably answer that far better than I could. All I can say is that this was a pretty comprehensive effort that successfully eliminated, as I said, some 1200 tons of chemical weapons and took them off of the battlefield. Was it complete? No, and we’ve recognized that, but it was still a pretty effective operation.

QUESTION: And why would it not have been a better course for the President to have proceeded with what where at the time his plans to enforce the red line that he had set? Why would that not have been a better way of deterring the Assad government from using the chemical weapons that it had and, potentially, from using the chlorine or other kinds of things that could be weaponized, as it were? Why wouldn’t deterrence have been better served that way?

MR TONER: Well – and we’ve talked about this, obviously, a lot over the past couple of years, but just a couple of points to make. One is that we weren’t able to get congressional approval for that authorization of force, and even if we had, it is arguable that the action that we undertook – with Russia’s assistance, in this case – was far more effective in actually removing these kind of chemical weapons, as I said, from the battlefield, that any kind of airstrikes would have been limited in the effect that they would have had on destroying these stockpiles of chemical weapons. And --

QUESTION: My question is not about destroying them.

MR TONER: Sorry.

QUESTION: It’s about deterrence.

MR TONER: You’re talking about deterrence, yeah. Yeah.

QUESTION: Deterring the Assad government from doing what you say it has done, which is not just use chemicals weapons in the --

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: -- but also use chlorine and other things not technically defined as chemical weapons but still highly deadly.

MR TONER: Yeah. Well, again, I think that one of the – one of the things we’re going to continue to pursue through the UN, through mechanisms such as the JIM, is accountability. And we’re trying to work with these mechanisms to ensure that the regime is not going to get off scot-free, is not going to be able to carry out these kinds of attacks on innocent civilians and simply walk away. This – there needs to be accountability in this case. We need to shine a light on these actions, but --

QUESTION: But there – but there hasn’t been any accountability since 2013, and in your own statements for weeks and weeks and months now, they continue to attack civilians, albeit with conventional weapons for the most part. And if anything, one could argue that the government is stronger now than it was three years ago – its grip on power. So I understand the importance of shining a light on things, but I don’t see how you can argue that anybody has been held to account here nor – and therefore, I don’t understand why that’s your argument sort of justifying the – this path.

MR TONER: Right. Well, I mean, look, this has been a long process, perhaps not as swift as some would like, but that does not mean that it’s still not a process that we’re going to continue to work at and fulfill going forward.

In terms of deterrence and in terms of the fact that they continue to carry out these kinds of attacks on civilian populations, it’s a fair point to say that they’re capable of using conventional weapons to also carry out atrocities in Syria, certainly in and around Aleppo, what we’ve seen in the past weeks and months.

With regard to the use of force, we’ve been over this ground many, many times. There’s a number of factors that we weight when looking at the use of force. And certainly in this case we felt it was more effective and more prudent to pursue this action to remove and destroy their declared chemical weapons. And we continue to believe that the best way forward is to pursue a political and diplomatic resolution to the conflict in Syria. Ultimately, any escalation of violence in Syria could have even more consequences for the people of Syria on the ground, and that’s all the kinds of things that we’re – all the factors that we’re weighing when we look at these decisions.

QUESTION: Can I follow up quickly?

MR TONER: Yeah, sure, Said.

QUESTION: Chlorine is commercially available. There are – there is no ban or restriction on the import or export of chlorine as far as you know, is it? (Inaudible.)

MR TONER: Said, I’m not certain in terms of – I just don’t know the specifics legally of like the quantity or the type of chlorine, so I can’t answer that.

QUESTION: Second, how do you sort of determine the veracity of these allegations? How can you say that this has really happened or did not happen? What are – what kind of measures or criteria you use to determine the veracity of these allegations?

MR TONER: Well, I mean, I think it’s partly the reason why we look to these kinds of mechanisms, as I said, that are not affiliated with any country or any government; that are apolitical, if you will; that are able to carry out these investigations, look at the facts on the ground as much as they can be assessed, and reach a conclusion. You saw, as Matt noted yesterday, that the Russian representative raised questions about the validity of the findings. We obviously consider them to be valid.

QUESTION: Okay, let me ask you a couple --

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: -- other things on Syria. Today, I think --

MR TONER: Sorry, just to – no, no, I’m sorry, just to – but I didn’t say enough about – but they did, just to speak to the work, which I think is – may have been what you were getting at. I mean, they conducted – it was an independent investigation. They conducted hundreds of interviews, poured over thousands of documents, and analyzed a lot of forensic evidence to reach these conclusions.

QUESTION: Okay. Can I follow up on Syria?

MR TONER: Of course.

QUESTION: Today, I think it was Jaysh al-Fatah and another group, they said that they have begun a battle for the liberation of Aleppo or to break the siege and so on. And I wonder if you have any comment on that. Will the United States or its allies give assistance to these groups in trying to break the siege?

MR TONER: Well, I think you know we don’t talk about who we give assistance to within the moderate Syrian opposition. We’ve seen those reports too. You’re talking about that they’ve launched a counteroffensive --

QUESTION: Counteroffensive.

MR TONER: -- in Aleppo. I don’t have much detail to provide at this point. We’ve just seen the reports of these – this counteroffensive or this announcement. If I could make one observation – it’s one we make frequently – which is the fight for Aleppo is not over. And it’s easy, I think, to underestimate the ease at which one can take the city of Aleppo. And it just shows – not to sound like a broken record – that you get into a cycle of escalation here that’s difficult to extricate oneself from.

QUESTION: Okay. And lastly, today --

MR TONER: Yep.

QUESTION: -- I think a spokesman for the Russian army said that they called on President Putin to renew airstrikes because they claim that there’s a – there’s been a cessation in attacks since – for about eight days now. Do you have any comment on that?

MR TONER: I mean, look – I mean, of course any pause in the attacks that have been carried out on Aleppo in the past months now is a good thing for the people of Aleppo. We hope to see that continue. But we also want to see access for humanitarian assistance, which is absolutely critical to the people who have been under constant barrage now. So certainly a reduction or a pause in the violence is a good thing, but we have not yet seen humanitarian assistance be provided.

QUESTION: Was there a call between Secretary Kerry and the foreign minister of Russia today – Lavrov?

MR TONER: There was, yes.

QUESTION: There was? Okay.

MR TONER: Yeah, they spoke earlier today, again, about this multilateral effort that’s taking place in Geneva. I think Kirby said the other day, which is still kind of where we’re at, we’re still looking to overcome some of the differences of opinion that we have, still working in a multilateral context on this, but still think it’s worth pursuing.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Any plans for the two of them to meet?

MR TONER: Nothing right now to announce, no.

QUESTION: Can I just ask you very briefly --

MR TONER: Please, yeah, of course.

QUESTION: There was another report this morning of a close call between U.S. and Russian military planes in the area, and I am just wondering how much of a concern that remains, particularly since you guys say that you suspended the bilateral contacts. I know that the de-confliction still is supposed to be going on, but it seems to me that if it was still functioning the way it’s supposed to function that you wouldn’t have these kind of close calls.

MR TONER: So this was, as you said, a close call – I think within a half mile to aircraft, which is a close call – considered a close call. I don’t have a lot more details to provide other than that, but I do know that the de-confliction mechanism, I believe, was used in this case. Would refer you to the DOD. But it shows, obviously, we need to keep this mechanism going and – please. No, I just – but I --

QUESTION: Well, okay. So you regard this as a success of the de-confliction rather than a failure?

MR TONER: I wouldn’t say it’s a success because, I mean, it was a close call. It shouldn’t have happened. That said, it underscores the importance of keeping these kinds of lines of communications going forward because we don’t want any accidents to happen.

Please.

QUESTION: Turkish prosecutors have launched a probe against the head of the pro-Kurdish HDP, Selahattin Demirtas, after a protest against the arrest of two mayors in Diyarbakir. Demirtas is a very respectable figure. In 2014 when he was visited Washington, Deputy Secretary Blinken had a meeting with him. The next year, Demirtas led the HDP to its successful representation of the Turkish parliament as a party for the first time ever.

So what’s your comment on the announcement of this probe?

MR TONER: So I would refer you to Turkish authorities to talk about why they’ve launched such a probe into this politician. I don’t have much to add other than the fact that we obviously want to see stronger ties between – or within Turkey among Kurdish leaders. As you said, he was a moderate Kurdish leader. I just don’t have any insight to add or to provide as to why they may be investigating. I would refer you to Turkish authorities.

QUESTION: Well, maybe they are investigating him completely without reason because Erdogan acts like that and he is whipping up sentiment among Turkish nationalists --

MR TONER: That’s your opinion.

QUESTION: -- against Kurds. Well, it’s not just my opinion. But if the United States were to speak more clearly against such abuses, perhaps the Turkish authorities would take them into account and be less abusive towards their own Kurdish population?

MR TONER: And I think you’ll appreciate the fact that I can’t speak to an investigation when I don’t know the details or as to why they may be investigating any individual, whether he’s Kurdish or not. It’s just – it would be irresponsible for me to do so. So let’s assess, let’s look at the facts, before we make any kind of judgment.

QUESTION: And maybe we can speak about this next week?

MR TONER: Perhaps.

QUESTION: Can you speak about some evidence that Turkey – new evidence that Turkey submitted for the extradition of Gulen (inaudible)?

MR TONER: No, I’m aware that the justice minister was in town yesterday, had meetings here with – at the Department of Justice. I think they issued a statement after those meetings, and I believe he did speak to reporters and said that they did provide further evidence. With regard to the Gulen case, I don’t have anything to add to that. It’s common with regard to extradition cases that evidence would be added as the process continues.

Yeah, please.

QUESTION: A shorter one is --

MR TONER: Yeah, sure.

QUESTION: -- we have a report that quotes eight Rohingya women as saying that Burmese soldiers raped them as they were cracking down on militants. Do you have any comment on that report? And what is the Administration doing as it eases sanctions on Burma to try to prevent what, if true, would be crimes and human rights abuses committed by the Burmese army?

MR TONER: Sure. So obviously, aware of the reports and taking them very seriously. In fact, I know we’ve raised our concerns with the government directly at the ministerial level. We’re urging the government of Burma to be transparent, to follow the rule of law in responding to the original attacks, and of course, subsequent reports of abuses. And obviously, we would like to see them investigate these allegations fully and take whatever actions against the perpetrators are warranted. With regard to your follow – or your second question about sanctions or the – whether this will affect the process of alieving – alleviating the sanctions that we – the sanctions that we still have in place, I don’t have anything to announce today – that’s obviously something we continue to assess as we see the government make progress on democratic reforms or not. So that’s something we continue to constantly evaluate.

QUESTION: Do you – you said you raised your concerns at a ministerial level. Was – does that mean that Secretary Kerry spoke to the foreign ministry?

MR TONER: No, I think it was that – I apologize, it was the ambassador – raised those – our concerns, rather.

QUESTION: With the foreign – with the foreign minister?

QUESTION: Specifically?

MR TONER: The foreign minister.[1]

QUESTION: And when was that?

MR TONER: I don’t know, I don’t have that in front of me. I would imagine recently.

QUESTION: And was it in response to this report? Or was it --

MR TONER: That’s my understanding, yes. Yes. Yes.

QUESTION: And was it – do you know if it was in person or over the phone?

MR TONER: That I don’t know.

QUESTION: Okay, thanks.

MR TONER: Yes.

QUESTION: No, I was --

MR TONER: Oh, that’s okay. Yeah.

QUESTION: Does the United States welcome Mr. Duterte’s message from God to curb his profanity and do you think this will make conversations with him easier?

MR TONER: (Laughter.) I’m not going to take the bait on that. He’s certainly entitled to his views about his own relationship with the supreme being.

QUESTION: Can --

MR TONER: Please.

QUESTION: -- we stay on the Philippines?

MR TONER: Of course.

QUESTION: So there – it looks like there may have been some movement in terms of the Chinese taking coast guard or coast guard ships away from the Scarborough Shoal. Do you know if that is correct or – and if it is, do you – is it a good sign? Is it a – what is it?

MR TONER: I think we’re still assessing. I’ve seen the comments from Manila about Chinese boats. As you said, they are no longer at the Scarborough Shoal and that Filipino fishing boats have resumed fishing in that area. So still assessing; we hope it’s certainly not a temporary measure. We’d like a – see a – we’d like it to be a sign that China and the Philippines are moving towards an agreement on fishing access at Scarborough reef that would be in accordance with the July 12th arbitral decision.

QUESTION: Can I go to the Palestinian-Israeli issue --

MR TONER: We can go to Palestine.

QUESTION: -- very quickly?

MR TONER: Matt’s finished. Yes.

QUESTION: Oh, sorry about that.

QUESTION: Mark. Well, I have another issue, but I’m done on the Philippines.

MR TONER: Oh okay, well let’s go do --

QUESTION: Very quickly.

MR TONER: Yeah, sure. Yes.

QUESTION: I just wanted to ask your assessment. There’s been a great deal of some dissatisfaction by your allies in the Arab world, like Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, and so on with the Palestinian Authority President, Mahmoud Abbas. They say that he’s inflexible, that he’s not allowing enough room to bring in other Palestinians into the fold or have some sort of reconciliation within his own organization and the other Palestinian groups. I wonder if you have any comment on that, and where do you stand as far as the Palestinian Authority president is concerned?

MR TONER: Well, I’m not going to weigh in on internal Palestinian politics and the political situation there. We’ve obviously long worked with President Abbas and continue to work with him and consider him to be a partner. I can’t speak to the criticisms that he’s under; what we would like to see is the same thing we’d like to see from the Israeli Government, which is actions and words that de-escalate rather than escalate tensions between the two parties with the hopes that we can get back to a point where we can begin serious discussions and negotiations towards a political solution. But in terms of some of these comments, I’m not going to weigh in.

QUESTION: Do you think he’s been too obstinate in terms of allowing changes within the Palestinian realm or allowing other groups to participate in the process? Are you having conversations with him in terms of opening up to other – to different groups?

MR TONER: Well, Said, I’m not going to necessarily disclose what we talk to him about. (Laughter.) Except to say that he continues to be a partner, we continue to view him as the elected leader, and --

QUESTION: But that’s been a long time --

MR TONER: I understand that. I think any leader needs to be responsive to the demands of their constituents. I’m just not going to weigh in in this case.

QUESTION: And finally, today, Gennady Gatilov, the deputy – the deputy Russian minister, I guess, foreign minister --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- was in – on a visit to the West Bank in Israel and he said that they are getting close to arranging a summit between – to host a summit for Abbas and Netanyahu in Moscow. Are you aware of that? Are you – do you have any comment on that?

MR TONER: I’m not – I’ve heard – I mean, other than that we’ve seen previous reports about some kind of meeting or summit in Moscow, I think, earlier this year --

QUESTION: Right.

MR TONER: -- there were some similar reports. I think what we said then is what we’d say now, which is that we welcome any and all efforts and any and all ideas about how to get negotiations back on track. I think we wait and see what’s on the table in this case.

QUESTION: But would you welcome or oppose such a move?

MR TONER: I don’t think we know enough yet.

QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.

QUESTION: I wonder if you could update us on the fatal shooting yesterday outside Embassy Nairobi. I know yesterday was characterized as basically a Kenyan domestic law enforcement investigation, but the photographs from the scene clearly show U.S. armed personnel out there immediately after it happened, so there’s obviously --

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: -- some U.S. investigation going on as well.

MR TONER: Well, again, I don’t know. I can’t speak necessarily to who was in the photos, but of course, any embassy like Nairobi would have a marine security detachment affiliated with it. I don’t know who specifically was in the photo. But with regard to the investigation and details about who was behind this incident, I think that’s really for Kenyan authorities to speak to. I think it’s still being investigated. It’s still in the early stages. I don’t know that there’s much more to report.

What I can say in terms of the embassy’s actions is that they did order – or, rather, issue a security message to U.S. citizens in Kenya informing them of the incident yesterday and also informing them that the embassy was closed to the public today, October 28th. But of course, we’ll continue to be able to provide emergency consular services to U.S. citizens.

QUESTION: So you have ongoing security concerns resulting from this incident?

MR TONER: Of course, and speaking broadly, because I wouldn’t necessarily speak to any specific decisions or any changes in posture, but of course, when any kind of serious incident such as what took place yesterday happens, the ambassador or the charge would call an emergency action committee meeting to assess the situation and take appropriate measures.

QUESTION: The Pakistani National Security Secretary, Mr. Janjua, had a meeting with the U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan, Mr. David Hale, just two days ago. And he had informed Mr. David Hale about the Indian involvement in the shooting which just happened in Quetta a couple of days – in the police training academy where 70 people have died. Could you provide us some information whether some proofs were shared with the ambassador regarding the Indian involvement or --

MR TONER: I really can’t. I don’t have any kind of readout, not – and I’m not sure we would offer any kind of information that might have been shared with regard to who was behind the attack. And of course, we reiterate our condolences for those who lost their lives in this terrible attack, and of course, their families and loved ones.

I think we’re still at early stages, to be honest, and that’s an investigation to be carried out by the Pakistani authorities.

QUESTION: One more thing.

MR TONER: Yeah, sure.

QUESTION: There are media reports that this attack – for the first time, a lot of media has reported that ISIS had a role in this shooting. If there’s any update with regard to that, whether the – we can say that ISIS has officially – like, has launched into Pakistan or Afghanistan, or that’s not clear yet?

MR TONER: No, we don’t have – again, it’s still early stages of the investigation. I don’t think we know with great certainty who was behind the attack. Certainly, that investigation’s ongoing. We’ll continue to cooperate where we can with the Pakistani authorities as they conduct this investigation, but it’s their investigation. But we don’t at this point in time have any clear understanding, that I’m aware of, of who carried out this attack --

QUESTION: So Mr. Olson --

MR TONER: -- or definitive understanding. Please.

QUESTION: Mr. Olson a few days ago at the – this institute here had stated that the U.S. is carrying out targeted bombing along the border side with some ISIS presence there. So that is clear, though, right – that there is ISIS in that region now?

MR TONER: Well, we’ve seen ISIS or ISIS affiliates in Afghanistan and we’ve talked about that. So it’s not surprising. I mean, we’ve talked about the fact that ISIS or Daesh is trying to – as it is choked off in places like Iraq and Syria, that it’s trying to, as I said, create affiliates or to establish itself in other ungoverned spaces. And as much as we see that, we’ll take action to take out senior leadership of these groups. We’ve done so in Libya and we’ve talked about that and we’ll do so elsewhere. I can’t speak to these specific actions – what you’re talking about, but as we see ISIL attempt to metastasize, we’ll take action to cut them off.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: Can I --

MR TONER: Yeah, why don’t you – and then we’ll get back to you, Said.

QUESTION: Go ahead, Said.

QUESTION: No, no, I – very – really very quick question on Yemen.

MR TONER: Yeah, sure, of course.

QUESTION: Okay? Today there were reports that the Saudis intercepted a ballistic missile that was launched towards Mecca. I wonder if you have any comment on that. And of course the Houthis are denying and there is a great deal of condemnation. Do you have any comment on that or are you aware of that?

MR TONER: You’re talking about the --

QUESTION: Allegations that the --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- Houthis shot a ballistic missile towards Mecca.

MR TONER: So – sorry, I’m looking for the points I have on that.

QUESTION: And the Saudis shot it down.

MR TONER: Yeah, no, I’m aware of the reports.

QUESTION: Thanks, Matt.

MR TONER: I don’t know if I have any greater detail to add to what – to what’s out there publicly. Nah, sorry. I’ll get – I’ll get you whatever we know about it.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR TONER: Yeah, no worries.

QUESTION: Two different things. First on the --

MR TONER: Yeah, sure.

QUESTION: -- UN Human Rights Council vote today. We saw Secretary Kerry’s statement on the U.S. being reelected, but --

MR TONER: I did see that. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: No, no, I said we have seen.

MR TONER: Okay, sorry, I apologize.

QUESTION: I’m sure --

MR TONER: I’m sorry.

QUESTION: -- you probably wrote it.

MR TONER: (Laughter.) Go ahead, I’m sorry.

QUESTION: Not that – not that the Secretary needs your help --

MR TONER: I’m sorry. No, no, no of course.

QUESTION: -- to write a statement.

MR TONER: Sorry.

QUESTION: Russia was voted off of the council and I’m wondering if you have anything to say about that or about the inclusion of – the election of countries to the council with which your own human rights reports say are not exactly the --

MR TONER: Yep.

QUESTION: -- upholders of --

MR TONER: Stellar, yeah. Well --

QUESTION: Don’t have stellar records, yeah.

MR TONER: So we are – as the Secretary noted, we are very pleased to have been elected once again to the UN Human Rights Council. A little technical, but we were – we had to take a year off – a mandatory year off, which is required after serving two consecutive terms.

But look, we found it to be a very valuable organization. We feel like that we’ve seen some successes over the past several years since we joined in 2009. We believe we’ve made strides in helping it reach its full potential. I won’t get into – the statement detailed some of the progress we’ve seen on various fronts.

With regard to your question about Russia, we don’t make our candidate preferences known in secret ballot elections. Broadly speaking and not specifically to Russia, I would say that – but in response to your follow-up question, I think – look, we continue to believe that UN member-states should seek countries that have strong human rights records to be a part of the council. And we encourage other countries to consider this when electing members to the Human Rights Council.

QUESTION: Okay, and the last one is --

MR TONER: Yeah. Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: -- on Bahrain.

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: As you may know, the – Nabeel Rajab, who you have been calling for his release for some time, but he goes back to court on Monday. I’m wondering if you have any expectations for what is going to happen, if you’re going to be there.

MR TONER: So we’re --

QUESTION: Not you personally.

MR TONER: -- obviously following this case – Nabeel Rajab case very closely. We have repeatedly expressed our concern that he is facing trial for a series of tweets that he published last year. We – as we’ve stated before, we believe that no one should be prosecuted or imprisoned for engaging in peaceful expression and political activity, and we strongly urge the government of Bahrain, as we have in the past, to abide by its international obligations to respect and protect freedom of expression. And we reject these charges against Rajab.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR TONER: And call for the government to release him.

QUESTION: Yeah, so --

MR TONER: Please.

QUESTION: -- and you’ll have someone there at the --

MR TONER: Yes.

QUESTION: In the court?

MR TONER: Yes, my – it – I mean, without being able to predict the future, yes, it’s our intention to have someone there in the court.

QUESTION: All right, and then secondly --

MR TONER: Please.

QUESTION: -- apparently, there was – this is just recent, I think maybe earlier today or yesterday – a two-year old or a very young child who’s a U.S. citizen or just a dual U.S.-Bahraini citizen was – and her – I think it’s a girl – her mother were prohibited from leaving. Do you know anything about this case?

MR TONER: I don’t. I’ll look into it.

QUESTION: The child is apparently a U.S. – is an American citizen, the mother I am not sure about.

MR TONER: Okay, I’ll look into it.

QUESTION: One last one.

MR TONER: Please, of course. Yeah.

QUESTION: Do you have anything fresh to say about Shia militias saying that they are going to join the Mosul campaign imminently?

MR TONER: No. I mean, I’ve seen those reports. I don’t want to get into hypotheticals. Obviously, no action’s been taken thus far. In terms of anything fresh to say, no, because we want to see any actions taken by these types of militias to be under the command and control of the Iraqi authorities or Iraqi Government as we’ve said in the past. So I’ll leave it there.

QUESTION: But – just to follow-up on that – but if the Shia militias – al-Hashd al-Shaabi – under the command and control of the Iraqi authority do get involved, that’s okay? Because there are very credible reports they’re going to be out in the west, west of Mosul. That’s acceptable?

MR TONER: I’m aware of those reports. Again, these are all decisions for the Iraqi Government to make. I don’t want to get out ahead of any decisions that have been made.

Thanks.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:22 p.m.)

[1] The foreign ministry

 

The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department.
External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.

Daily Press Briefings : Daily Press Briefing - October 27, 2016

John Kirby

Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC

October 27, 2016









Index for Today's Briefing

SECRETARY TRAVEL/IRELAND/LONDON



KENYA



SYRIA/RUSSIA/TURKEY



MIDDLE EAST REGION



CHINA/NORTH KOREA



INDIA/PAKISTAN



NORTH KOREA



REPUBLIC OF KOREA / JAPAN



BURUNDI



HAITI/UNITED NATIONS



MISCELLANEOUS




TRANSCRIPT:

2:17 p.m. EDT

MR KIRBY: Afternoon. Just a short travel announcement here, and we’ll get right after it. I think you probably saw our announcement, but the Secretary will be traveling to Tipperary, Ireland on the 30th of October, where he will meet with the Irish Foreign Minister Charles Flanagan for a discussion about the Northern Ireland peace process and a range of regional and global issues. While he’s there, the Secretary will also accept the Tipperary International Peace Award, which will be awarded by the Tipperary Peace Convention to honor the Secretary’s efforts to end conflicts in a number of countries.

The Secretary will then travel to London on the 31st to meet with international counterparts for a discussion about the situation in Libya and ways to improve support for the Government of National Accord. While he’s there, he will also accept two awards, the Benjamin Franklin House Medal for Leadership and the Chatham House Prize, which I think we’ve already talked a little bit about.

And as you know, the Chatham House Prize is given to a statesperson for significant contributions to the improvement of international relations. The Secretary was named the 2016 recipient jointly with Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif. The Benjamin Franklin House Medal for Leadership is being given to Secretary Kerry for his lasting contributions to diplomacy, public service, and human rights. The medal recognizes those individuals who follow in Benjamin Franklin’s footsteps by exemplifying great vision, cross-cultural understanding, effectiveness, and intellectual rigor.

While he’s in London, the Secretary will also have an opportunity to sit down with the Mayor of London Sadiq Khan and, together with the mayor, engage in a discussion with London youth on current issues, including climate change and countering violent extremism.

So it’s a short trip but lots going on inside of it, and the Secretary is looking forward to that. They will leave Saturday evening.

QUESTION: Will he be home in time for Thanksgiving – for – not for Thanksgiving, for Halloween – excuse me?

MR KIRBY: I don’t think – I think he’s going to miss trick-or-treating. I’ll take a look at --

QUESTION: But he’s being honored for public service and human rights and --

MR KIRBY: But he’s going to miss out on the M&Ms and the candy bars.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR KIRBY: Yeah. I don’t think he’s going to make it back in time for that.

Matt.

QUESTION: I just wanted – you’ve seen the reports, the news about this shooting outside the embassy in Nairobi?

MR KIRBY: Yes.

QUESTION: I’m just wondering if you can offer us any details that you might have about what happened there.

MR KIRBY: Yeah, let me get you that. Where is it, Elizabeth? Here it is, right on the top. I looked in Africa; she put it right in top under American citizens.

So we can confirm that there was a shooting incident today near our U.S. Embassy in Nairobi. Kenyan security personnel responded swiftly, and the incident appears now to be over. No embassy personnel were injured in this attack, and we know of no other U.S. citizens that were involved. The embassy is closed for the evening, and the ambassador and senior staff are reviewing their operations for tomorrow. Obviously, we’re going to continue to closely monitor the situation, and we will release information as needed to help U.S. citizens make informed travel decisions.

Last thing I’ll say is it’s obviously very early here in the wake of this incident and the investigation by Kenyan authorities is just now starting. So we’ll be in close communication with Kenyan authorities as they look at this, and we’re going to obviously await the results of that investigation to assess any possible follow-on actions by the embassy.

QUESTION: But you have no idea as to the motive of this – the guy who was – why he was there, what he --

MR KIRBY: I don’t have anything that I can report specifically about motive or what the intention was.

QUESTION: Can you be clear just on – our reporting at least says that a knife-wielding man whom Kenyan police described as a criminal was shot dead outside the embassy in Nairobi. You described it as a shooting incident. I just want to be clear. The – is it your understanding that there were shots exchanged, or was this, as we’ve been told, a man with a knife who was shot dead by security personnel?

MR KIRBY: My understanding is, early on, that the individual was brandishing a knife and it was security forces which engaged with gunfire. But again, very early on. I think we need to let the investigators do their job. But that’s my early understanding.

QUESTION: And it’s your understanding that he was – that the man was indeed killed?

MR KIRBY: That’s my understanding, that the man brandishing the knife was killed by security forces.

QUESTION: And then last thing. And I realize you said that it’s early in the investigation, but do – as of now, do you have any reason to suspect that the man had links to terrorist or militant groups?

MR KIRBY: I don’t know. I don’t know. I’ve seen the press reporting of what he is reported to have exclaimed right before security forces engaged, but I am not in a position to confirm the accuracy of that. I don’t know. And I don’t know at all what motivations might have been behind this. Why don’t we just let the investigators do their jobs? Okay?

Matt, did you have something else?

QUESTION: Well, I just wanted to get at the – what has become the daily non-update/update, I guess, on the discussions about Syria, and in particular the situation in Aleppo, the discussions that are going on in Geneva, but also if there have been any additional conversations.

MR KIRBY: The meetings in Geneva continue. I don’t have anything specifically to read out. They’re still talking. We still have gaps we’re trying to close, and I don’t have additional conversations to read out with respect to the Secretary.

QUESTION: Yesterday you were asked about that Amnesty International report.

MR KIRBY: Yes.

QUESTION: Do you have --

MR KIRBY: About the civilian casualties?

QUESTION: Yes.

MR KIRBY: This is about the report that the Pentagon’s under-counting? Is that the one you’re talking about?

QUESTION: I believe it was a report that talked about a number of civilians being killed in strikes that you guys have said that you were involved in. I believe that’s the – the one that you were asked about yesterday, and you said you were looking at the report. And I’m just wondering if you have any update.

MR KIRBY: I don’t have an update. I think we’re still going through that. But I’m not sure you and I are talking about the same one. I believe what you’re talking about is we were being asked about an Amnesty report that said the Pentagon was under-counting --

QUESTION: It may have been that.

MR KIRBY: And as far as I know, both here at the State Department and the Pentagon are still going through that. And as I said yesterday – I’ll take the opportunity to say it again – we take all credible allegations seriously, and, unlike other nations, we actually investigate them. And when we learn our lessons from them, we tell people what we’ve learned and we try to fix it. But I just don’t have an update.

QUESTION: Can I – can we go back to Aleppo? Yesterday there was a very contentious meeting at the UN Security Council, particularly charges of war crimes by UN – U.S. Ambassador to the UN Sam Power. Essentially, Russia – I’m sure you’ve seen the comments. Russia was kind of taking credit for the pause in airstrikes, and basically, Ambassador Power says well, you know, you don’t get congratulations for stopping for a week from committing war crimes.

So I’m just wondering, was that a personal reflection? Has this Administration concluded that Russia is, indeed, committing war crimes in Syria? There have been other countries – Britain, France, their foreign ministers have said that what’s going on in Aleppo is considered war crimes, and now in the wake of the attack in Idlib on the school, killing over a dozen children, I’m wondering if – how that affects your calculations.

MR KIRBY: Over two dozen is the latest count that I have in that school in Idlib. Look, I think the Secretary has been equally as candid and forthright about this and saying that what he’s seeing can be – can only be couched as violations of international law. The term “war crimes” itself has a very legalistic definition, and it’s not for me at this podium or for us here at the State Department to make that definitive qualification.

QUESTION: Well, why is not for you, but it was for Ambassador Power to say that yesterday?

MR KIRBY: Well, I think Ambassador Power was simply restating what we have all said is our assessment, that these are violations of international law. But the --

QUESTION: No, she specifically said war crimes. And I know that we go back on this back and forth. Is there an effort within this building to make a determination of whether that’s war crimes and whether that would be referred to the International Criminal Court? I mean, I know you’re trying to parse this out, but I mean, she said war crimes; the Secretary said that an investigation of war crimes is appropriate.

MR KIRBY: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: And this has gone beyond violations of international law now. I’m wondering where you are in your trajectory in terms of trying to make a determination.

MR KIRBY: It’s not up to the State Department to make a determination, Elise. But as the Secretary has said, he does believe that what’s going on is worthy of investigation by the international community. And the determination of war crimes is – that’s a – it’s a – it needs to be made by appropriate – by an appropriate judicial process, not by one cabinet agency just making a declaration of it.

I think we’ve been very clear, and I don’t think you have to look any further than transcripts to see where the Secretary’s head is on what’s going on here. But he recognizes that war crimes has a very legalistic definition and that – that’s why he wants it to be investigated. He wants it to be looked at. He wants there to be a determination by the international community one way or the other.

QUESTION: Well, where are – okay, well, where are you on that? I mean, the Secretary made some kind of vague remark saying, well, we should consider whether we want to investigate this as war crimes. Is the U.S. calling for a formal investigation of whether war crimes are being committed? I mean, you wouldn’t be alone. There’s the British, there’s the French, today UN Secretary Ban Ki-moon said something about if this school attack was deliberate it would be considered a war crime, you have the head of UNICEF – so, I mean, it’s not like you’re out on a limb here. And where are you in terms of working with the international community to see if war crimes are being committed?

MR KIRBY: We are still having conversations inside the international community about next steps, and I’m not going to get ahead of that.

QUESTION: Can we stay with Aleppo and Syria?

MR KIRBY: Sure.

QUESTION: Russian President Putin is quoted as having said today that Russia has no option but to clear Aleppo of what he described as a, quote, “nest of terrorists,” close quote, despite the fact that civilians are also present in the city. Do you have any comment on his apparent intent to continue the attack on Aleppo?

MR KIRBY: Well, I mean, his comments are not inconsistent with the actions that we’ve seen in recent days, if not weeks, by the Russian military and the Assad regime. I think the Secretary addressed this himself in saying that, when asked about this flotilla that was heading ostensibly into the Mediterranean, that if that’s their intention to reduce Aleppo to rubble, then they will do nothing more than encourage the opposition to keep fighting, make a cessation of hostilities all the more elusive if not impossible, and bolster the rise of extremism in Aleppo as well as prolong a war that should not be – I mean, you would think, you would hope that that – that the Russians would see that’s clearly not in their interests. But the president’s comments today are sadly all too in keeping with the actions we’ve seen out of Russian military forces.

QUESTION: And the Russian defense ministry spokesman is quoted as saying that Russia, Russian planes did not enter the Syrian region where the school was hit yesterday. I’ve seen that the White House has since said that they believe it was either Russian or Syrian planes. Do you believe the Russian denial that their planes were in that area? And therefore, do you conclude that it was Syrian planes or do you have an open mind and you haven’t made a – reached a judgment on this?

MR KIRBY: Well, I would completely concur with my White House colleague that we – we’re not sure exactly whose aircraft it was, but we know information that we have makes it – indicates that it was either Russian or Syrian, and I just don’t know.

QUESTION: Well, has anybody else – I mean, is there a suggestion that --

MR KIRBY: I think the coalition has already spoken to the fact that they had no aircraft in the area, and the only other ones it could be is Russia and Syria. I just don’t know which.

Okay. Yeah.

QUESTION: Yesterday, General Townsend stressed the importance of liberating Raqqa as quickly as possible and he said that the YPG is the only force on the ground that is capable of doing that with U.S. air support. But the political leadership of the YPG has said they can’t move on Raqqa while Turkey is attacking them in other places. So there seems to be a more general strategic problem. Why should the YPG fight and die to liberate Raqqa without getting anything in exchange?

MR KIRBY: That is a classically loaded question, isn’t it? Look, first of all, I’m not going to get ahead of military operations. I saw what comments were made by defense leaders yesterday and I’m not going to speculate about timing or composition or any of the operational details with respect to Raqqa. The Secretary himself has said publicly that we know we need to remove Daesh from Raqqa, their so-called capital of the caliphate – the so-called caliphate in Syria. But I’m not going to get ahead of that.

Number two, with respect to operations against Daesh, as I have said I don’t know how many times this week, we want – especially in that part of Syria, in that particular area, but everywhere, we want military activity to be coordinated. And uncoordinated military activity is counterproductive to the larger, overarching goal, which is going after Daesh. And this gets to the continued reports of clashes between Syrian fighters on the ground and also Turkish forces. We believe that these uncoordinated activities are not helping us with the overall goal.

Now, as to who should do what and why should they do it, and why shouldn’t they do it, I think obviously every group that’s involved in the fight against Daesh, every entity, every nation, has to make decisions for themselves about what they will do or what they won’t do. I can’t get into their heads on that. What I can tell you is that broadly speaking, the coalition, which is now 66 nations strong, and does include groups on the ground in Syria – obviously, who aren’t nations; I understand that – maintain and should maintain their focus on Daesh as a common enemy. And that’s what we want everybody to be focused from a military perspective.

But I can assure you that, without getting into operational details, whatever the coalition decides to do with respect to Daesh in Syria, it will be as a coalition, and it will be as a team. And that’s the only way that we’re going to be able to sustain a lasting defeat of this group.

QUESTION: Well, my question actually echoes a recent column by David Ignatius, who is raising the same --

MR KIRBY: I’ve read it.

QUESTION: Yeah, okay.

MR KIRBY: I’ve read it.

QUESTION: Is raising the same issue. I know it was a difficult problem dealing with ISIS in this area, and tendency to postpone the most difficult aspects of that problem, but don’t you need some kind of Turkish-Kurdish reconciliation in order to present to the YPG something reasonable in exchange for the sacrifices they’re being asked to make?

MR KIRBY: There – first of all, we obviously respect and admire the sacrifices that they have made. And we recognize that they have been brave and courageous in the field. And we have supported them through air power, and I believe the general said yesterday that we’ll continue to do that – that the coalition will continue to support from the air what they’re able to do on the ground, and that will continue.

Now, you talked about Turkish-Kurdish reconciliation. I think it’s no secret to anybody that there have been tensions there between the Kurds and between – and Turkey. And we have long talked about the fact that we recognize that, and that we have had discussions with Turkish leaders about their apprehensions and their concerns. We’ve also said that it’s important as a coalition that we stay focused on Daesh, and that to the degree everybody is capable of doing it, laying aside other issues, other contentions, and focusing on Daesh as required. And again, as a coalition, we’re going to continue to make that case to every member.

QUESTION: Well, I understood that President Erdogan and President Obama had a very long phone conversation last night, and perhaps President Obama explained the importance of this to the Turkish president. But if he had earlier on told Erdogan, who seemed to have a picked a fight with the Kurds in order to bolster – boost his domestic position that this was just unacceptable to – in current circumstances, might the situation now not be easier?

MR KIRBY: I – look, we could Monday morning quarterback this all day long, and I’m not going to do that. Yes, the President had a good discussion with President Erdogan last night. I think the White House put out a readout of that. I’m not going to go beyond that. Turkish concerns about Kurdish forces are longstanding, and we understand that. We recognize that. And we have – have and will continue to talk to them about those concerns. But what we continue to believe is most important is that everybody focus on the fight against Daesh, that that’s where everybody’s attention ought to be.

Now, Turkey is facing real terrorist threats from the PKK and we recognize the PKK as a foreign terrorist organization. And we have, once again – we will call for, we have called for, the PKK to lay down their arms, to renounce terrorism, and to go back to the negotiating table. That’s what needs to happen long term for the kind of peace and security and stability that I think the Turkish Government and the Turkish people want and deserve.

But we’re going to continue to have these discussions and we’re going to continue to press the case for the – a united coalition effort against Daesh. That’s the common enemy. That’s the enemy of all the members of the coalition, and so it would follow that you’d want everybody focused on that common threat.

QUESTION: Do you have a – just a general comment on the main thrust of Mr. Ignatius’s column, which is that the United States has a history of using, exploiting, and then abandoning military allies in the Middle East?

MR KIRBY: Well, I’m not going to – I don’t know that I’d characterize his conclusions the same way, but I would argue that --

QUESTION: Wait, wait. You don’t know if you would characterize it in exactly the same way?

MR KIRBY: I wouldn’t characterize it the same way.

QUESTION: You would not. Oh, okay. All right, well, I just was kind of surprised that you weren’t denying it.

MR KIRBY: With all due respect, with all due respect to Mr. Ignatius – and I know he’s done some excellent reporting out of the region and that he talks to many people there, I fully respect what he says and where he gets his information. But I think – and I’m not saying that he said writ large that America has this reputation of abandoning allies, and I don’t think it’s borne by history, any reading of American history.

QUESTION: Well, do you acknowledge the perception that this is – even if you don’t agree with the conclusion, that is the perception in the region?

MR KIRBY: Well, I can’t speak for the perception of every person in the region. I am certainly not doubting the veracity of those who Mr. Ignatius talked to or who have also expressed similar opinions. But – and I’m not going to try to get into the mind of everybody in the region. I can tell you that unequivocally the United States still maintains significant interests in the region. We have significant commitments that we continue to meet in the region, not just in – with respect to Syria. And I don’t think anybody can reasonably look at recent history and say that the United States is abandoning our friends and partners or abandoning our responsibilities or the leadership role that we have taken, whether it’s Secretary Kerry leading efforts to establish the ISSG and to try to get a peaceful solution to the civil war in Syria, whether it’s the United States leading, putting together this 66-member nation coalition to fight Daesh in the region, or any number of other issues that we’re leading the way on in the Middle East to try to get to better outcomes.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Can we move to Asia, or are there more Syria questions?

MR KIRBY: Asia.

QUESTION: Okay. China again seems to be making a mockery out of these UN Security Council resolutions on North Korea. According to the Korea International Trade Association as reported by Yonhap, Chinese export of jet fuel to the DPRK jumped nearly 400 percent in September for a year earlier; $9.7 million last month. And what are your concerns about this? What is the U.S. doing to try to close these loop holes? The only the loopholes that are supposed to be humanitarian concerns. It’s hard to argue that infants are going to eat jet fuel in North Korea. And can you give us an update on basically what communications you’re having with the Chinese about this?

MR KIRBY: We routinely have conversations with the Chinese about the importance of continuing pressure on the DPRK. We continue to urge the entire international community to fully implement and comply with the UN Security Council Resolution 2270. Chinese officials themselves have made clear that they intend to implement that resolution, and we’re engaged in an ongoing --

QUESTION: When? When are they going to implement them?

MR KIRBY: That they are going – that they have said they’re – that they’re – they are going to meet their obligations and --

QUESTION: And did they say when they were going to do that? Because in addition to the jet fuel, I understand that coal has also risen. Imports of North Korean coal to China have also increased since the resolution was actually passed, right?

MR KIRBY: I’m not familiar with that particular fact, Elise. What I can tell you is the Chinese have stated their intention to fully comply and to meet their requirements under the --

QUESTION: Well, but I mean, is it --

MR KIRBY: Under the resolution and our expectation and the expectation of the international community is that they’ll do that --

QUESTION: But will --

MR KIRBY: -- and we have routine conversations with them. The deputy secretary is in the region. He will have these kinds of conversations as well with Chinese officials.

QUESTION: I understand. But I mean, I’m glad that they told you that they plan on doing it, but did they give you any kind of road map to when they’re going to do it? Because when was --

MR KIRBY: We have already seen them implement measures of the resolution. We’ve already seen them implement. Now --

QUESTION: But, I mean, one of the main ones was coal, for instance. And, I mean, like I said, it’s not just – I mean, you don’t have to take my word for it, but officials in your own building are saying that North Korean coal has increased into China since the resolution was passed. So, I mean, I’m glad that they told you that they’re going to do it, but do you – how do you use your leverage to get them to actually do it? Because it’s clear that they’re not doing it up till now. What do --

MR KIRBY: There’s been a historic issue with the – with some nations meeting all their obligations under UNSCR resolutions, and I’ve talked about it here publicly, that in the past we’ve not seen China completely comply. And when we have concerns about compliance, we’re not going to be bashful about expressing them. We continue to have discussions with the Chinese about their obligations and their commitments under this particular resolution and every other one before it. And we’re going – and we’ll continue to have those conversations.

QUESTION: But has there been specific communication about coal and jet fuel going to North Korea?

MR KIRBY: I don’t have – I’m not going to read out diplomatic conversations.

QUESTION: Well, isn’t that what your talks are about, specifically strengthening those on the – on this new UN resolution – isn’t it specifically about strengthening those provisions?

MR KIRBY: Yes. We are talking to the international community and to other members of the UN Security Council about making sure we are staying in compliance with the resolutions already passed, and considering the developing and application of additional, maybe even tougher sanctions. So obviously we’re going to have to continue to talk to Chinese leaders in particular about this, since China does have – perhaps more than other – any other member has an economic stake here – I mean, with a border with the north. And there have been problems with Chinese compliance in the past. I’m not going to dodge that, and we’re going to continue to talk to them about their commitments going forward.

QUESTION: Kirby, it’s my understanding that coal is permitted under the so-called livelihood clause of the most recent resolution, right?

MR KIRBY: That’s my understanding.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR KIRBY: But I’m not an expert on this and I can’t speak to specific coal shipments today.

QUESTION: Well, okay. I think that’s the case. So my next question was: Is jet fuel permissible under – I guess it’s different, because you’re talking about coal exports from North Korea to China, but are – from your understanding, and if you don’t know, could you take it – are Chinese jet fuel exports to North Korea permissible under existing legislation and under the existing sanctions resolution?

MR KIRBY: I don’t know. I don’t know. I’ll have to see.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR KIRBY: I’m just not an expert on the language. I’ll have to check.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Okay. First, follow-up on this. A few months ago, I had raised this question about the – there is a corridor of trade between North Korea and China, and has the U.S. tried to ask for international monitors on that corridor? Because that’s from – through which everything is going on.

MR KIRBY: I’m not aware of any such request. I’m not aware of any such request.

QUESTION: Because the sanctions do not matter to North Korea with China having an open trade corridor going on.

MR KIRBY: I think I’ve addressed this issue as far as I can today.

QUESTION: Okay. The other one is about the diplomatic tit for tat going on between India and Pakistan. India expelled a diplomat, Pakistan expelled a diplomat, and now it’s a rising tension. So are you worried about it? Do you have any comments on that?

MR KIRBY: We’ve seen the reports of these decisions. These are sovereign decisions that nation-states make, and these are issues that we’re going to leave to India and Pakistan to work out.

QUESTION: But in the past, usually these decisions are followed by firing across the line, across the borders, and then escalating into further. So --

MR KIRBY: Well, obviously, we don’t want to see that happen, but let’s not get ahead of events.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR KIRBY: These are issues that we believe India and Pakistan need to discuss, need to talk about, need to work out between themselves. Okay?

Yeah.

QUESTION: Back to North Korea, if that’s okay. I’d like to circle back to the he said/he said between you and DNI Clapper a few days ago. I know you can’t talk about specific intelligence, but can you broadly say that you share most of the same intelligence throughout the Administration?

MR KIRBY: I’m not going to talk about intelligence matters – (laughter) – one way or the other from up here.

QUESTION: The reason I ask this is because how can two people have – or two organizations have essentially the same intelligence and come to wildly different conclusions? He’s saying there is no – there’s no hope for denuclearization on the peninsula; you said a few minutes later that the U.S. remains committed to it. Who should we believe? (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Both.

MR KIRBY: Thank you, Arshad. Look, I think we all share concerns about the direction that the north is taking, all of us. And the concerns expressed by DNI Clapper are not new concerns, and we share them. We do share concerns about the increasing provocative nature of not just their rhetoric but their actions with respect to developing nuclear weapons. No question about that.

And what’s why we continue to work inside the international community to put more pressure – to apply more pressure on the North. And that’s why we’re having an active conversation in the UN about the possibility for additional sanctions. And that’s why we maintain a robust military presence on the peninsula, because we have real security commitments to our South Korean allies and to the region to be able to respond militarily if that’s required.

So I think everybody has – everybody shares the same sense of urgency here. I didn’t see a big gulf between what the director said and what we’ve been saying all along. The question that was posed to me was: Is that U.S. policy, that we’re just – that we’re going to give up on trying to achieve a verifiable denuclearization of the peninsula. And the answer is very simple: No, it’s not. And that’s not just the State Department, it’s not just one agency; it’s the entire U.S. Government. Our policy is the same. We want to see a verifiable denuclearization on the peninsula.

Now, it is – I don’t think it should come as a shock to anybody that people may have different views about the odds of achieving that, but that is the goal, and that’s what we’re after. And the best way to do that is a return to the Six-Party Talk process. And we’ve said all along we’re ready to do that. The onus is on the North to prove that they’re able and willing, and thus far they have not proven willing to do that.

QUESTION: Is part of this trying to influence the debate for the next administration, which by my calculations, I think, is the thirteenth that will be dealing with the North Korean issue?

MR KIRBY: Is what --

QUESTION: Is it trying to influence the debate for the next administration?

MR KIRBY: What is?

QUESTION: Like this – you say there’s no gulf, but one says that – that it’s not possible. You’re saying you’re still committed to it. Usually these aren’t in public, these sort of disagreements. So I’m just --

MR KIRBY: Well, again, I take issue with the fact that there’s some big disagreement here. But let’s put that aside for a second.

I – the concerns about what’s going on in North Korea are not set by, established by, affected by the political calendar here in the United States. I’m well aware we have an election coming up, and I think we’re all well aware that in January we’re going to have a new president. And that new president will have to make decisions about where things are going with respect to North Korea.

But what we’re focused on is what has been, not just on this Administration but administrations past, is a consistent policy of applying pressure to the North and trying to achieve a verifiable, complete denuclearization of the peninsula, which we think is in the best interest not only of the people who live on the peninsula, North and South, but everybody in the region, if not here in the United States.

So I just don’t see it the same way you do. I got that he offered a frank assessment. That’s his job. He’s the head of intelligence for the United States of America and his job is to be candid. His job is to look at threats and his job is to assess where things are going. But that doesn’t mean that he was saying any – that he was denouncing or walking back or changing our policy objectives, which is that denuclearization. So I just don’t see it the same way you do.

Yeah.

QUESTION: John, on the ROK and Japan, do you have anything on the fact that your allies are going to restart GSOMIA --

MR KIRBY: I’m sorry. I couldn’t hear you.

QUESTION: -- GSOMIA, the military information sharing?

MR KIRBY: I’m sorry. You’re going to have to repeat your question. I didn’t get it.

QUESTION: All right. Can you hear me better now?

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: Okay. Do you have any comment on the fact that the ROK and Japan are going to start talks on GSOMIA, the military information sharing?

MR KIRBY: Oh, okay. I’m sorry.

QUESTION: Thanks. Yeah.

MR KIRBY: Yeah. So we did note the recent announcement by the governments of the Republic of Korea and Japan to resume negotiations on what’s called a bilateral General Security of Military Information Agreement, which is I think you called GSOMIA. I’ll defer to you on how to pronounce that acronym.

We believe that this potential agreement would strengthen cooperation between our two closest allies in Northeast Asia, particularly in light of the growing threat posed by North Korea. So we welcome the fact that they’re having those discussions.

Okay. I got time for just a couple more.

QUESTION: Staying in the region, do you have a readout on Deputy Secretary Blinken’s trilateral in Tokyo with his Korean and Japanese counterparts?

MR KIRBY: Yeah. So on the trilateral meeting, the deputy secretary had productive discussions with both his counterparts from Japan and from South Korea. They reaffirmed the importance of our trilateral cooperation in maintaining peace and stability in the Asia Pacific region, particularly regarding the threat posed by the DPRK nuclear and ballistic missile programs. They also reiterated the important contributions our trilateral cooperation continues to make on global issues, including things like climate change, global health, and women’s empowerment. So good discussions. Okay.

QUESTION: Wait. (Laughter.) I ain’t going to let you get out of here that easily.

MR KIRBY: First and last.

QUESTION: I’ve got two – they’re brief, though.

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: They both kind of --

MR KIRBY: I’ve heard that before.

QUESTION: They both kind of involve the UN. One, you may have seen that Burundi formally notified the UN today that they were withdrawing from the International Criminal Court, which prompted Ambassador Power to suggest that the Burundian Government was memorializing its – I can’t remember her exact words – something like its passion or its approval or for – approval of impunity. Do you have anything to add to her comments?

MR KIRBY: Well, no, I don’t think I can improve upon that. I mean, obviously we’re following these developments – these – this closely. And again, I wouldn’t also get ahead of events or speculate one way or the other, but I mean, I think we share her general sense of concern.

QUESTION: All right, I think, actually, it was something about their opposition to accountability or something like that. Anyway, but you don’t – you do not have anything more to add?

MR KIRBY: I don’t.

QUESTION: All right. And then earlier this week, there was a UN expert speaking up at the UN in New York about Haiti and the cholera epidemic. And in his comments, he described the UN response as a disgrace and also alluded to or suggested – hinted may be another word – that the reason the UN took the position that it took when people tried to get some accountability for the introduction of cholera into Haiti was at the behest of the United States. Can you address that? Is that correct? Did you pressure or push the UN into not responding?

MR KIRBY: No, we did not. We have been very clear that we do not take a position on the validity of the underlying claims in this particular case. We do not take a position.

QUESTION: But you did take a position in favor of the United Nations, correct?

MR KIRBY: What we’ve said is we support efforts by the special rapporteur to give greater prominence to the plight of those living in extreme poverty. We have said before that we welcomed the secretary-general’s acceptance of the UN’s moral responsibility for the cholera outbreak and his recent statement expressing regret for the loss of life. We’ve also said that we recognize more must be done and we support the UN’s ongoing efforts to design an assistance package to assist those most affected by cholera including in the wake of Hurricane Matthew. So we look forward to receiving the secretary-general’s proposal for the provision of a package of assistance and support to Haitians most affected by the cholera.

QUESTION: Thanks and then the --

QUESTION: Wait, sorry just on that. Why, just so I’m clear – I think Matt’s fundamental question was: Did the U.S. Government at any time discourage the UN from taking responsibility, right? Was that fundamentally your question?

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: And did you ever do that in the past?

MR KIRBY: I’m not aware that we discouraged them from taking responsibility. I said we’ve – we welcomed that --

QUESTION: No, I get that --

MR KIRBY: -- the secretary-general said it was a moral responsibility. But with respect to the actual claims, we did not take a position on the validity of the underlying claims in this case.

QUESTION: But couldn’t you – couldn’t you discourage them from taking responsibility even if you don’t take a position on the underlying claims? Look, you could say, “Look, I don’t know who did this, but it’s going to be bad if you take responsibility, so don’t do that.”

MR KIRBY: Well, I mean, could we have? I don’t know. I suppose we could have. I’m not aware that we did. What I can tell you is we did not take a position on the underlying claims and we did welcome the secretary-general’s actions and his comments on this matter going forward.

QUESTION: The last one – and this is extremely brief – is that you talked several times about this – the anti-ISIS coalition being 66 nations. Is that up recently?

MR KIRBY: No.

QUESTION: Have new members --

MR KIRBY: Afghanistan joined several months ago, making it 66.

QUESTION: Okay, thanks.

MR KIRBY: All right, thanks.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:57 p.m.)

The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department.
External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.

Daily Press Briefings : Daily Press Briefing - October 26, 2016

John Kirby

Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC

October 26, 2016









Index for Today's Briefing

CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC



CUBA/DEPARTMENT



AFGHANISTAN/REGION



IRAQ/SYRIA/REGION



TURKEY/REGION



SYRIA/REGION



TURKEY/IRAQ/REGION



DEPARTMENT



SYRIA



MIDDLE EAST PEACE/DEPARTMENT




TRANSCRIPT:

2:12 p.m. EDT

MR KIRBY: Hey, everybody. I’m going to have to make today’s briefing a little bit short since I’ve got something following this. So we’ll get – I just have a quick something at the top, and then we’ll get right to it.

In Central African Republic, the United States condemns the violence surrounding protests on the 24th of October in the Central African Republic. We call on all Central Africans to reject violence and refrain from rhetoric that could incite violence. The UN peacekeeping mission in the Central African Republic is an essential element in the security necessary for the CAR to move beyond crisis. The United States strongly supports the work of our UN and our Central African partners to promote peace and long-term stability in CAR. Inclusive dialogue is the key to preventing further unrest and maintaining the progress achieved by President Touadera, the CAR Government, and MINUSCA to ensure a peaceful future for all Central Africans.

We welcomed the first meeting on the 12th of October of the Consultative and Oversight Committee of the National Program of Disarmament, Demobilization, Reintegration, and Repatriation, and the participation of most of the CAR’s armed groups. We encourage those groups that have not yet sent representatives to do so now.

With that, Matt.

QUESTION: Thank you. I want to start somewhere in an unusual or different place than we have been doing normally. And I realize that both Ambassador Power, USUN, and the White House have spoken about this so I’ll be – already, but I’ll be brief. On the abstention on the Cuba resolution in the General Assembly today, as you probably expected, members of Congress who do not agree with the Administration’s approach to Cuba are crying foul about this. And I’m wondering, does the Administration no longer believe that it is its obligation as the executive to uphold or defend what is the law of the land?

MR KIRBY: I think we’ve talked about this before, Matt. We understand what the law is, and the embargo is law, and so we have an obligation to obey it and we do. That doesn’t mean that we can’t or shouldn't examine policies that we believe are in the best interests of the United States, and the President has made a decision – a policy decision – that it is in the best interest of the United States to establish diplomatic relations with Cuba and to seek the end of the embargo. But we all recognize it’s still law. That’s not being disputed here. What we’re saying is that we believe the embargo should be lifted, and the President will continue to work with Congress to that end.

QUESTION: Right. Well, I think everyone has heard that argument, but some people don’t necessarily agree with it. They would say that the law is the law. It’s not a policy; it is the law that governs the Administration’s conduct. And if the Administration’s conduct doesn’t support that or at least defend it in an international fora, doesn’t that suggest – this argument goes – doesn’t that suggest that the Administration believes itself to be more – the Executive believes itself it to be more equal than at least one of the other two co-equal branches of government that we have in this country?

MR KIRBY: I don’t know if it’s physically possible to be more equal if you’re equally equal. And we –

QUESTION: Well, it’s an expression from Animal Farm. You might have heard of it.

MR KIRBY: You got me on literature there. But look, we obviously are fully cognizant of the fact that the embargo is law, and the Administration doesn’t hold itself above law. We obey the law, and that is the law. It doesn’t mean that – it doesn’t --

QUESTION: Well, but you won’t defend it in front of – before an international institution that is condemning it?

MR KIRBY: Well, I think as Ambassador Power said in her statement today, the President made clear his opposition to the embargo and called on Congress to take action to lift it. And yet, while the Administration agrees that the U.S. embargo on Cuba should be lifted, we do not support the shift for the reason stated in the resolution itself. And as – again, I’m quoting the Ambassador, but I think it’s important – as she said very clearly, “All actions of the United States with regard to Cuba have been and are fully in conformity with the UN Charter and international law, including applicable trade law and the customary Law of the Sea.” So any idea or suggestion that we’re somehow trying to flout law here is just inaccurate.

But that doesn’t mean that the President’s policy, while it opposes the embargo, is wrong. It’s the President’s prerogative as Commander-in-Chief to set foreign policy for the United States. And his foreign policy is that we’re going to establish diplomatic relations, we’re going to open up our relationship with Cuba and seek the end of the embargo, and seek the end of an embargo; in other words, work with Congress to that end.

QUESTION: Right. But until you get to that end, is it --

MR KIRBY: We’re going to obey the law.

QUESTION: Isn’t it incumbent upon you that not only obey it, but to defend it against condemnation or criticism?

MR KIRBY: There were other things in the resolution that we took issue with that led to the abstention. But again --

QUESTION: All right.

MR KIRBY: -- we’re going to obey the law. We’re going to follow the law. That doesn’t mean that we have to agree with it and the basis for it. I mean, we had a discussion the other day I think about --

QUESTION: JASTA.

MR KIRBY: -- about JASTA. It is the law of the land. We will obey the law of the land. But we objected to it --

QUESTION: Yeah. Except you’re going to try and fix it.

MR KIRBY: We objected to it before it was passed. And as I think I made clear, that the Secretary is going to stay engaged on this issue to continue to try to seek a better outcome. But it is the law.

QUESTION: Right. JASTA is not a very good example because yes, you did object to it beforehand, but you didn’t object to the – this Administration couldn’t have objected to the embargo before it was, because – well, the president was just born then maybe when it passed.

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: So there --

MR KIRBY: My point is --

QUESTION: There’s a big difference here.

MR KIRBY: I didn’t mean it was a perfect example.

QUESTION: No, no, no. But --

MR KIRBY: But the point I’m trying to make is you can still follow the law and obey the law, at the same time having a discussion with Congress about your concerns about it.

QUESTION: Right. Except that some of these – some of the members of Congress who have come out and expressed concern on both sides of the aisle, not just Republican and frequent Republican critics of the Administration, but Democrats as well, say that if you don’t – this is – the embargo has been passed and maintained in place by both Democratic and Republican administrations since 19 – the ‘60s.

MR KIRBY: In keeping with the foreign policy agenda of the United States up to now.

QUESTION: Right. But until it is no longer the law of the land, you’re saying that the Executive Branch doesn’t believe that it has an obligation to defend it?

MR KIRBY: We have an obligation to obey it and to follow it, and that’s what we’re doing.

QUESTION: All right.

QUESTION: Can we go to Afghanistan? Do you have any clarity on what may have happened with the killing of these 26 Afghan men? I realize you may not because it’s Afghanistan and there aren’t U.S. --

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- persons involved. But I guess the key question is whether you think this incident might be – whether the killings may have been carried out by Islamic State militants, or if that seems implausible to you given the location.

MR KIRBY: There’s a lot there, Arshad. It’s difficult to know with certainty, and I don’t think that – again, my Pentagon colleagues might have more information on this, but I don’t think they do – that we really know exactly what happened here. So I can’t stand here before you and rule out that Daesh, or ISIL, had a hand in this or were responsible. We’ll have to try to learn more as time goes on since this is a relatively fresh report.

That said, it is no secret that we have been long concerned about ISIL’s eyes on Afghanistan and their desires to have a presence there. In fact, for now almost a year-and-a-half if not two years, President Ghani has spoken about this, and so has our commanders in Afghanistan. So this is something that their desires to metastasize into Afghanistan is something we’ve been long watching. I certainly could not rule out their hand in this. We just don’t know enough right now.

QUESTION: Okay. Can we stay on Daesh and the battle of Mosul?

MR KIRBY: Sure, sure.

QUESTION: Okay. Is it turning out to be like a slog, or how are things moving? How are they progressing?

QUESTION: No.

MR KIRBY: Elise, do you want to come take the podium?

QUESTION: Not today.

MR KIRBY: Not today, all right. Look, I mean, we’re how many days into this, Said? And now we’re already talking about slog? What’s the next thing we’re going to be asking about? Quagmire? I mean, this is --

QUESTION: Okay.

MR KIRBY: This just started. And we said all along that this was going to be, first of all, a long road to get to the operation, because it had to be done when the Iraqis were ready, and now they are. And we said even before, even while we were doing shaping operations, that taking back Mosul was going to be a tough fight and was going to take a while, and it was going to be ugly because of the terrain and because of the nature of the city itself and their presence in Mosul.

And so look, we’re only a few days into this. And actually, they are making good progress. They’re mainly still on the outskirts of Mosul, but they have achieved a measure of success. And oh, by the way, there’s been good coordination between the Peshmerga and the ISF, and there were people, critics, saying well, that’s never going to happen. Well, it’s happening.

So we’ve got to give them time and space to continue to execute their plan, but military operations are never clear-cut things. You’re going to meet resistance. The enemy gets a vote. Things don’t always go according to plan. I’m not saying that this isn’t; I’m just saying that we need to all be prepared to watch this on a daily basis and not get ahead of it.

QUESTION: Well, because of all these – all the different groups and all the moving parts in this thing, is the United States – is it maybe – has it made a mistake by not taking command and control of this operation? And perhaps because it has a better experience, and whether in the fight in Mosul in the old days, 2003 and 2004, and so on?

MR KIRBY: No, absolutely not. No, this – no, no, I couldn’t disagree more. I mean, we’ve also long said for going on two years now, that in order to achieve a truly sustainable defeat of this group, it has to be done with indigenous forces. Now, one of the lessons we’ve learned over the last 15, 16 years is yes, the American military can do a lot of things and do it very, very well, but the way to sustain a defeat against extremists on soil is to make sure that indigenous forces and secure – and a security apparatus is in place and capable of not only defeating, but then stabilizing afterward; that sometimes the presence of foreign troops alone can be – can be the irritant required to keep extremists interested in an area, that we can actually make the situation worse.

The second thing I’d say – I see you, Elise. Give me a second. The second thing I’d say is that we tend to forget Iraq is a sovereign country. I know we talked about Iraq for much of the last decade as if it was some – it was a territory. It’s a sovereign country and Prime Minister Abadi must maintain command and control over the forces inside his country, and he does. And we’ve long said that if you’re going to be involved in the fight against ISIL, we want all those things coordinated and under Prime Minister Abadi’s command and control.

That’s the way to achieve a lasting defeat against this group, which is why our role has been one – not just because we wanted it, but because Prime Minister Abadi wanted it – one of training, advising, assisting, helping improve their battlefield competency, confidence, and capability so that they could mount this – well, all these operations, but this one in particular – successfully, and then maintain the defeat of ISIL over time and stabilize Mosul going forward. That can’t be done by foreign forces. It needs to be done by Iraqi forces.

QUESTION: Can you – can you talk a little bit about Raqqa? Secretary Carter said today that he thought that the advance on Raqqa would be taking place in a few weeks and it – he seemed to suggest that perhaps that the coalition was moving up the advance on Raqqa with the Kurds --

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- because of potentially some – some external threats.

MR KIRBY: Yeah, I’ve seen the Secretary’s comments. I don’t have much to add. Obviously, we all share a sense of urgency about Raqqa. Secretary Kerry has talked about the importance of eliminating Daesh’s presence in Raqqa. I won’t get ahead of military operations and timing; really, that’s much better for our Defense Department colleagues to speak to, nor will I go into great detail about intelligence assessments.

But I think it is a fact and well known that Daesh continues to plot against Western targets, they continue to try to inspire foreign fighters to take up their twisted aims in countries outside the region, including Western countries. And so we’re always monitoring that threat. It’s a very real threat and we take it seriously. And Raqqa is, for all intents and purposes, their capital in Syria, so it does have significant importance to them, and therefore it must by definition have significant importance to those of us who are fighting them.

QUESTION: You also said that – if I may – just a follow-up?

MR KIRBY: Elise, did you have a follow-up? Just let me – okay.

QUESTION: On the same issue, he also said that the United States is working to create local or – local groups to fight ISIS in Raqqa.

MR KIRBY: In --

QUESTION: Could you elaborate on that? What does that mean?

MR KIRBY: In keeping with exactly my answer to you before about indigenous forces, look, in Iraq it’s much easier to define what indigenous forces are, because you have a uniformed army and we do have some militia forces that are arrayed along with Iraqi Security Forces. And of course, you have Peshmerga forces, so it’s easy to sort of identify and articulate and define what indigenous forces are in Iraq.

It’s harder to do that in Syria, obviously. But we – we are working and have been working with a number of groups on the ground in Syria, and again, I’d point to my Defense Department colleagues to further identify who they’d be working with with respect to Raqqa. But there are many Syrian forces that we have been supporting against Daesh inside Syria, and I suspect that they would play a role.

QUESTION: So the United States will not, let’s say, cooperate with the Syrians or the Russians for the battle of Raqqa?

MR KIRBY: The --

QUESTION: I mean, if they offer that kind of assistance.

MR KIRBY: I’m not going to hypothesize. I mean, there’s no – but let me be clear that there’s no intent or effort to coordinate with the Assad regime, and we’ve said this before, on any counter-Daesh operation inside Syria. There will be no coordination with the Assad regime. And as for the rest of military efforts to go after Daesh inside Syria or in Raqqa, I’d let my Defense Department colleagues speak to that.

QUESTION: Raqqa?

QUESTION: Turkey arrested two democratically elected co-mayors of Diyarbakir today, and I wanted to know what your response to that is.

MR KIRBY: Give me a second. I have it. So we’re closely monitoring the situation following the detention of the Diyarbakir’s elected co-mayors on charges of supporting terrorism. We strongly condemn, as you know, the PKK’s terrorist attacks, and we again call on the PKK to cease that violence, to renounce terrorism, and to reengage in a peaceful political process that addresses the underlying causes of the conflict. There’s no justification for its attacks in Turkey. We urge that any expressions of concern over the co-mayors’ detention be peaceful and in compliance with the law. We also urge Turkish law enforcement and other authorities to act with due restraint and respect for the freedom of expression.

As Turkish authorities investigate allegations that some local officials have participated in or have provided material support to terrorist groups, we note the importance of respect for due process. This, again, is nothing new; we’ve said this time and time again. Respect for due process is enshrined in the Turkish – is as enshrined in the Turkish constitution and will ensure that the results of these investigations will reinforce confidence in the judicial system among Turkish citizens.

QUESTION: Would you go as far as the statement that the EU issued, in which it, quote, “reiterates its call for a political solution: Arms must be laid down…a political solution is the only viable option,” which seems to be directed both towards Ankara and to the Kurds in Turkey? Would you agree with that statement?

MR KIRBY: I think I’ve just reacted to your question about the detention of these two individuals.

QUESTION: Could I – can I interpret it as meaning that you’re basically saying the same thing as the EU, reiterating your call for a political solution, or is there some distance between you and the EU?

MR KIRBY: You were asking me about the detention of these co-mayors, not about a larger strategic goal. But obviously, look, I mean, we’ve said with respect to the PKK that – we’ve long said we want them to renounce violence and terrorism and return to the negotiating table. So I mean, I’m not going to parse or try to match what I’m saying with what the EU is saying. I think in general, though, obviously we share the same ultimate goals as our European partners do.

QUESTION: John, on --

QUESTION: Turkey.

MR KIRBY: I’m going to go – she’s been asking for Syria, and then I’ll go back to you. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Thanks much. Last night, Amnesty International issued a press release saying that a month ago, it presented the Pentagon with evidence that 11 coalition airstrikes in Syria appear to have led to the deaths of as many as 300 civilians, and that so far that evidence has been met with silence. Why the silence? Do you know?

MR KIRBY: Well, I would refer you to my Defense Department colleagues on this. As you know, we take seriously all credible allegations of civilian casualties. The Pentagon has a system, a fairly comprehensive system, for analyzing themselves what these allegations are, and then when they feel that they warrant further investigation, they do it. And unlike any other military around the world, they actually release the results of those investigations. And unlike any other military around the world, when they do that, if they have to hold people accountable for their actions, they do that too.

So your question is better put to the Pentagon. I’m not aware of what their take is on this report. Obviously, we take all such reports seriously and we support the Defense Department as they do the proper investigations.

QUESTION: So Amnesty’s take here is that they said in their statement, quote, “We fear the U.S.-led coalition is significantly underestimating the harm caused to civilians in its operations in Syria.” Your response?

MR KIRBY: Well, we welcome that input, and no reason not to. Believe me, no military tries harder than the United States military to limit, to prevent casualties to civilians or damage to civilian infrastructure. We take it very, very seriously. And again, not – we’re not at all afraid to receive criticism about our efforts, and when we believe warranted, to fully investigate, and then, as I said, announce the results of that investigation.

So look, as I understand it, this report just came in. I’m gathering that we’re probably still going through this, but I can assure you that the Pentagon takes all allegations of civilian casualties very, very seriously.

QUESTION: Just one more. So in the case of the 11 strikes that Amnesty examined, the group reported that to date, CENTCOM has acknowledged only one civilian casualty resulting from those operations. Do you think the Pentagon could be a bit lenient when investigating itself?

MR KIRBY: The – I can speak from a personal and long history that the Pentagon is not lenient on itself when it comes to investigating its own behavior and conduct, particularly in a time of war. In fact, nobody’s tougher on themselves than military leaders. And again, I would stress to you no other military – no other military – takes this matter more seriously than the United States.

Yeah.

QUESTION: On Syria. Any update on the talks in Geneva?

MR KIRBY: No. I don’t have any updates for today. They continue.

QUESTION: One more. Turkish president has insisted today that he would liberate Manbij from YPG. Do you have any reaction to that?

MR KIRBY: I haven’t seen those comments. But again, I would tell you, as I said yesterday, and I think the day before, that we want – uncoordinated military activity, particularly in that area, is not conducive to ultimate success against Daesh. And we want all members of the coalition to focus their efforts against Daesh and to do so in a coordinated fashion.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Turkey. Just going back to the detention of the Diyarbakir co-mayors. These are pre-trial detention. Would you urge Turkish Government – or what’s your give on this pre-trial detention without putting them – these are the people elected by 55 percent of the vote, and elected officials.

MR KIRBY: I think I answered that question before, that we would urge Turkish law enforcement and other authorities to act with due restraint and respect for freedom of expression. And as Turkish authorities investigate allegations that some local officials have participated in terrorist acts or are supporting terrorist groups, that we would, again, note the importance of due process.

QUESTION: Human Rights Watch NGO just issued a report two days ago regarding the claims of emergency rule in Turkey, and basically saying that it gives a blank check to Turkey’s security forces. Do you – have you seen the report? Do you have any comment on that?

MR KIRBY: As I understand it, we’re still going through that Human Rights Watch report. I really don’t have much more to comment on that.

QUESTION: U.S.-based, California-based company, Procera Networks, apparently it has given software to Turkey, sold software to Turkey, and Turkey – a Turk telecom has been using that to spy on Turkish citizens. It has been a big report, news report in Turkey. Do you have any kind of sanctions on these kind of U.S.-based companies?

MR KIRBY: Again, I’m just not at liberty to comment on claims made by employees or former employees of a private company. I’d refer you to the company for questions like that.

I’ve got time for just a couple more.

QUESTION: Last question. About --

MR KIRBY: Last question? Of like seven or eight? (Laughter.)

QUESTION: I know, I have more than – I’m sorry about that. There are about over 130 journalists have been – stay in Turkey. Most of them, majority of them put in jail since the emergency rule declared about more than three months ago. And you have not issued any statement regarding over 100 Turkey journalists. Does it mean that – is it not enough or important for you to --

MR KIRBY: Aw, come on.

QUESTION: -- express your concern, or --

MR KIRBY: Come on. That isn’t --

QUESTION: You have not issued a statement.

MR KIRBY: I talk about --

QUESTION: But you --

MR KIRBY: -- the detention of journalists in Turkey all the time from this podium. You’ve got me on camera saying it a lot. And nothing has changed about our concern about the need for freedom of expression and freedom of the press in Turkey. In fact, I’d venture to say, sir, that I have probably talked more about press freedom in Turkey than in any other nation. The State Department has been nothing but clear and candid and forthright, publicly and privately, about our concerns over the state of journalism in Turkey. I stand by everything we’ve said, and that you may not have seen a written statement by me on any given day in the last week or two weeks or three weeks doesn’t mitigate at all the very real concerns that we continue to have.

QUESTION: Time for half a question?

MR KIRBY: Half a question? (Laughter.) Can you – half a question means I only have to give you half an answer, right? (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Please.

MR KIRBY: Matt would probably tell you that’s all I’m doing anyway.

QUESTION: Yeah. Well, that would be generous of you. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: What is --

MR KIRBY: Go ahead. And then James, I’ll finish up with you.

QUESTION: What is --

QUESTION: I got two or --

MR KIRBY: Oh, of course, you get two or three, yes.

QUESTION: I have – they’re very, extremely brief.

QUESTION: What is the latest on position of Turkey’s involvement in this ongoing war? Because Iraq is saying no, Turkey keeps repeating that we are going to Mosul, and then Raqqa, and --

MR KIRBY: Look, I mean, I’m not going to speak for the Turkish military and what their plans or intentions are. What I can tell you is we want all efforts in this fight against Daesh to be coordinated through and with the coalition, and that uncoordinated activity is counterproductive to the result. I said that again yesterday. That hasn’t changed. But I’m not going to speak for each member of the coalition and what they are or they are not doing. We have made our concerns about uncoordinated activity, we’ve made that clear to all members of the coalition, not just Turkey. Okay?

QUESTION: North Korea?

MR KIRBY: James.

QUESTION: Thank you, John. In 2012, Secretary Clinton’s final year as secretary of state, federal lobbying records show that a leading defense contractor hired a trio of lobbyists to lobby the Department of State for a larger share of Foreign Military Sales contracts, by which, as you know, advanced weapons systems are shared with other countries. The federal lobbying records show that all three of those lobbyists were large donors or bundlers for Hillary Clinton in both her 2008 and 2016 campaigns. Among those lobbyists was Heather Podesta, whose brother-in-law that year was John Podesta, who that year was serving as a counselor at the Department of State for approximately $130,000 a year and also a member of a policy advisory board that Secretary Clinton created.

As it happened, the gambit appeared to have worked because that defense contractor’s share of Foreign Military Sales contracts surged in 2012 with three contracts alone for provision of advanced systems to Qatar totaling for that firm some $19 billion in contracts. Even if no laws were broken, it would seem a fairly cozy situation, would it not?

MR KIRBY: Well, thanks, James. What I would tell you is that there’s a standard procedure here for how contracts are considered and vetted and decided on. And if you’ll allow me, I’ll just walk through a little bit of that.

QUESTION: Please.

MR KIRBY: Each request is assessed on its own merits, on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the Arms Export Control Act and the Conventional Arms Transfer Policy. And based upon ongoing defense cooperation engagements by both the Department of Defense and the Department of State with foreign counterparts, each request from a partner nation must be reviewed and approved by several bureaus within the Department of State and the Department of Defense, which all must generally come to a consensus before recommending approval. So then, as required under the Arms Control Export Act, proposed major sales or transfers must be briefed and formally notified to Congress.

So these decisions are based on a pretty comprehensive interagency process that’s pretty rigid too. It’s not just something that any one official here at the State Department can say, “Yeah, let’s go ahead and do it.” And the other thing is they’re based solely and completely on the foreign policy objectives of the United States of America and nothing else factors into that.

QUESTION: Statutorily, one official here at the Department of State is entrusted with final approval over these transfers. Am I correct about that?

MR KIRBY: Well, obviously, the ultimate responsibility, of course, rests on the Cabinet official – in this case, it would be the secretary of state; at DOD, it would be the secretary of defense. But they both have to be in concurrence here.

QUESTION: My understanding is State approves these transfers or contracts, Defense implements them. Am I wrong about that?

MR KIRBY: You’re not wrong, but you’re not completely right either. Obviously, the Foreign Military Sales program is a State Department program, but we do it in close coordination with DOD. Having been in that world, I can assure you that DOD gets – certainly gets a vote. And if there are disagreements between the secretary of defense and the secretary of state, those are ironed out at that level. So we don’t move forward with Foreign Military Sales contracts unless everybody’s on board with it, that there’s a true interagency development.

But yes, who, quote/unquote, “signs off on the final sale”? Obviously, it’s the secretary of state. That’s the way it’s enshrined in law. But that doesn’t mean that there’s no coordination or no requirement to make sure we’ve got a consensus view going forward. So I think we need to be careful when we say there’s one person who makes this decision. While there is one person who has final signoff, that one person can’t do it without a whole body of evidence and analysis and review and interagency consensus before they get to that point.

QUESTION: What we have here is a situation in which a trio of lobbyists who have raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for Hillary Clinton’s campaigns and earned hundreds of thousands of dollars lobbying her State Department on behalf of this defense contractor succeeded in securing contracts for that contractor that were far and above what they had received in previous years. And indeed, that contractor, after Secretary Clinton left office, essentially discontinued its lobbying relationships with those lobbyists.

So the appearance, John, is of – the appearance is akin to one of those pop-up stores that materializes just to sell Halloween candy or July 4th fireworks for a seasonal need, and after that seasonal need has been met, vanishes.

MR KIRBY: Well, I’ll let you speak to the appearances, James. I mean, that’s more your job than mine. I can only speak to process. And I certainly can’t speak to the decision-making years ago, in terms of each and every contract; I wouldn’t do that. What I can assure you, though, is that we remain confident in the system and the process that’s in place, and in the very judicious manner in which contracts or Foreign Military Sales that are dependent upon certain contracts are executed. There is a very lengthy, rigorous, sometimes painfully slow – in fact, many of our partners complain about that process --

QUESTION: It wasn’t in this case.

MR KIRBY: -- well, again, sometimes painfully slow that is done across the board. And there are no – the only considerations – the only considerations that are factored into the Foreign Military Sales program is the furtherance of foreign policy objectives of the United States of America and not the efforts by external groups to lobby, as you say, or to influence that decision. The decisions are made, again, across the interagency and only in furtherance of our foreign policy objectives.

QUESTION: One last question. You’ve been very kind. Throughout your answers to mine and others’ questions today, you have frequently relied on your personal knowledge of how things work at this agency and the Pentagon, as well.

So I’m going to ask you in that vein to tell me: Should we imagine that at a time when John Podesta was a salaried counselor here – this very man who wound up as Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, and who is much in the news these days – should we imagine at the very time that John Podesta was a salaried counselor here, Secretary Clinton would have been unaware that her department was being lobbied by Mr. Podesta’s sister-in-law?

MR KIRBY: I cannot answer that question. I do not know. I would refer you to the former secretary.

QUESTION: But you know how things work. You’re all too frequently telling us you know how things work.

MR KIRBY: But I don’t know what – I don’t know what former Secretary Clinton was aware of in terms of Mr. Podesta’s relatives and the jobs that they were doing at the time. I couldn’t possibly speak to that. What I can assure you, though, is – and you know, James, you’ve been around long enough – you know what the Foreign Affairs Policy Board does, and yes, Mr. Podesta was a member of the board at the time. I can assure you that his role in the Foreign Affairs Policy Board played absolutely no role in this or any other Foreign Military Sales program. That’s not the objective of the board, that’s not their purview, and that he would, as a member of the board, have no role in that, no – none whatsoever.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR KIRBY: You’re welcome. Listen, guys, I’ve got – oh sorry, you have the – you had --

QUESTION: Let me just get these last – it’s very, very, very brief. One is just – in your response to the questions about the Amnesty International report, you said several times you don’t – you know of no other military in the world that conducts investigations, publishes the results, and then punishes the – if necessary, holds people up to account --

MR KIRBY: I think I said I know of no other military in the world that does it --

QUESTION: At all?

MR KIRBY: -- as thoroughly as we do.

QUESTION: Oh, okay, as thoroughly as you do.

MR KIRBY: Yes. Obviously, other militaries --

QUESTION: But you surely wouldn’t suggest your NATO allies are substandard in this?

MR KIRBY: Oh no, I didn’t mean that nobody else investigates. I just mean nobody takes it more seriously than we do.

QUESTION: Okay, all right, then another UN issue. This is the UNESCO vote today on the Jerusalem resolution.

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: I – it’s already been addressed there and elsewhere that the --

MR KIRBY: So you don’t want me to read to you?

QUESTION: No, I --

MR KIRBY: Okay.

QUESTION: -- want to know that – but it has an effect in Washington. I want to know that – if – whether you guys, given this vote today to approve this resolution that you so stridently oppose, if you are still pushing Congress to restore funding – U.S. funding that was suspended to UNESCO?

MR KIRBY: I’ll check on that. I’m pretty sure we are, but let me check on that, Matt.

QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.

MR KIRBY: Okay, thanks.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:47 p.m.)

The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department.
External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.

Daily Press Briefings : Daily Press Briefing - October 24, 2016

John Kirby

Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC

October 24, 2016









Index for Today's Briefing

PHILIPPINES/REGION



NORTH KOREA/REGION



SYRIA/RUSSIA/IRAQ/TURKEY/REGION



CHINA/PHILIPPINES/REGION/DEPARTMENT



VENEZUELA



TURKEY/IRAQ/REGION



YEMEN



IRAN



YEMEN



IRAN



EGYPT




TRANSCRIPT:

2:19 p.m. EDT

MR KIRBY: Hello, everybody.

QUESTION: Hi.

MR KIRBY: What’s so funny? (Laughter.)

Just a couple things at the top related to the Philippines. I want to let you know that the Secretary did call Philippine Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Perfecto Yasay, on the 23rd to consult on bilateral and regional matters of mutual concern as we do regularly with our Philippine allies. The two foreign ministers discussed recent challenges affecting the relationship and noted that the strong and stable relations that we have enjoyed are important for sustaining our rich people-to-people ties and our enduring security and economic interests. The Secretary also discussed the benefits of increased cooperation between our two governments to improve mutual security, promote prosperity, and to uphold our shared democratic values.

I think as you also know, Assistant Secretary Russel arrived in Manila on Saturday on the 22nd, and he will depart Manila tomorrow – tomorrow morning their time. Yesterday, he had lunch with young Southeast Asian leaders in – that are part of the Southeast Asian Leaders Initiative and a productive dinner with the secretary of finance, Carlos Dominguez. Today, he held a constructive set of meetings with government officials, including Secretary of Foreign Affairs Yasay and the Secretary of National Defense Lorenzana. Secretary Kerry also called – as I said, he also called the foreign secretary.

In all of these engagements, which I’ll emphasize were part of our regular interactions with our Philippine allies, officials discussed again recent challenges affecting the relationship. These discussions noted that strong and stable relations are important for sustaining this – the strong ties that we have and our enduring shared security, economic, political, and social ties.

With that, Matt.

QUESTION: Okay. Well, let’s start there, then, with the Philippines. When you talk about recent challenges to the relationship, what are you talking about?

MR KIRBY: I think it’s self-evident, Matt, that some of the --

QUESTION: It is? Well, why didn’t you say what they were?

MR KIRBY: Because I thought they were self-evident.

QUESTION: Oh, okay.

MR KIRBY: I mean – look, I mean, obviously – and Danny was very, I think, candid about this, about the uncomfortable rhetoric that we continue to hear coming out of leaders in the Philippines and the confusion that that is causing. In fact, I think the word Danny used was “consternation.” I think that’s – again, I think that was self-evident.

QUESTION: Okay. So the recent challenges, then, are entire – what you’re referring to is Duterte’s statements and nothing else?

MR KIRBY: The change in tone in rhetoric coming out of the Philippines, not to mention, I mean, the normal, everyday challenges that we face in that part of the world and the tensions in particular in the East Asia Pacific region, but I think I was specifically referring to the rhetoric.

QUESTION: Right. So did – and did either the Secretary or Assistant Secretary Russel come away from their conversations with any sense that the recent challenges can be overcome?

MR KIRBY: I think they both came away from the discussions realizing that the relationship remains stable and solid, and that we obviously are both going to have to work to sustain it and to keep it going. But they both came away from their discussions feeling that we were going to be able to work through this period and to continue to be able to meet our mutual requirements to one another. Certainly, from a U.S. perspective, both Assistant Secretary Russel and the Secretary made it very clear that we have every intention of continuing to meet all our security commitments in the Mutual Defense Treaty.

QUESTION: Can you be specific in any way at all as to why they came away thinking that this would – you’d be able to work through these? I mean, were they told oh, don’t listen to him, that’s not the thrust of this thing?

MR KIRBY: Well, I don’t want to characterize their side of the conversation --

QUESTION: I understand that you don’t – yeah, but can --

MR KIRBY: -- but I can tell you that --

QUESTION: But what backs up your or their understanding coming away from these meetings that things aren’t as bad as they look to everybody else?

MR KIRBY: I think the tone and tenor of the discussions that they had and the assurances that the Philippine side gave to their commitment to keeping the relationship going was enough to lead the Secretary and the assistant secretary to believe that we’re going to be able to work through this. But make no mistakes – make no mistake that both the assistant secretary and Secretary Kerry made it clear that we’re concerned about this, about the rhetoric, that it is causing confusion and consternation, and that we did not find it necessarily helpful to the relationship writ large. But again, without speaking to what was said on the other end of the phone or at the other side of the table, I can just tell you that both of them came away feeling that these were useful discussions.

QUESTION: The reason I’m pushing so hard on this is that because when we were there shortly after his election, both the Secretary and Assistant Secretary Russel were – had sit-down meetings in Manila with these officials, to include the president --

MR KIRBY: Yes.

QUESTION: -- and came away thinking that everything was running on course and that there wouldn't be any problems, and then kind of blew up in their faces. So what are they hearing now that convinces them that --

MR KIRBY: Well, I think I just – I don’t know that I can say it any better than I just did. I mean, there was a – again, a sense that we’re going to be able to work through this. But I also – I’m not – I don’t want you to come away from my answer thinking that I’m sugarcoating this in any way. Again, both Secretary Kerry and Assistant Secretary Russel made clear that we’re confused and concerned about the shift in tone and some of the things that have been said, that we do need to try to continue to work to get a better explanation of what’s behind all this and where it’s really going. But both of them also made clear that our commitment to the Philippines and to the people of the Philippines remains rock-solid and we’re going to move forward with that expectation in mind.

QUESTION: Did they request to meet with the president at all? Are you aware of that?

MR KIRBY: I’m not aware of any such request. You mean President Obama?

QUESTION: No, with Duterte.

MR KIRBY: Did who request?

QUESTION: Russel.

QUESTION: Russel and --

MR KIRBY: I don’t know. I don’t if that was part of his agenda or not, but he didn’t.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Are you satisfied that there is not going to be a separation? I mean, because I think the intent was to go and clarify those specific comments (inaudible).

MR KIRBY: Well, look, I mean, Danny’s still there. I’m not going to get ahead of final readouts of his meetings. I can tell you, as I said, we expressed our very strong commitment to the relationship and to moving it forward, and I would remind, as I said last week, there’s been no practical applications of those comments felt in the actual relationship. And I think you saw that President Duterte himself after saying that there would be a separation walked that back later on. So as you and I discuss here today, we still have a very strong relationship with the Philippines. We have every intention of working to keep it strong.

QUESTION: Was there any indication – sorry – that this rhetoric will be sort of curtailed in the future?

MR KIRBY: I don’t know. I don’t know if they had a specific discussion about that. And again, I’d – I would point you to the Philippine side to talk about and to characterize their tone and tenor going forward. That’s really not for us to speak to, it’s for them to speak to.

QUESTION: Kirby, was it necessary for the Secretary and for Danny Russel to talk and to go there because they were afraid that – I mean, can you spell out what the concerns were about this rhetoric? That it would actually be made – that they would move from just rhetoric into action? You wanted to prevent that?

MR KIRBY: Well, so – couple of things. First of all, Danny – this trip was long scheduled, months in planning. It was not a reaction to recent events and recent comments by leaders in the Philippine Government. This was a trip that he’d been long been planning to make. Obviously, recent events certainly shaped the context of the discussions. But the Secretary’s call was very much timed to – because of recent events and recent comments.

QUESTION: Well, has there been any application made by – has the Philippines actually made an application to start withdrawing those military ties?

MR KIRBY: Not that I’m aware of.

QUESTION: Not that you’re aware of.

MR KIRBY: Not that I’m aware of. As I said I think just a few minutes ago, I mean, we’ve not seen any practical application of these comments actually bearing fruit in terms of physical, tangible changes in the relationship.

QUESTION: But you figured that it had gone on long enough to really be concerned? Because initially you were – you just kept repeating that you were allies, and you seemed to kind of think that this was something that might blow over, but it hasn’t.

MR KIRBY: Well, I tried to address that on Friday, I mean, at the briefing. In fact, I led the briefing with this because the comments about separation obviously were significant comments and we paid attention to that. And so I spoke to this on Friday, that they – that those kinds of comments were certainly giving us pause for concern and some measure of confusion about where things were going and that Danny was going to take advantage of this preplanned trip to try to get a better understanding of what it meant.

Now, since the comments were made about separation, as you saw, President Duterte sort of clarified. But that doesn’t that it wasn’t still incumbent upon Danny in his conversations to raise our concerns, and he did, as did Secretary Kerry. But the relationship remains strong and close. It’s our intention across the board as a government, not just here at the State Department, to keep that alliance strong and that relationship strong whether it’s through people-to-people ties or military-to-military ties, and we’re going to – and government-to-government communications, and we’re going to do that. And we’ve seen nothing on their side that would tell us that – other than the comments – we’ve seen no practical application of the comments that would tell us that the Philippine Government is moving away from that right now. But we’re going to stay in close touch, obviously, going forward.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Can we stay in Asia?

MR KIRBY: Sure.

QUESTION: North Korea. What could you tell us about this so-called track two, unofficial talks who were held in Malaysia over the weekend between North Korean officials and former U.S. officials?

MR KIRBY: The track two meetings, I think you know, are routinely held on a variety of topics. They’re held around the world. They occur independent of the United States Government and the government’s involvement, and we don’t speak about the details of these private conversations. They’re not government-sponsored and there’s no government representation at them, so I’m really not at liberty to discuss the conversations in any more detail.

QUESTION: So you just said that it happens independent of U.S. Government. Does it mean that the two former U.S. officials who led the talks will not report to the U.S. Government?

MR KIRBY: I’m not aware of a readout. I can check on that. Whether we – how and to what degree we’re informed, I’ll check on that. That doesn’t – but being informed of the discussions doesn’t speak to U.S. Government involvement in them. So I’ll check on that. I’m not aware that we have any readouts, and even if we did, I don’t think it’s the kind of thing that we would share publicly. But these are – this is not – these are not – this isn’t a new idea. These track two discussions do happen on a fairly routine basis.

QUESTION: John?

QUESTION: Follow-up. Why didn’t informal dialogue in confidence?

MR KIRBY: Because, as I said, there’s no U.S. Government involvement here. This is done by private citizens, and it’s – typically they discuss a range of issues. But the United States Government isn’t sponsoring them. We’re not – there’s no government involvement in it. So it wouldn’t be appropriate for me to get up here and read them out.

QUESTION: Yesterday Chinese Government remarked that there was progress in talks. Has there been any progress in detail?

MR KIRBY: Any progress in what?

QUESTION: Details.

MR KIRBY: In what?

QUESTION: Detail.

MR KIRBY: In detail? I’m not – again, if the comment made by the Chinese is about track two discussions, I’m not going to get into that. What I can tell you is – and what we said before – is that we remain open to dialogue with the DPRK with the aim of returning to credible and authentic negotiations about the denuclearization of the peninsula. But as we’ve also said, the onus is on the North to prove that they’re able, willing, and ready to join in those discussions through the Six-Party process, and they have not.

QUESTION: Why – how Chinese Government knew that, but this is informal talks between U.S. and North Korea? But why Chinese involve this that they knew the details about?

MR KIRBY: Your question assumes that that’s what they’re referring to, that they’re reading out these discussions. I don’t know that that’s true. And even if it is true, you’d have to talk to the Chinese about that, not me.

QUESTION: What will be the official dialogue in the new – the administration’s progress for going forward?

MR KIRBY: I’m sorry?

QUESTION: If a new president in United States --

MR KIRBY: Well, there will be a new president.

QUESTION: Yeah, will be.

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: Yes, will be. Is going forward, this issue? I mean --

MR KIRBY: Will the new president move forward with --

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR KIRBY: I have no idea. I --

QUESTION: Well, because --

MR KIRBY: I couldn’t begin to possibly answer that question.

QUESTION: This is unofficial dialogue, but --

MR KIRBY: The track two stuff is unofficial.

QUESTION: Yes.

MR KIRBY: It’s private citizens, and they talk about a range of issues, and there – as I said, there’s – they do this independent of any U.S. Government involvement. That’s why I’m not going to talk about the discussions. If your question is will track two kinds of discussions continue under a new administration, that’s for the new administration to speak to. I simply couldn’t answer that.

QUESTION: But the North Korean representative is official members their government, as I know, but this is civilian, but the Gallucci, former in the embassy, the Gallucci, those are civilian. But looks like, seems like that North Korea is planning to next step to going to officials.

MR KIRBY: I think you have to call Pyongyang about that. I can’t possibly know the answer to that question and I can’t speak to DPRK representation at these discussions. I can only tell you what they are from our perspective.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Syria?

MR KIRBY: Syria? Go ahead.

QUESTION: Secretary Kerry has talked to Foreign Minister Lavrov today. Any details?

MR KIRBY: He did speak to the foreign minister today, and they did talk about the situation in Aleppo. And the Secretary expressed his concern about the renewal of airstrikes and ground attacks on Aleppo by the regime and by Russia. They talked about the importance of the continued multilateral discussions in Geneva and how to try to continue to find a way to get a meaningful cessation of hostilities.

QUESTION: And any update from the --

MR KIRBY: And the delivery of humanitarian aid and assistance to the desperate people of Aleppo, which by the way, even throughout these temporary pauses over the last several days, has yet to happen.

QUESTION: Any update on the talks in Geneva? Any progress?

MR KIRBY: I don’t have anything additional to read out to you. They are ongoing.

QUESTION: And the Security Council, will discuss this afternoon a new resolution on the situation in Aleppo. Are you aware of that, and do you expect any resolution?

MR KIRBY: I don’t have – I’d have to point you to the UN to speak to that. I don’t have an update or additional information about any discussions up there in New York.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: On Syria? Your tweet yesterday --

MR KIRBY: So you noticed? Somebody’s reading them.

QUESTION: It was very widely reported in the Kurdish press, so people really did see it.

MR KIRBY: I’m glad. I’m glad. I don’t think Matt looked at it, though.

QUESTION: Huh?

MR KIRBY: See? “Huh?” (Laughter.)

QUESTION: I was watching a football game yesterday, not --

MR KIRBY: I can tweet and watch football at the same time.

QUESTION: Really?

QUESTION: So you tweeted about the civilian casualties and air – and our – civilian casualties and air and artillery strikes in northern Syria causing concern. And could you provide further details on that?

MR KIRBY: I don’t know that I have additional tactical details if that’s what you mean. I mean, obviously we’re always concerned about reports of civilian casualties and the damage to civilian infrastructure as a result of military activity, particularly if that military activity is uncoordinated with other military – coalition efforts to go after Daesh.

QUESTION: These were Turkish air and artillery strikes that caused the casualties you’re talking about?

MR KIRBY: I’ve seen reports of it being from Turkey. I’d let the Turkish military speak to their operations. What I was referring to was the reports of civilian casualties and damage, and that was obviously of concern to us.

QUESTION: Have you seen more today or you think you --

MR KIRBY: I would just – anyway, I just did this last night. I would say we’re continuing to watch it as closely as we can and we continue to be concerned about it – particularly, as I said last week several times, uncoordinated activity in this particular area is counterproductive to what should be our joint efforts, and that’s to go after Daesh. And that’s what we want to see everybody as part of the coalition effort do.

QUESTION: Yeah, on that subject, going after Daesh, could you – on the Kurds in Iraq – could you give us a readout on Brett McGurk’s meetings with President Barzani and other KRG officials that he’s had over the weekend?

MR KIRBY: So Special Presidential Envoy Brett McGurk arrived in Erbil on Friday for a series of meetings with senior officials from the Iraqi Kurdistan Region and Nineveh provincial leadership, and to receive a firsthand update on the Mosul operation and to discuss next steps. He met with IKR President Barzani on Saturday in a bilateral meeting and then he joined Secretary Carter’s meeting on Sunday. In his meeting with President Barzani, Brett noted that the progress in the campaign to date – he – I’m sorry, he noted the progress in the campaign to date and he praised the extensive cooperation between Iraqi Security Forces and the Peshmerga in liberating numerous villages since the operation began. And they obviously discussed the way ahead for the Mosul campaign.

On Sunday, Special Envoy McGurk met with the Nineveh Governor Agoob, where they focused heavily on the humanitarian and the stabilization aspects of the campaign, especially returning life back to the streets of Mosul once that city is liberated. He emphasized that the coalition will support the governor and the provincial council of Nineveh Province as they work together to stabilize and rebuild Nineveh going forward. He also highlighted that working with the local authorities, the Government of Iraq, and the UN, the training that is ongoing to clear landmines left by Daesh in homes and streets, and also to ensure that equipment and supplies are prepositioned to return electricity and water to the city as soon as possible.

So again, pretty constructive and extensive meetings over the last couple of days over the weekend. In every one of those meetings he emphasized that there’s still a lot of work to do to defeat Daesh in Iraq. These have – the progress is notable, and it’s important, but it’s not enough until we actually kick them out of Mosul and then make sure we have in place proper humanitarian and stabilization efforts. He did reiterate that the United States and the coalition will continue to provide support to Iraq as we work together to defeat this common enemy, and to the Iraqi people as they work to rebuild the communities once they’re liberated.

QUESTION: Both Kurdish and UN officials have said there’s a problem with humanitarian aid. Is that an issue that came up and that the U.S. is --

MR KIRBY: I just mentioned the fact that they did, in fact, talk about the need for proper humanitarian assistance. And I think you’ve probably seen information that we’ve put out about USAID and the contributions that we’re making on behalf of the United States Government to provide for humanitarian assistance. This was – as I said I think a week ago, this is not something that we weren’t already thinking of well in advance of the Mosul campaign, that there would be internally displaced people – people in need of humanitarian assistance, and that we continue to work with the Iraqi Government to make sure that those types of facilities and that kind of assistance is available to them.

But absolutely, Brett spoke about that with Iraqi leaders, yeah. And again, this is not something that we hadn’t already been talking to them for quite some time.

QUESTION: A Turkish delegation is coming to town this week to discuss the extradition of Mr. Gulen. Do you expect any breakthrough in this regard?

MR KIRBY: I don’t have any update for you on that and that’s not a matter for the State Department in any event, so I don’t have anything for you on that.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Can we go back to Syria and Syrian talks? So do you feel like there is – I mean, you’ve said that they continue to talk, but has there been any progress, do you feel, or do you think it’s kind of still stuck?

MR KIRBY: I think it’s safe to say that there’s still work to be done in Geneva to close some of the gaps and seams. It is a multilateral discussion. It’s not just the U.S. and Russia.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) U.S. talks at the moment.

MR KIRBY: Well, other regional players are represented. I think I’ll let them speak for their participation. Obviously, the Russians are represented and so are we, but there are other regional partners and powers represented in Geneva. But I think it’s safe to say that we’re not there yet. I mean, if we were, we would have – we’d have an agreement coming out of there in terms of a cessation of hostilities, and we don’t here on Monday the 24th of October. So we’re going to keep at it.

QUESTION: Is Iran there?

MR KIRBY: Again, I’m going to let individual nations speak to their participation.

Yeah.

QUESTION: China? So last Friday, a U.S. Navy destroyer sailed near Xisha Island, and also U.S. authority recently said they supported direct dialogue and negotiation between the Philippines and China. So – and the other saying is they will love to see the improvement of the relationship between the Philippines and China. So was the saying from U.S. Government contradicted with what they have done in Xisha Island?

MR KIRBY: The Paracel Islands, is that what you’re referring to?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR KIRBY: And is your question that the ship --

QUESTION: The question? So --

MR KIRBY: -- sailing near the Paracels is somehow --

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR KIRBY: -- contradictory to what we said last week about China and the Philippines having a bilateral relationship?

QUESTION: So – yes, because recently, including Daniel Russel, he said he supported the improvement of relationship between the Philippines and China --

MR KIRBY: Right.

QUESTION: -- and support their direct dialogue and negotiation between those two countries. However, last Friday, we saw the U.S. Navy destroyer sail into Xisha Island. I mean, was the saying this contradicted with what the U.S. have done in Xisha Island?

MR KIRBY: No, absolutely not, absolutely not. As I said last week, we welcome an improved bilateral relationship between the Philippines and China. And we’ve said all along that we’re not going to take a position on these disputed maritime claims. We want them resolved through peaceful dialogue, international law, and of course, bilateral discussions. So we welcome that – those kinds of discussions.

And I won’t speak for naval operations, but I think my Pentagon colleagues did talk about this last week, that they did have a U.S. Navy destroyer conduct what we call freedom of navigation operations in international waters, which is exactly one of the reasons you have a navy. And I think, as Secretary Carter has said eloquently and many times, that the United States military will fly, sail, and operate in international waters as appropriate, and that that particular passage of that particular ship was totally in keeping with that not just mandate, but requirement.

QUESTION: The second one: Deputy Secretary of State Blinken will travel to Beijing on October 29th to meet with Executive Vice Foreign Minister Zhang Yesui on continuing discussion, including maritime issues. Could you share more information about that discussion? Will South China Sea issue will be discussed?

MR KIRBY: I’m not going to get ahead of a meeting that hasn’t happened yet, but you’re right, the deputy secretary is heading over and he’s very much looking forward to his stop in Beijing. And I think as has been the case in virtually every discussion that we’ve had with Chinese leaders of late, of course tensions in the South China Sea will come up. I have no question at all that that will be discussed, but it won’t be the only thing discussed. I mean, there is – our bilateral relationship with China is deep and it’s expansive and there are plenty of issues to speak about. But yes, I can assure you that that will be one of the topics discussed.

Steve.

QUESTION: Can I move to Venezuela? The opposition-controlled congress yesterday declared that President Maduro’s actions are – recent actions – tantamount to a coup and they plan to put him on trial. Does the United States agree with that assessment that the president has effectively been – has carried out a coup and --

MR KIRBY: Well, I think I’m going to refrain from reacting to, again, every bit of rhetoric. What I can tell you is – and we talked about this, I think, a little bit last week, although not this specific issue – that we remain, obviously, very concerned by the political, economic, and humanitarian situation in Venezuela. We joined with countries in the region on the 21st of this month to call on the Venezuelan Government to engage in actions – I’m sorry, in serious dialogue that leads to peaceful solutions to the challenges facing the Venezuelan people.

And now is the time, in our view, to listen to all Venezuelan voices and to work together to find solutions, and that’s what we’re focused on. We’ve seen the comments, but again, our larger concerns are ones we’re going to continue to voice.

Yeah.

QUESTION: The rise in tensions between Turkey and Iraq. After --

MR KIRBY: Between Turkey and?

QUESTION: And Iraq.

MR KIRBY: Okay.

QUESTION: After Secretary Carter’s visit both Iraq and Syria, what’s the status of the – with tensions? Do you see a potential ultimate agreement?

MR KIRBY: Well, I’d let – I think I’d let each side speak for themselves in terms of where they see the tensions. What’s been important is that there has been dialogue and we’ve said all along, many months ago when tensions over a Turkish military footprint came up, that we wanted to see Turkey and Iraq talk through this and work through this bilaterally.

QUESTION: But did Secretary Carter ease any rise in tensions between them in this visit in particular?

MR KIRBY: You’d have to talk to Secretary Carter and his staff. I don’t do a good job speaking for the Defense Department anymore, so you’d have to talk to them about that.

All right?

QUESTION: Oh, no. I got – they’re very brief.

MR KIRBY: Okay.

QUESTION: But there’s three – there are three different subjects. (Laughter.) I guarantee they’ll be brief. One, on Yemen, the Secretary seemed to hint last week in one of his events that there might be another kind of broad meeting coming up soon to talk about the situation in Yemen? Is anything happening with that, or did I mishear or misunderstand something that you said?

MR KIRBY: I don’t know that – I don’t know that you misunderstood. I can go back and look and see what he said. Obviously, we continue to watch the situation there very closely. I don’t have any additional meetings to read out or to announce.

QUESTION: Okay. Secondly, on Iran, two things. One, I don’t know if you saw the comments that President Rouhani made about the election here.

MR KIRBY: I did not.

QUESTION: He said that it was a choice between bad and worse, and asked Iranians if they wanted the kind of democracy that the United States has that has produced this current election. Do you have anything to say about that?

MR KIRBY: No, I don’t. But back on – if I could, on Yemen, I do want to make a point. I know this wasn’t your question, but I do want to make a point that, again, we’re watching the situation very, very closely. We want to – we continue to urge all sides to abide by and extend the renewable 72-hour cessation of hostilities and to refrain from acts that will further escalate the situation in Yemen. This extension, we believe, will create the space necessary for progress toward a political settlement in Yemen. And we call upon all parties to renew and adhere to their publicly stated commitments. This cessation, if it’s given time to hold, will allow urgently needed humanitarian aid to be delivered to all Yemenis, including in difficult places like Taiz and Sa’dah. So I know that wasn’t what you asked, but I thought it was important to lay out there that we are watching this closely and want to see this cessation of hostilities renewed.

I’m sorry. And you had a third?

QUESTION: No, this is still part of my second. It also has to do with Iran.

MR KIRBY: So it’s question two, part c or part d?

QUESTION: Yeah. You got an issue with that?

MR KIRBY: No, no, no.

QUESTION: Yeah. I just wondered if you had seen --

MR KIRBY: They’re not quick, though. You said they were quick.

QUESTION: I’m going quickly. You’re the one who keeps making them longer.

Secretary Kerry and Foreign Minister Zarif have been awarded the Chatham House Prize for concluding the Iran nuclear deal.

MR KIRBY: Yes.

QUESTION: Do you have any comment about that?

MR KIRBY: Well , the – yes, they have been. And as you know, after almost two years of negotiation we were able to conclude this Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action with Iran. The Secretary is grateful for being selected to – for this prize, and I think he’d be the first to tell you that it was very much a team effort, a team effort internationally with the other members of the P5+1 as well as the EU – the EU is one of the five – and then inside the interagency a real team effort, particularly with the Secretary of Energy. So lots of hard work all the way around. And again, I think the Secretary would be the first to say that it absolutely was a team approach.

QUESTION: Right. But I was getting more to the – my question is more about whether it’s – does the Secretary think that it is appropriate now at this stage, where the deal is still being implemented, where there’s still complaints that from the Iranian side that it hasn’t been implemented, and still criticism in the United States that you guys – that you gave away so – too much for too little, that whether that it’s – the timing of such an – this award is appropriate.

MR KIRBY: Well, I mean, neither the Secretary nor Foreign Minister Zarif had any control over the timing of it. And --

QUESTION: No, I know. I’m not saying that they did.

MR KIRBY: And I think --

QUESTION: I’m just wondering if he’s – if he’s comfortable accepting this award given where we are with the --

MR KIRBY: I think he’s comfortable accepting it on behalf of the whole team that was involved in it, and I think the Secretary would take issue with the continued criticism about the fact – about the degree to which the deal makes the region and the United States safer – he believes it does; about the degree to which Iran is complying with their commitments – thus far they have been and so have we; and that while the relationship with Iran is far from perfect and they still continue to be a state sponsor of terrorism and conduct provocative and destabilizing activities in the region, that doesn’t take away from the fact that the deal itself removes one significant destabilizer in the region, which would be an Iran with nuclear weapons. So look, the Secretary wasn’t seeking this award. He’s grateful and thankful that he’s been selected for it.

More critically, he will accept it on behalf of everybody who worked on this in the United States Government. And number two, he’s much more focused on making sure that we continue to meet our commitments to the deal going forward because he earnestly believes that the JCPOA does make the region safer and does make the American people safer.

QUESTION: And then the third issue is Egypt, and I had asked last week when Mark was up there about this American citizen, Aya Hijazi, who’s been held now for 900 days, I believe. Mark, when he spoke to my question, called for due process and a speedy trial, but – and my response to him was that it’s been 900 days, it doesn’t seem so speedy; why aren’t you calling for her immediate release? Is that something that you would care to revisit?

MR KIRBY: Well, I would say, one, we certainly remain very, very concerned about Aya Hijazi’s continued detention in Egypt. As you rightly pointed out, more than two years after she was first arrested she has neither been convicted nor set free. And while we have repeatedly called, I think as Mark alluded to, an appropriate judicial process, we believe the case has been delayed way too long, and so we join in others – we join others in calling for a prompt resolution to her case and for her immediate release. I’d also note that we’re providing all consular – all possible consular assistance to Ms. Hijazi. We meet with her frequently. The most recent visit was on the 11th of October, where we attended her last court hearing, and we have every intention of attending upcoming hearings as well.

QUESTION: Okay. Well, so can you – do you know – how long have you been telling the Egyptians that she should be released immediately and that they should stop the – what you seem to say is a pretense of – you seem to say the – you say the delay in her legal hearings are – is not good and it’s --

MR KIRBY: Right.

QUESTION: -- unacceptable. So when did that – when did you reach the determination that --

MR KIRBY: I think we’ve been from the outset conveying our concerns about the appropriate judicial process in her case. And I don’t have a date certain to tell you when on the calendar we said okay, well, the delay now has gone on too long. We – from the very beginning we’ve expressed concern to Egyptian authorities about her case and continue to do that as the delays have continued to mount up.

Okay. Thanks, everybody.

QUESTION: Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:56 p.m.)

The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department.
External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.

Daily Press Briefings : Daily Press Briefing - October 14, 2016

Mark C. Toner

Deputy Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC

October 14, 2016









Index for Today's Briefing

SECRETARY KERRY'S TRAVEL



DEPARTMENT



SYRIA



IRAQ



PHILIPPINES/CHINA



PHILIPPINES



SYRIA



MIDDLE EAST PEACE



SYRIA



DEPARTMENT



PAKISTAN



IRAQ



YEMEN



HONDURAS




TRANSCRIPT:

1:47 p.m. EDT

MR TONER: Happy Friday, everyone. A couple of things at the top and then I’ll get to your questions, answer them to the best of my ability. Let’s start off with just an update on the Secretary’s travel. He’s on the ground in Kigali, Rwanda working with our international partners to secure an ambitious amendment to the Montreal Protocol that would phase down the use of hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs, which are potent greenhouse gases. Negotiations are ongoing, and we’re optimistic of achieving an agreement.

These talks, as you know, are part of a wave of momentum to address climate issues. Just last week, for example, we crossed the final threshold into the entry – into entry into force of the Paris Agreement, and we also saw the International Civil Aviation Organization adopt a measure based on carbon-neutral growth in the aviation – international aviation sector. An ambition – ambitious amendment to the Montreal Protocol would be another major step forward in our ongoing efforts to work with the international community to tackle the shared challenge of climate change.

In Kigali, the Secretary also met with President Kagame, and he also visited Rwanda’s national genocide memorial.

Today, Ambassador Nancy Stetson, the U.S. special representative for Habitat III and global food security, is traveling to Quito, Ecuador to serve as deputy head of delegation for the United States to the United Nations Conference on Housing and Sustainable Urban Development, which is also referred to as Habitat III. Habitat III will be the first time in 20 years that the international community has come together to reflect on and plan for the megatrend of rapid urbanization. UN member-states will adopt the New Urban Agenda, a vision for sustainable urbanization, as well as a new set of agreed voluntary standards of achievement. This agenda reinforces the crucial linkages between urbanization and sustainable development goals as well as the Paris Agreement on climate change, among other important shared global aspirations.

Matt.

QUESTION: Yeah. Let’s start with Syria. There have been some suggestions – actually, I think a report, actually, from a state – or state-affiliated news agency that the Iranians are not going to attend this meeting in Lausanne. What’s your understanding of who is going to be there now?

MR TONER: Well, again, we’ve been pretty consistent in saying that we’re going to leave it up to the countries themselves to confirm their attendance. I have not seen that report out of Iran.

QUESTION: Have you – well – I mean, do you expect there be – to be a representative of Iran there?

MR TONER: I don’t think we were certain, to be honest.

QUESTION: As a key player? I mean --

MR TONER: We would like Iran to be there, but I’m not sure that they’ve confirmed yet.

QUESTION: Okay. And then just more broadly on the meeting, is there any hope or expectation that it will produce the desired result, which I presume – but correct me if I’m wrong – is some kind of truce – a temporary one at least – that could then be extended? And is there any expectation that that might actually happen?

MR TONER: I certainly don’t want to overplay or underplay our expectations for Lausanne. I think that you’re right, that the urgent need right now in front of us is some kind of cessation of hostilities, at least a significant reduction in the level of violence certainly in and around Aleppo, and that’s going to be a primary focus. But more broadly, you know the framework we’re working within, which is to try to get a cessation. And once you get that cessation, then we can talk about next steps, which include getting negotiations back up and running in Geneva as well as access for humanitarian assistance throughout Syria.

So, I mean, the essential challenges are the same. That’s going to be the topic of discussion in Lausanne. I think this – if I had to frame it, I don’t know that I would expect any breakthroughs. I would just say that we’re looking to get this multilateral effort and approach to Syria up and running.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR TONER: Yeah. Are we ready to walk away from Syria? Are you on Syria or we done with Syria? Great. Let’s go.

Go ahead, Goyal.

QUESTION: This is Iraq.

MR TONER: Oh. Okay.

QUESTION: Okay. The British foreign ministry just hosted a delegation from the Iraqi foreign ministry that – I should say the British foreign office – my apologies --

MR TONER: That’s okay.

QUESTION: -- just hosted a --

MR TONER: I understood.

QUESTION: -- a delegation from the Iraqi foreign ministry headed by the Iraqi foreign minister, but it included the head of the Kurdistan region’s foreign relations office. Is that a format for discussions that you might consider in the future so that the concerns of the Kurdistan region are properly heard?

MR TONER: Look, I think we’ve already been coordinating pretty closely with both the Kurdistan Regional Government as well as the Government of Iraq. We’ve been in close and constant communication with them through a variety of different means, obviously in person but also via telephone, via email, all with the aim of coordinating upcoming efforts to liberate Mosul. And obviously, that’s a very complex operation and we need to be coordinated, and we understand that the more we can discuss and coordinate with the various fighting forces, the better off the overall effort will be. Obviously, always – any operation on Mosul will be under the command and control of the Iraqi Government, but as much as, again, all these different fighting forces can be coordinated, it’s to the overall betterment of the effort.

QUESTION: Beyond Mosul, would you consider this a format just so that the people in the Kurdistan region – that their views are also represented in their discussions with the – in the discussion that the United States has with Iraqis?

MR TONER: Again, I don’t want to get ahead of the immediate challenge, which is Mosul. But I think in general we’re in very close contact and in frequent contact with President Barzani, with other senior regional government officials to talk about not only the efforts to defeat and destroy and degrade Daesh but also the response to the humanitarian needs, and also the IDP, the internally displaced people. That’s a real crisis as well in Iraq. So we’re talking about all these issues all the time. We’re already closely coordinated; we’re already talking to these various groups as well as the Iraqi Government closely already.

Please.

QUESTION: Philippines?

MR TONER: Philippines. Go.

QUESTION: Filipino President Duterte is going to pay a state visit to China prior to any visit to U.S. ally countries. First of all, does it bother you?

MR TONER: Not at all. Obviously, the Filipino or the Philippines relations – relationship with China is an important one. It’s important to the region, and strong relations between China and the Philippines, frankly, we believe is important to regional security. So we don’t view it as any type of slight or any – in any way overlooking the importance of our own relations – our own bilateral relationship with the Philippines. We view it as a positive thing.

QUESTION: Yesterday, President Duterte had interview with my colleague in Manila in which he said he wanted to resume the friendship between Philippine and China, and he also – he said he was grateful for China not to interfere how he run the country, how he fight for the drug war. My question is: Do you think the tension between United States and Philippine may further force Philippine to pivot to China?

MR TONER: Look, I can’t speak to President Duterte’s vision of his foreign policy. That’s for his own foreign minister to speak to, as well as President Duterte. Our focus is obviously on maintaining our close relations with the Philippines, and we’ve been trying to do that. We want to cooperate and continue to cooperate with the Philippines on the range of areas that we cooperate in, and that includes counternarcotics as well as security.

That said – and this is not specific to the Philippines – we’re always going to be clear when we see credible allegations of human rights abuses or of any kind of actions by the government or by security forces – and again, I’m not being specific to the Philippines. We’re going to be frank and candid about our concerns. That’s part of a – we believe – a strong bilateral relationship with any country.

As to whether he’s pivoting east or west, I can’t speak to that. Certainly it’s in the Philippines’ interest to have strong relations in the region, and as much as this is an effort in that direction, we would support it.

QUESTION: What’s your view of the arm sale – potential arm sales between Philippine and China? Because right now, the Chinese Government and Filipino Government, they are negotiating a 25-year military agreement. What’s your view on it and could you please update us on what’s the current status of the United States arm sales to Philippine? I think Matt raised the question two days ago.

MR TONER: With regard to potential arms sales or arms agreements with China, again, we wouldn’t necessarily have a comment on that. It’s the Philippines’ prerogative to make its own choices in terms of who it engages in these kinds of deals with. I don’t know if I have an update on our own – status of our own – sorry, I’m just looking through my book quickly here. Let me see if I can get you something on that. I didn’t realize you had asked the other day. I apologize.

QUESTION: Go back to the Middle East?

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: Follow-up on Philippines?

MR TONER: Let’s finish – you said on Philippines?

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR TONER: Yeah, sure. Let’s finish with that.

QUESTION: Earlier this week, the Philippine senate ended its hearings on state involvement on the violence in the drug war. I was wondering if you had a comment.

MR TONER: Well, again, I think I would just say what I just said previously, was – is that where – we support, broadly speaking, efforts by the Philippines – the Government of the Philippines to take on the challenge of narcotrafficking and drug trafficking, and frankly the terrible effects that that can have on a society. It’s obviously of great concern to the president, as he’s spoken about it many times. But certainly in any effort to attack that kind of problem, I think that you have to be mindful of the approach and how you approach it. And certainly we would be concerned by any reports of extrajudicial killings by or at the behest of government authorities in the Philippines and would encourage, where there are credible allegations, for the Government of the Philippines to conduct thorough and transparent investigations into those reports.

And more broadly, again, just urge that the Philippines ensures that its law enforcement officers are consistent with their international human rights obligations.

QUESTION: It looks like – I mean, the ending of the hearings is an indication that they’ve ended, sort of, the investigation. The chairman of the hearings said that the hearings have failed to prove that the president is involved and that the state is involved in the violence.

MR TONER: I’ve not seen the specific results of those hearings. I’m just saying broadly what our concerns are and how we’d like to see the Philippine Government address them. If there’s – if we have comment on the actual findings of the hearings, we’ll certainly add those.

Please.

QUESTION: Last one on the Philippines. So is the United States getting mixed messages from the Philippines Government?

MR TONER: I’m sorry, I was coughing.

QUESTION: Sorry.

MR TONER: That’s okay.

QUESTION: Is the United States getting mixed messages from the Philippine Government? Because it seems Duterte says one thing; his defense minister comes out and says the alliance is strong. Who is the United States supposed to listen to in this?

MR TONER: Fair question. I think we’ve been pretty consistent in our approach, which is while certainly we don’t want to discount some of the rhetoric and some of the things said by the leadership in the Philippines, what we look at most closely is at a working level whether the cooperation and the receptivity of the Philippine Government is still there. And we have not seen any indication at that working level, that bilateral level, of a turning away from the United States. So we’re going to continue to, obviously, pursue those bilateral relations. As I said, we have a very strong, very long, historic relationship with the Philippines, and we’re going to continue to pursue that.

QUESTION: To the Middle East?

MR TONER: Yeah. Yeah, Ros.

QUESTION: First a housekeeping question.

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: Apparently the President’s having a meeting a little bit later this afternoon to talk about possible military actions in Syria. Is there any representation from State at this meeting?

MR TONER: I wouldn’t be able to speak to those meetings. I’d refer you to the White House.

QUESTION: Okay. And then --

MR TONER: But I can say broadly speaking that we continue to look at a range of options with regard to next steps on Syria.

QUESTION: Well, the meeting’s public. It’s on the President and the Vice President’s schedule.

MR TONER: I said that, but I wouldn’t – I’m not going to speak to it from here.

QUESTION: I know, but who from State is going to go?

MR TONER: I don’t know.

QUESTION: And then regarding Israel’s decision to suspend its working relationship with UNESCO over the draft resolution about the Temple Mount or al-Aqsa Mosque, does the U.S. have a reaction to Israel’s decision? Does it endorse Israel’s decision? What can be done to persuade UNESCO to change this resolution or withdraw it?

MR TONER: Well, as you know, we actively opposed the resolution, and we did work in partnership with Israel and likeminded member states really to discourage other UNESCO members from pursuing this resolution. I’ll let the Israelis speak to their decisions with regard to the relations with – relationship with UNESCO and their role in UNESCO. It’s their prerogative, obviously, to have serious concerns in the wake of these, as we talked about yesterday, these continual resolutions that we believe, at the very least, cast Israel in a very unfair light. They’re very politicized and anti-Israel.

With regard to – I forget the second part of your question – with regard to our own role or our own approach to UNESCO?

QUESTION: Is there any way of persuading the body to either change the language in the resolution or persuade them to withdraw it altogether? I mean, the chief of UNESCO has condemned the resolution herself, but she doesn’t have the power, it seems, to do anything about it.

MR TONER: Right. Look, I mean, if those avenues are open to us, we’ll certainly pursue them. Unfortunately, the resolution passed. But more broadly, we feel it’s an important – and we talked a little bit about this yesterday – that the U.S. was still a member of the executive board and able to have a voice, able to express its dissent with this resolution. And going forward, we believe it’s important that the United States remain engaged with UNESCO, not only to block or discourage these kinds of anti-Israeli resolutions, but also to, frankly, pursue a very affirmative agenda of what UNESCO can accomplish. It’s doing important work in CDE, on climate change, World Heritage sites, and other educational programs.

So there are important roles for and important programs that UNESCO’s pursuing, and so we’re going to keep trying to put forth a positive agenda.

QUESTION: And finally, President Abbas welcomed the passage of the resolution. Is that regrettable on his part?

MR TONER: I think in the sense that these kinds of resolutions are counterproductive to what our overall goal is here, which is creating a climate that is conducive to the two parties getting back to some kind of settlement process with regard to peace in the Middle East – and so as much as any of these kinds of resolutions cast a negative shadow on those efforts, then we would find them counterproductive.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR TONER: Please. Yes, sir. Are you --

QUESTION: Just two things.

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: One, the White House says its National Security Council meeting – the National Security Council is defined by the White House itself as including the President, the Vice President, the Secretary of State, Defense, and so on. Even if there won’t be a State representative physically at the meeting, can you not say whether or not someone from the State Department will take part in the meeting somehow?

MR TONER: Certainly, if there is a meeting and an interagency discussion on Syria, then of course the State Department will be represented in some way, shape, or form. I just don’t know the details.

QUESTION: Great. And then one second thing: I imagine you’ve seen the quotes from Syrian President Assad saying that taking eastern Aleppo will be a good springboard to then push the terrorists back to Turkey. Does the U.S. Government – what is the U.S. Government’s policy to try to prevent that from happening?

MR TONER: Well, President Assad has a very different definition, I think, of terrorists than we do. Obviously, our goal is to pursue Daesh, defeat and destroy them in the battlefield, working with some of the groups that we’ve been working with, certainly, in northern Syria. And frankly, one of the goals, the missed opportunities from this failed September 9th agreement from Geneva was the opportunity to jointly work with Russia on going after Nusrah. And Nusrah – or, rather, and Russia has said that’s one of their objectives as well.

But that said, we view as – Nusrah and al-Qaida as the major threats, certainly to our national security but also threats to the region’s security, and we’re going to continue to pursue our efforts to defeat them.

QUESTION: Do you oppose the notion of Assad’s forces pushing all the way to the Turkish border?

MR TONER: I mean, we oppose what Assad’s forces are currently doing in leveling the city of Aleppo in what they claim is a pursuit to go after these terrorists, when, in fact, they’re going at – much of their airstrikes and much of the assault is after – is aiming at the moderate opposition. So I would even go – I’d even take a step back and say not only would we not support them going further; we want them to stop right now where they’re at so that we can get a political track back up and running in Geneva. If we get there – and it’s a big if – then as we’ve talked about before, all other options – all other opportunities are on the table, which is going after Nusrah and going after Daesh more constructively, more productively – not with the regime, but with Russia; but we didn’t get there, so.

QUESTION: Beyond trying to get a – back to the diplomatic track, do you have any other policies to stop Assad’s forces from pushing on further?

MR TONER: Well, I mean, I think we’re looking – and I don’t want to get ahead of discussions, meetings that have yet to take place, but we’ve been very clear in the wake of our suspension of bilateral engagement with Russia on Syria, we’ve been looking at a range of options – economic, ways to put military pressure, ways to put economic pressure, other ways to put pressure and gain leverage given the situation in Syria. We’re trying to be thoughtful about it. We’re soliciting the views, obviously, of everyone involved in the interagency before we move forward. And again, what Secretary Kerry has been focused on is how do we go back to the multilateral setting and harness the ideas and the leverage that other countries may have with regard to Syria, and use that to put forward a new diplomatic process. Please.

QUESTION: On the Wikileaks dump today, there was one email in particular between John Podesta and Cheryl Mills asking about holding emails from President Obama and Secretary Clinton back. Why weren’t those turned over? Would they not fall under work-related?

MR TONER: You’re talking about emails between John Podesta --

QUESTION: I’m sorry, there was an email that suggested there were emails between President Obama and Secretary Clinton, and in Podesta’s email he’s saying we should try and have these held back, have the President use executive privilege to hold those back.

MR TONER: I believe there are, yeah – I believe – and I’d have to double check on that, but I believe with the correspondence with President there was – I don’t know if it was executive privilege, but there was a concern that those emails not be made public.

QUESTION: Is there a reason why?

MR TONER: I think – and again, I don’t have the chapter and verse in front of me, but it’s – I think it’s some form of executive privilege. I’d have to get back to you on what the exact wording is.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR TONER: I just don’t know what the – the rationale is that the correspondence of the President is – has certain privileges and privacies, but I don’t have the exact chapter and verse in front of me.

QUESTION: Mark?

MR TONER: Yes, Goyal.

QUESTION: Couple questions, thanks, sir. Couple questions on South Asia. One: What is U.S. stand at the UN Security Council resolution as far as declaring some of the terrorists wanted by the U.S. and India, but China has twice again last week supported Pakistan and saying that they are not terrorists. So innocent people have been killed in the name of terrorism, but China is supporting Pakistan and the United Nations.

MR TONER: Which --

QUESTION: Some of those include, sir, like, Hafiz Saeed, Ibrahim Dawood, and also Masood Azhar, among others.

MR TONER: I’m not 100 percent sure I know which resolution you’re talking about, but I would just say that we continue to urge Pakistan to take actions to combat and delegitimize all terrorist groups operating on its soil. Obviously, Pakistan has suffered greatly at the hands of terrorists and violent extremists. We want to help Pakistan confront this terrorist threat, but we also want Pakistan also to go after those terrorists who seek and sometimes find safe haven on Pakistan territory.

QUESTION: This resolution came twice in the United Nations Security Council that these people should be declared terrorists by the United Nations Security Council, but China vetoed or said that they are not terrorists and supported Pakistan. So where does U.S. stand there?

MR TONER: Again, I’m not aware of this specific resolution. I apologize, Goyal. I’d refer you to our team up at USUN who can probably speak with more depth than I have on this particular issue.

QUESTION: And second, in the name of terrorism innocent peoples have been killed in the thousands in Pakistan. And now the Pakistanis are asking that time has come to put this end and this rather in the name of this Mr. Altaf Hussain in London who is the MQM founder and chairman, and he was head there, or allegation that money launder, in the name of money laundering or cases against him in London. Thousands of people were rounded up in Karachi and hundreds were killed, and that’s what he said that – and now the British court freed him and said they are not – they are all allegations and there is no truth in the case.

MR TONER: Well, I would refer you to the British Government to speak to that particular case. I think we’ve spoken out about this individual before, so I’ll leave it there.

Please, Matt.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR TONER: Oh.

QUESTION: Sorry, just one question about Iraq.

MR TONER: Yeah, sure. Go ahead.

QUESTION: There were reports today that some of the Iraqi army units which were sent to participate in the upcoming operation in Mosul, they are raising sectarian flags – Shia flags. Would that alarm you? And – because, as you know, Mosul is a predominantly Sunni city, which could be problematic.

MR TONER: Well, we all know the reality of the effort in Iraq involves local tribal forces and so-called PMF, Popular Mobilization Forces. They’ve been instrumental, frankly, in much of the success that the Iraqi Government and Security Forces have had against Daesh. I don’t know about this particular incident, but we’ve said before that these groups need to be mindful, need not to create more tensions as they operate among the local populations, and need to be respectful of the local populations in terms of respectful of their religion, and respectful of their human rights.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: I got two different subjects.

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: First, Yemen. What’s the status of the review into the assistance that you’re providing to Saudis?

MR TONER: No update on that, Matt. I know we’re going to do a background call shortly, but I don’t have anything to add on --

QUESTION: Yeah, but – I mean, is this review just going to go on and on and on and on, and so that --

MR TONER: No, I wouldn’t say that either.

QUESTION: You can say with certainty that there will be an end to this review with a conclusion about --

MR TONER: Where we go?

QUESTION: -- whether or not to continue or to modify the assistance you’re giving to the Saudis?

MR TONER: I mean, honestly, I can say when we say we’re going to conduct a review, we conduct the review. I can’t speak to what – where it will land, what its conclusions will be. But as we’ve said, and said quite forcefully the last week, last weekend after the strike on the – that hit the funeral procession, or gathering, that we have very serious concerns about civilian casualties. And we’re reviewing our assistance.

QUESTION: I understand. I’m not asking you for what the results of the review is going to be.

MR TONER: Okay.

QUESTION: I’m just – there – it will come to an end at some point. Is that right?

MR TONER: I believe so, yes. Yes.

QUESTION: And in the near future?

MR TONER: I hope so, yes.

QUESTION: I mean – all right. And then secondly --

MR TONER: Because you’ll make sure – (laughter) – I hear about it if – otherwise.

QUESTION: Uh, yeah. Yes. And then the second one is on Honduras.

MR TONER: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Have you guys certified that they have met their human rights obligations? I think I asked about this a couple weeks ago and then it slipped my --

MR TONER: Sure. So we – yes. We certified that Honduras is taking effective steps to meet the criteria specified in the Fiscal Year 2016 appropriations – appropriation legislation. So that’s not to say that all is well and good. Obviously, corruption, crime, impunity are real problems, continue to be real problems in Honduras. But we have seen, I think, a demonstration of political will by the Honduran Government that has taken on and made progress against some of the country’s security and developmental challenges. So we want to see that progress continue.

QUESTION: When was that certification done?

MR TONER: My understanding is it was – oh, September 30th, 2016.

QUESTION: Any reason why it’s taken so long to --

MR TONER: Publicly announce it?

QUESTION: Yes.

MR TONER: I don’t know. Honestly, I mean, I don’t --

QUESTION: I mean --

MR TONER: I don’t know how we generally make --

QUESTION: Was it published in the Federal Register?

MR TONER: I don’t know. I’ll ask.

QUESTION: All right. And then can you be more specific about what effective steps they have taken? Because as you are aware, there have been numerous reports over the course of – well, over a while, but certainly this – over the course of the last couple months about new abuses and about new --

MR TONER: Right.

QUESTION: -- committed by the police and by the – by security forces there.

MR TONER: I mean, I can speak a little bit about what our assistance programs do in Honduras, but I don’t have specific --

QUESTION: No, no, no. I want to know what --

MR TONER: Yeah, I don’t have a specific – I’ll get that for you.

QUESTION: So when you made the certification, there wasn’t any attempt to define what it was that you think they’re doing --

MR TONER: I’m sure there was. I just don’t have it in front of me. And I’m not following as closely as I probably should --

QUESTION: All right. What’s the --

MR TONER: -- Honduran human rights situation.

QUESTION: What’s the total assistance that this frees up?

MR TONER: I will get that for you as well. I don’t have it in front of me. I apologize.

QUESTION: All right. I – and please, if you could get the actual – the --

MR TONER: Yeah. So what I propose, we’ll do --

QUESTION: -- because these reports have been --

MR TONER: -- we’ll do this as a formally – we’ll do this as a formal taken question. Okay?

QUESTION: Okay. I mean, because there have been persistent --

MR TONER: You have my pledge.

QUESTION: -- reports of violations.

MR TONER: I understand that. No, I understand that, Matt. And I understand – again, I’m not trying to create the appearance that all is well, that --

QUESTION: Well, I know. But if all is not well and all is not good, why did they get certified?

MR TONER: Well, again, I think we look for progress. And we’ve seen significant enough progress in their efforts – and I should have more detail to provide to you --

QUESTION: Okay.

MR TONER: -- on that; I apologize for it – but to give them a passing grade.

That it, guys? Thank so much.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR TONER: Yep.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:21 p.m.)

DPB # 176

The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department.
External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.

Daily Press Briefings : Daily Press Briefing - October 7, 2016

John Kirby

Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC

October 7, 2016









Index for Today's Briefing

SECRETARY TRAVEL/DEPARTMENT



SYRIA/REGION



INDIA/PAKISTAN/REGION



DEPARTMENT/CHINA



RUSSIA/CUBA/VIETNAM



COLOMBIA



NORTH KOREA/REGION



RUSSIA/CUBA/VIETNAM



PHILIPPINES




TRANSCRIPT:

2:36 p.m. EDT

MR KIRBY: Okay. Thanks, guys. Just a programming note here: The Secretary will travel to Kigali, Rwanda on the 13th and 14th of October to join EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy and others in striving to achieve U.S. climate and environmental goals at the upcoming Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol.

The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer is widely regarded to be one of the most successful environmental treaties ever and was the first treaty to achieve universal ratification. This global agreement has put the stratospheric ozone layer on a path to recovery through measures to control production and consumption of ozone-depleting substances. Negotiations in Kigali will be an important opportunity to reach global agreement on an ambitious amendment to the protocol to phase down the production and consumption of hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs. HFCs have become popular substitutes for ozone-depleting substances; but while they are far better for the ozone layer, they are also potent greenhouse gases, which means that they do contribute to climate change.

An ambitious HFC amendment would build on the positive momentum of the Paris Agreement and could avoid up to a half a degree of Celsius warming by the end of this century. So the Secretary is very much looking forward to going to Kigali and to embarking on those negotiations.

Matt.

QUESTION: Thank you. Before we get into policy stuff, is it correct that you guys are putting out another batch of former Secretary Clinton’s emails today?

MR KIRBY: Yes. At 3:30 this afternoon, we expect to be able to post on our website another batch of emails. Now, this is – these emails come from the materials provided by the FBI.

QUESTION: And can you give any – give us any more idea of what’s coming?

MR KIRBY: Yeah. So we’ll be making – releasing approximately 75 documents totaling approximately 270 pages of emails reflecting work-related communications involving Secretary Clinton. This will be our first substantial release of materials that we received from the FBI. I think, as you guys know, we were ordered by the court to process 350 pages of material received from the FBI by today, the 7th of October, and we met that requirement. So to be clear, we’re going to be releasing approximately 270 pages of the approximately 350 pages that we processed.

QUESTION: Why is there a difference of 80?

MR KIRBY: Because processing doesn’t mean releasing. There were, in many cases, either actual duplicates of material that we already had posted from the 55,000, and then there were also, inside the batch that we got from the FBI, there were duplicate documents. No sense in posting two when one is exactly the same. So – and processing --

QUESTION: Well, the only thing is that we – I mean, we’re taking your word for that, right?

MR KIRBY: Yes, you are.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR KIRBY: Do you have reason to suspect my word on it?

QUESTION: No, I don’t have any reason to suspect anything. I’m just saying if the court ordered you to release 350 pages --

MR KIRBY: No, they didn’t. No, the order was to process, not to release --

QUESTION: Oh, okay. All right, all right.

MR KIRBY: -- to process, to work through 350, which we did.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR KIRBY: And of those 350, 270 will be released today.

QUESTION: Okay. On to Syria and the Secretary’s comments earlier this morning, one is: Do you know what strike he was talking about in his comments overnight on a hospital in Aleppo?

MR KIRBY: I think the Secretary’s referring actually to a strike that we saw happen yesterday on a field hospital in the Rif Dimashq Governorate. I’m not exactly positive that that’s what he was referring to, but I think he was referring to actually one that was --

QUESTION: Not one in Aleppo?

MR KIRBY: I believe it was – I think it was – I think he – my guess is – I’m guessing here that he was a bit mistaken on location and referring to one --

QUESTION: Which location? Sorry.

MR KIRBY: A field hospital in Rif Dimashq Governorate.

QUESTION: Was it --

MR KIRBY: So I think he was referring to one yesterday.

QUESTION: Definitely yesterday, though? It wasn’t one from Wednesday?

MR KIRBY: I think he was referring to one yesterday, and I know of another one on a hospital Monday, but I think that’s what he was referring to.

QUESTION: Is there a way you guys can check?

MR KIRBY: We did. I mean, believe me, I knew I was going to get asked this question.

QUESTION: Yeah, yeah, yeah.

MR KIRBY: We looked at it and --

QUESTION: But you don’t have certainty, though?

MR KIRBY: I don’t. Best I got, best information I got, is that he was most likely referring to one yesterday in this governorate, but it could just be an honest mistake.

QUESTION: If we could – if we can nail that down with certainty what he was talking about --

MR KIRBY: I’ll do the best I can, Matt.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR KIRBY: But again, knowing I was going to be asked this today, I did try to do as much research as I could.

QUESTION: All right. Okay.

MR KIRBY: I could not find one last night in Aleppo.

QUESTION: Then --

QUESTION: The precise death totals were 20 and 100 --

MR KIRBY: I recognize that. I can’t corroborate that. But look, let’s take 10 steps back here. I mean, over the last two weeks, we think almost 400 people now have been killed in Aleppo alone. So whether or not there was a strike last night in a hospital or Aleppo is kind of beside the point. The point he was – the broader point that he was trying to make is that the Russians and the Syrian regime continue this onslaught on Aleppo. And just over the last two weeks alone, as I said, almost 400 people, best we can tell, have been killed. And that doesn’t even count the wounded.

QUESTION: Can – then get – so if we could get clarity on that, that would be great. But the second --

MR KIRBY: I will do what I can, Matt, but I can’t promise --

QUESTION: -- I would also like – also seeking clarity on who exactly does the Secretary believe should do this investigation into possible war crimes. Because if it’s the ICC, to which you are not a party – I mean, that has got to go through the Security Council. Syria is not a party, neither is Russia, and it’s got – so it’s got to go through the Security Council. And there’s – the chances of that happening – in other words, a Security Council referral – are less than slim and none.

MR KIRBY: I think the Secretary was referring to his view that there should be – that these actions beg for an appropriate investigation. He wasn’t --

QUESTION: By who?

MR KIRBY: Well, he wasn’t getting ahead of the process. He was simply referring to the fact that we know these acts are violations of international law and they should be so investigated, and appropriately so. He wasn’t – that was the extent of his comment. That was the extent of the point he was trying to make. He wasn’t trying to get ahead of the process.

QUESTION: Well, was he just trying to make the point that these look like war crimes, as opposed to formally calling for a war crimes investigation? And to that point, I mean, it’s no secret that the U.S. has been working with Syrian groups and others to try and document some of these atrocities as potential war crimes for future accountability down the road.

MR KIRBY: I think, again, you heard him say when he was up at the UN a couple weeks ago – he talked about how the actions of the regime in particular were violations of international law. And I mean, we’re talking about bombing hospitals and bombing first responders and killing innocent civilians, not by accident but on purpose. And so this isn’t the first time he’s talked about the fact that these are violations of international law; and again, today he was simply making the point that because we believe they’re violations, they should be appropriately investigated.

QUESTION: I understand. But I mean --

QUESTION: By who?

QUESTION: -- it does seem --

MR KIRBY: I’ve answered that question.

QUESTION: I mean, I’m --

MR KIRBY: He wasn’t trying to make a specific point about by whom.

QUESTION: I understand that. But it does seem as if there is a violation of international law and there’s war crimes, and war crimes come – that is obviously a legal determination that comes with a lot more responsibility to hold those accountable. And I’m wondering where this building and where this Administration is in terms of determining whether these are war crimes and trying to document them as such for some type of future accountability, regardless of who right now is investigating it.

MR KIRBY: We certainly believe that the violations we’ve seen – the strikes and the attacks and the manner in which, that they have been conducted – merit and deserve an evaluation, a review, an investigation – call it what you will – as potential war crimes. Now, you’re right that there’s a very specific legal, technical definition – I’m not an expert on that, wouldn’t pretend to be – that comes with making that determination. And the Secretary wasn’t making that determination today. He was saying that these actions beg an appropriate investigation.

QUESTION: Well, but by saying that these accusations beg an investigation on war crimes – again, regardless who does it – that would suggest that he wants to know whether these are war crime – or fit the legal definition or not. And again, that would cause a whole – open up a whole other avenue of potential measures, policy decisions, and such.

MR KIRBY: Well, again, I’m not going to get ahead of the process, and I don’t think the Secretary was trying to do that either. I think he was giving an honest – his honest view that these violations of international law should be properly investigated for the potential to be determined as war crimes and that – and we’ve said this before – that if such a determination is made, people need to be held to account.

QUESTION: So is kind of throwing it out there, like whoever wants to investigate it as war crimes should do so? Or is he saying that there needs to be an --

MR KIRBY: He was simply saying that he believes these actions beg an appropriate investigation.

QUESTION: And is he willing to --

MR KIRBY: He wasn’t making a determination or offering an opinion or a view of who should do it or when.

QUESTION: Okay. Well, is he willing to spearhead – is he willing, as he’s done with other things – is he willing --

MR KIRBY: I think this is a discussion that he thinks should happen inside the UN and inside the international community.

QUESTION: John --

QUESTION: Simply stated, does the U.S. Government believe, based on all the information that it has gathered, that Russia has committed war crimes in Syria?

MR KIRBY: I would again point you back to what he said at the UN and what he said today, that – he said that these strikes are clear violations of international law.

QUESTION: That’s not what he said today.

MR KIRBY: No, but he said that at the UN.

QUESTION: I remember.

MR KIRBY: Okay, I’m – so I think it’s important though to go back to – this isn’t a new idea here, what he said today. And what he said today was these acts, these acts which we – which he has said publicly have violated international law, ought to be appropriately investigated. But are we – are we ready now to make that call and say yep, absolutely? No. That’s why he wants to see them looked into.

QUESTION: Okay. So you’re not ready to say that you believe that Russia has committed war crimes in Syria.

MR KIRBY: No, and the Secretary didn’t allude to that today either.

QUESTION: All right, I got it. Okay. And then second thing: Do you think it is fair, based on what he said today, to say that he is calling for an investigation – not just that this cries out for investigation but that he’s actually calling for one, or does that --

MR KIRBY: Well, I mean --

QUESTION: Or does this stop short of that?

MR KIRBY: I don’t – I mean, I don’t know how helpful it is to parse the verbs. I would just point you back to what he said --

QUESTION: Actually, it’s very important.

MR KIRBY: I would point you back to what he said himself, which – that these are acts that beg for an appropriate investigation of war crimes. So if you’re asking me would he like to see them appropriately investigated? My answer is yes, and that’s right from what he said, and I think I’d leave it at --

QUESTION: John, just to clarify: Would he like to see whom do the investigation?

MR KIRBY: He didn’t – again, the Secretary is not getting ahead of a process here, but he does think that this is a conversation worth having inside the international community.

QUESTION: Is it – John, is it fair to just regard this then as kind of a rhetorical exercise to kind of increase the pressure on the Russians before the vote at the UN Security Council? And essentially all you’re doing is just upping the rhetoric, but you’re not actually saying you believe war crimes were committed. You’re not actually calling for an investigation of war crimes. You’re not actually directly accusing the Russians of war crimes. You’re just tossing some words around ahead of a Security Council vote; is that the way to look at this?

MR KIRBY: No, I wouldn't look it at that way at all. He’s the Secretary of State, he doesn’t just toss words around for rhetorical exercises. You have seen his frustration build. You, yourself – all of you have seen his frustration build over the last several weeks. You heard what he said at the UN, called it like he saw it, that these were clear violations of international law. And today, he said that they begged for an appropriate investigation, and I think he meant every word of what he said. I’m not trying to parse here. I’m not trying to be – to dance around this thing, but the Secretary believes that what’s happening is an abomination, is – obviously violates international law. We’re talking, again – let’s remember and let’s remind people we’re talking about hospitals and homes and businesses and innocent men and women and children --

QUESTION: So why hasn’t there been an investigation thus far then?

MR KIRBY: I can’t answer that question, Elise.

QUESTION: But why isn’t the U.S. calling for one?

MR KIRBY: But I can tell you that the Secretary is interested in seeing that move forward.

QUESTION: Are you ready to spearhead that kind of investigation?

MR KIRBY: I’m not going to get ahead of specific process here, Elise.

QUESTION: John.

QUESTION: Well, then why, as Arshad said, isn’t it – if he said it and he’s not willing to move forward with that, he was just throwing out an idea? I don’t understand what --

MR KIRBY: I think, as I said to Arshad, he’s interested in having a conversation inside the international community about this.

QUESTION: Is he going to start having that conversation with his counterparts?

MR KIRBY: I think you can safely assume that international leaders have already talked about the degree to which these violations are, in fact, violations of international law.

QUESTION: John, you know, as Matt said, that Syria is not a state party to the Rome Statute, so the court --

QUESTION: Neither is the U.S.

QUESTION: -- the ICC does not have jurisdiction automatically. And you also know that the only way, therefore, for it to have jurisdiction is for it to be referred – for the matter to be referred by the Security Council, where Russia, as you, finally, know, has a veto. So given that – right – given that the one court in the world that’s supposed to deal with these kinds of issues – right --

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- can’t unless Russia agrees to be investigated, which seems impossible, why shouldn't one regard it all as a rhetorical exercise because you know the ICC ain’t going to get jurisdiction to look into this?

MR KIRBY: Well, again, Arshad, fair question, but I’m simply not going to get ahead of the legal process here. I’m not educated enough to do that in the first place, and secondly, that wasn’t the Secretary’s intent today. He was expressing the frustration he has seen, the fact that he does believe an appropriate investigation is warranted, and that’s a discussion that he and other international leaders have to have in terms of process and how that would be done.

I take your points about the ICC, and I take your point about the UN Security Council and Russia’s veto. I think you can safely assume that the Secretary was aware of both those facts when he talked about this in the General Assembly and when he talked about it today standing next to Foreign Minister Ayrault.

QUESTION: Just a quick one on that. Are you expecting a vote tomorrow? And will he go up for it if there is one?

MR KIRBY: I don’t have any travel to New York City to announce on the Secretary’s behalf.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: And could you – the point of what he said was to start a conversation inside the international community? I mean, it seems to me there’s been conversation going on for the last five years. If he feels that strongly about it, why isn’t it time to move beyond the conversating --

MR KIRBY: He was referring to what’s happening in the last several weeks in Aleppo specifically, Matt.

QUESTION: Well --

MR KIRBY: But look, obviously, there’s been --

QUESTION: -- but there’s been – everyone is – there’s a lot of talk. It’s all talk, talk, talk, talk, talk. And now it sounds like this is just more talk. Where is – does it – if he feels that strongly, why is not – why is there not – why isn’t that talk turning into some kind of action?

MR KIRBY: It very well might, Matt. I can’t – I’m not going to rule out the fact that it won’t lead to some action.

Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: I wanted to ask you about de Mistura.

QUESTION: Earlier this week, the High Commissioner for Human Rights at the UN talked about this particular issue and said that Syria and Russia – and that the UN should change the rules about who – how countries are referred to the International Criminal Court so that countries that wield the veto power can’t prevent themselves from being referred to the ICC. Does the Secretary, does the State Department agree with that position now?

MR KIRBY: I’ll have to take the question. I don’t – I don’t know if we have a view on that proposal.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Can I just ask on – I mean, I think --

QUESTION: I mean – I’m sorry, but why not? I mean, that’s – it’s very germane to this particular issue that we’re – that you guys are all frustrated about for the past two weeks.

MR KIRBY: Your question implies that we haven’t taken a view of it. I don’t know. The reason why I’m not answering your question is because I don’t know and I’m not going to get up here and wing it for you. So I will take your --

QUESTION: Can you find out?

MR KIRBY: That’s what I said. I’ll take your question, sir, and we’ll get back to you. So don’t --

QUESTION: So – thanks.

MR KIRBY: Don’t presume by the fact that I’m taking your question that there’s no opinion here in the building. It just means that I’m not aware of it.

Yeah.

QUESTION: I think some of the confusion today is that Kerry’s remarks were seen as a change in stance, that it was seen as a stronger statement that he had issued before explicitly calling for a war crimes investigation. So I just have two questions. Are you, one, saying that this does not reflect a change in the stance, that his comments today do not mark a shift in tone? And also, is it – there’s confusion about the fact that he was presumably referring to an event that led him to give this sharper statement. Are you saying you can’t identify with certainty what that event was, which attack he was specifically referring to?

MR KIRBY: He was referring specifically – the acts he was referring to were about recent siege activity around Aleppo.

QUESTION: But this one where he said 20 dead, 100 wounded – you guys don’t know --

MR KIRBY: I don’t have specific information on that particular event. I told you before, I tried to research that before coming out here. I don’t have any specifics. But that doesn’t eliminate the fact that in this week alone, since Monday, we know of at least two attacks on hospitals and that over the last two weeks almost 400 people have been killed.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR KIRBY: So he’s talking – when he talks about these acts beg for an appropriate investigation, he’s not simply talking about the one strike that he’s – that he detailed for you today.

QUESTION: So --

MR KIRBY: And then on the change of tone, I don’t see this as a change in tone, and I’ve been with him now throughout this process. He – you – I can point you back to what he said at the UN during the General Assembly. I mean, this is not a new idea – as I said to Arshad – not a new idea for him that these are violations of international law, and we have long said that people should be held to account for these violations. So it’s not a big leap at all for him to say that it would beg for an appropriate investigation.

QUESTION: Could I follow up on what --

MR KIRBY: Sure. Go ahead, Said.

QUESTION: -- the de Mistura proposal? He suggested that the al-Nusrah and the militants pull out of Aleppo. Would you support something like this, or would you have a mechanism or would you suggest a mechanism to do that?

MR KIRBY: Well, we’ve seen the special envoy’s proposal. We understand the frustration behind it. And what I would say is we’re going to continue to have a healthy conversation with Staffan de Mistura about the way ahead, about trying to get to a ceasefire, to a cessation of hostilities. And what needs to happen, Said, more critically, is that the siege of Aleppo needs to stop.

QUESTION: Right. Okay --

QUESTION: Well, but --

QUESTION: -- let me just follow up with the numbers. Do you have any – on the figures. Do you have any actual numbers on the number of militants that are in eastern Aleppo?

MR KIRBY: I can’t verify --

QUESTION: Because the figures suggest anywhere between six to eight thousand, some say there is a thousand Nusrah in eastern Aleppo and so on. How do you determine how many --

MR KIRBY: I can’t validate those numbers. I would point you to Mr. de Mistura to do that. We – and we’ve said this before that we don’t believe that al-Nusrah comprises anywhere near a majority of the fighters in Aleppo, but I couldn’t give you an exact figure. I can’t verify those numbers.

QUESTION: But if the --

QUESTION: My last question on this, my last question on this is that the suggestion by the Syrian Government that if the militants surrender, give up, they have amnesty, do you have any comment on that? I mean, is that --

MR KIRBY: I’m sorry?

QUESTION: The Syrian Government suggested that if the militants surrender and give up their arms, they will be given amnesty. Do you – do you think --

MR KIRBY: I think anybody that would take at face value --

QUESTION: Is that something that would have merit?

MR KIRBY: I think anybody that would take at face value anything coming out of the regime would be foolish given the --

QUESTION: Okay. They are the ones that are fighting them on the ground.

MR KIRBY: -- given what this regime has proven capable of doing.

QUESTION: Yeah. But they’re --

MR KIRBY: And I don’t see – look, the continued bombing and siege of Aleppo isn’t going to reduce the fervor with which many in the opposition are fighting. And I think it would – we’ve seen time and time again the Assad regime promising to do something and then failing to do it. So I don’t know how anybody could take that as a credible offer.

QUESTION: Wait. You just said – but wait a minute. You just said that the lifting of the siege of Aleppo would not stop the opposition from fighting with the fervor that which they’re fighting?

MR KIRBY: No, I said absent --

QUESTION: Okay, sorry.

MR KIRBY: Absent that.

QUESTION: So – okay. So if – I mean, I think it’s a long shot that Nusrah is just going to be like, sure, let me just get safe passage out of the city, but let’s just hypothetically, if you could find a way to implement this proposal that would, in fact, get the Russians to lift the siege --

MR KIRBY: I don’t know if it would or not.

QUESTION: -- get the Syrians to lift the siege of Aleppo, would you support safe passage of al-Nusrah out of this?

MR KIRBY: Al-Nusrah remains a party outside – I’m sorry, outside --

QUESTION: But you want to separate them, so where are they supposed to go?

MR KIRBY: -- outside the cessation of hostilities.

QUESTION: No, I understand. But you can’t on one hand say that you’re going to ask them to separate and on the other hand not give them a chance to separate.

MR KIRBY: Okay, I can’t speak for the likelihood of that --

QUESTION: What incentive do they have to separate, then?

MR KIRBY: I can’t speak for the likelihood that that proposal would work, and I’m not going to speculate about that.

QUESTION: I understand. But just – but on a more fundamental --

MR KIRBY: What needs to happen is the siege of Aleppo needs to stop.

QUESTION: I understand. But this goes – this is a very fundamental question of your one responsibility under this agreement – supposed agreement that is – you’re trying to get back on track – that you would separate Nusrah from the opposition. Now, if you separate them, where are these Nusrah people supposed to go? If you could get rid of them, maybe you could stop the ceasefire – you could stop the bombing, right?

MR KIRBY: Al-Nusrah has remained obviously an obstacle to peace in Syria.

QUESTION: Okay, so --

MR KIRBY: And that they are outside the cessation of hostilities we have long said, and we have talked to opposition groups – the ones that we influence – and we know that other countries who have influence over other groups have talked to them about the need to separate. We’ve also said that the siege itself – the continued bombing and violence perpetrated by Assad and by Russia – is having exactly the opposite effect. It’s actually encouraging more marbleization, if you will, by the continued violence. It’s not – it’s certainly not encouraging opposition groups to separate. It’s increasing – as I said, it’s increasing their fervor to fight.

QUESTION: But you’re not – I understand --

MR KIRBY: I’m not going to speculate about the likelihood of success or – out of the proposal that Mr. de Mistura put forward. We understand the frustration with which he made it and did it. We all share that frustration.

QUESTION: But how other --

MR KIRBY: And I can’t – I’m not going to – I can’t speculate about what ifs here.

QUESTION: I – but --

MR KIRBY: What I – what we want to see is the siege stop.

QUESTION: I understand you do. But again, you want to separate them. How do you propose that you do that? Where – how do – where – if they’re all in the city, what, are they supposed to go to the right bank of the city and --

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR KIRBY: I’m not an expert in the geography there. What I would tell you is we continue to have conversations with the opposition about the importance of not being co-located with al-Nusrah, and that is a conversation we continue to have with them.

QUESTION: So you’re leaving this totally up to the opposition to separate themselves?

MR KIRBY: This is ultimately – and I’ve said this, Elise, these are decisions they have to make.

QUESTION: So basically you’re saying just get out of the way so that we can bomb them and --

MR KIRBY: They – these are decisions they have to make, and we’ve talked to them very honestly about that.

QUESTION: For instance, Idlib is a – the – is a --

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: -- Al-Nusrah stronghold, Idlib. Would they be allowed safe passage to Idlib, for instance?

MR KIRBY: Said, I’m simply not going to get into detail --

QUESTION: You’re not really giving them a lot of incentive to separate themselves, are you? I mean --

MR KIRBY: It is the Russians and the Syrian – the regime which is certainly not giving any incentive to separate. In fact, quite the opposite by the continued bombing of civilian targets and of opposition elements.

QUESTION: Another subject?

QUESTION: I know you’ve talked about this before (inaudible) when the cessation of hostilities was announced about how these opposition forces are supposed to separate from Nusrah. But if they do so, they would be, they’d be ceding territory basically to whoever attacks al-Nusrah and takes that territory. So it seems like – I mean, not only is there not incentive for them to do it now, but it seems like there never was an incentive for them to do it.

MR KIRBY: I think you’d have to talk to each group about their – what they’d consider their incentives.

QUESTION: No, I’m talking to you because you guys came up – the Americans came up with this plan.

MR KIRBY: I recognize that you’re talking me, and what I’ve been saying and have said many, many times is that we have made the case to the opposition that being co-located with Nusrah, since Nusrah is outside the cessation of hostilities, is a dangerous endeavor, but these are choices they have to make. We also understand they’re not monoliths, even – not just in an aggregate but amongst themselves, and many of them have more radical views than others. Many of them make pragmatic decisions on their own about where they’re going to physically be located. Those are decisions that they have to make as groups and some of those individuals have to make as individuals. It doesn’t change the fact that we think it is important for them to separate themselves from al-Nusrah since al-Nusrah remains outside the cessation of hostilities – a cessation of hostilities, by the way, which we don’t have right now because the regime and Russia continues to bomb in Aleppo.

QUESTION: Which is kind of the point. You keep saying that “outside the cessation of hostilities,” but that’s – that animal is dead. It’s extinct.

MR KIRBY: I just said that.

QUESTION: I – yeah, I know. So what’s the point, then?

MR KIRBY: Well, we obviously want to get back to it.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR KIRBY: What I said was obviously it’s not enforced now, but that doesn’t violate the principle with which it was established back in February and the fact that we want to get back to it, Matt.

QUESTION: It was – in fact – when was it ever enforced?

MR KIRBY: There were times, and you know there were times. Especially in February, we had a significant reduction in the violence after it was first announced.

QUESTION: No, no, no, no, that’s people observing it. When was it enforced? Where were violations of the cessation, when it existed, ever – when was anyone ever held to account? It --

MR KIRBY: Well, by enforced I mean implemented. I recognize that there have been violations since it was first implemented, and there is – and up until recently we had a task force bilaterally with the Russians to examine and to monitor violations.

QUESTION: There hasn’t – hold on. Just – there hasn’t been any more contact between the Secretary and Foreign Minister Lavrov --

MR KIRBY: I don’t have any additional contact to read out.

QUESTION: May I move on to a new subject? It’s on Wednesday the consul general of India, along with the chair of Diwali stamp and VP of USPS, they issued a historic forever Diwali stamp, which is a festival of lights. It’s a – we always ask you the negative – on negatives, so this is a positive.

MR KIRBY: Yes, you do.

QUESTION: So do you have anything to say on that?

MR KIRBY: Actually, I do. Thanks.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR KIRBY: We are pleased to note --

QUESTION: Are you – wait, wait. You have something to say about the post office issuing a forever Diwali stamp?

MR KIRBY: I do.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR KIRBY: Are you writing down? Are you ready?

QUESTION: Why didn’t you start with that, John?

QUESTION: Word for word. (Laughter.)

MR KIRBY: We’re actually very pleased to note that the U.S. Postal Service commemorated the Hindu festival of Diwali with a forever stamp. As you know, that stamp was unveiled at the Indian consulate in New York on Wednesday. The post service – the Postal Service receives approximately 40,000 suggestions for stamp ideas annually from the public; 25 suggestions are selected by the committee for the Postmaster General’s approval. And as millions around the world celebrate Diwali at the end of the month, we certainly wish them the best.

QUESTION: Anything to say about Kashmir? Two nuclear-armed countries that have fought three wars --

QUESTION: There’s going to be a (inaudible).

QUESTION: -- you have tensions rising. Anything?

MR KIRBY: We’ve been talking about that all week.

QUESTION: Have you got anything to say about that today?

MR KIRBY: Well, we continue to want the two sides to work this out, to have dialogue and to work out the issue.

QUESTION: But you still haven’t confirmed that there was a surgical strike from India to Pakistan.

MR KIRBY: I’d let Indian authorities speak to that. What we want to see is the tensions de-escalate.

QUESTION: Can I ask you – this is going to be very brief, I know --

MR KIRBY: I’m going to have to get down here soon.

QUESTION: Yeah, this is – but there was a story this morning – I don’t know if you saw it, an AP story – about the importation or the sales, online sales of an, opioids called carfentanil, which is very dangerous and is responsible for all sorts of overdoses in the United States, all over North America, actually all over the world. I’m just wondering, in the story it talks about U.S. efforts as well as the efforts of others to crack down on this kind of thing, on this kind of sale, this kind of commerce. And I’m just wondering if you can give any kind of an update as to where – how far – where and how far you think you’ve gotten with the Chinese on this.

MR KIRBY: I cannot, Matt. I’m going to have to take that question.

QUESTION: Okay. If there was a stamp for Lunar New Year, would you have something to say about that?

MR KIRBY: I suppose if there was one, but --

QUESTION: Okay.

MR KIRBY: -- I’m not aware of one.

QUESTION: You should have a stamp for just Rwanda.

QUESTION: Taking the temperature again of U.S.-Russian relations, something harkening back to the Cold War era, now the Russians are saying that they’re considering plans to restore military bases in Vietnam and Cuba in light of the improved relations between Vietnam and Cuba with the United States. How do you perceive these potential developments?

MR KIRBY: I would say a couple of things on that. I mean, these – obviously, overseas basing is – those are sovereign decisions that two states need to work out. We have overseas bases. Other – and there are obviously other nations around the world that also possess and hold overseas bases. That’s not uncommon.

I can’t speak for the motivation that might be driving. If, in fact, they are – I’ve seen the press reporting, but if in fact they are pursuing that, that’s – those are decisions, motivations that they need to speak to, not me. There’s – we have obviously good relations with Vietnam, and we’re trying to now get into a position where we can have better relations with Cuba. I mean, the normalization process is only just getting started. There’s a long way to go.

But these are obviously decisions that states need to work out amongst themselves, and there’s no – I mean, depending on the purpose behind it, there’s no great sense of angst here by one nation looking to explore the notion of overseas basing. It really goes to – it really goes to intent, and only they can speak to intent.

QUESTION: There was no – there would be “no great sense of angst” about having a Russian base in Cuba again?

MR KIRBY: I think – look, this is a – these are decisions that Russian leaders and Cuban leaders would need to work out. The fact is we have overseas bases ourselves, and we’re very comfortable with our overseas presence. And it’s not uncommon for other nations to do that. So I think they would have to speak for the motivation here.

QUESTION: Can I ask you --

QUESTION: John?

QUESTION: -- on Vietnam? I think you may be ready for it. The Vietnamese Government today declared a California-based group as terrorists. Do you have any – have they raised this with the United States directly, or is this just something that they’ve said, or are you doing anything about this?

MR KIRBY: I don’t know. I’m going to have to take that. I haven’t seen that.

QUESTION: John.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR KIRBY: I’ve got – I’ve really got to go.

QUESTION: John, so can I --

QUESTION: On North Korea.

QUESTION: New subject?

QUESTION: Could you comment on the Nobel Prize?

MR KIRBY: On the what?

QUESTION: The Secretary (inaudible.)

QUESTION: On the fact that the Colombian President received the Nobel Prize. Would you comment on that?

MR KIRBY: Well, we – the Secretary put a statement out.

QUESTION: I understand, but --

MR KIRBY: I would point you to that. I mean, obviously we --

QUESTION: -- no, on the fact that there were two parties to this concluded peace deal, but they gave it to the President and not to the rebels. Do you have any comment on that?

MR KIRBY: That’s a decision that the Nobel committee makes, Said. Obviously, we congratulate President Santos for his selection.

QUESTION: John, one more?

MR KIRBY: Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: So a spokesperson from North Korea hinted at a further provocative action and said that the U.S. will face a gruesome reality in the near future. We were wondering if you had any reaction to this statement and how you see North Korea’s recent activities.

MR KIRBY: The same way we have seen North Korean provocative activities, which we continue to condemn and to call for them to take the tension down on the peninsula, not add to it through rhetoric and through action. We obviously take their words seriously, because they have proven willing to conduct provocative activity in the past. That’s why we continue to work with the international community on the potential for even stiffer sanctions going forward inside the UN.

QUESTION: And, sorry, there’s been reports of some increased activity at a North Korean launch site and there’s a possibility that a nuclear test or missile launch may happen tomorrow or the day after. Has the U.S. seen any signs of this and is the U.S. preparing for this possible --

MR KIRBY: I mean, we’ve certainly seen reports about that, but I – as you know, I don’t talk about intelligence matters here from --

QUESTION: But it is the 10th anniversary, I think, of the North Korean nuclear program, isn’t it? So is there extra concern? Is this a period that you’re watching very closely?

MR KIRBY: I think we’re always concerned about the potential for their provocative --

QUESTION: Is this a heightened period?

MR KIRBY: We’re always concerned about the potential for their provocative activity and we’ve seen the reports on this. I’m just not in a position to --

QUESTION: All right. (Laughter.)

MR KIRBY: -- to confirm intelligence here from the podium. I do want to go back – one thing that you were asking me about – the Russian basing. When I say no particular angst, it’s at this point in time we just – a statement in the press like that, obviously. But what I would add to my answer to you is it’s too soon to know whether there needs to be alarm or concern about this given that it was something that they just put out in the media, so I want to clarify my answer to you.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR KIRBY: I don’t want to make it sound dismissive --

QUESTION: Okay.

MR KIRBY: -- but it’s just too soon to know based on the information that we have, which isn’t much about their intentions. But it really does come down to the intentions of the overseas base.

QUESTION: Can you take the question – the – on the Philippines that was going to be asked before you go?

QUESTION: I just want --

MR KIRBY: I’ll take this; it’ll have to be the last one. Go ahead.

QUESTION: On the latest comments from the defense minister and the talk of a suspension – suspending joint exercises, I know we talked about, like, yesterday you were talking about – their relations are still strong, but this seems to be, like, the first tangible break. And so, have you had a reaction to that? Are you communicating with the Philippines at all about this?

MR KIRBY: I saw those comments, and we checked with our colleagues at the Defense Department. They’re not aware of any official notification of the curtailment of these activities. Here at the State Department, we are, likewise, not aware of any official notification of the curtailment. So as I said yesterday and as I’ve said I think every day that we’ve talked about this since, that we’re focused on the very real, very significant security commitments we have through our alliance with the Philippines. And we think comments like this, whether they are or will be backed up by actual action or not, are really at odds with the closeness of the relationships that we have with the people of the Philippines and which we fully intend to continue.

Guys, I’ve got to go. I got to go. Thanks.

QUESTION: Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 3:18 p.m.)

 

The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department.
External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.

Daily Press Briefings : Daily Press Briefing - October 4, 2016

Mark C. Toner

Deputy Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC

October 4, 2016









Index for Today's Briefing

DEPARTMENT



HAITI/REGION



RUSSIA/SYRIA/REGION



TURKEY/REGION



MIDDLE EAST PEACE



ISRAEL



PHILIPPINES/REGION




TRANSCRIPT:

1:45 p.m. EDT

MR TONER: Hey, guys. Happy Tuesday.

A couple things at the top, then I’ll get to your questions. As you guys know, Secretary Kerry is in Brussels today to participate in the Brussels Conference on Afghanistan. He, I think, has met with Afghan President Ashraf Ghani as well as Afghan Chief Executive Abdullah Abdullah to discuss a range of bilateral and as well as regional issues.

The Brussels Conference on Afghanistan is bringing together more than 70 countries and 20 international organizations to endorse a reform program and reaffirm support to the Afghan Government. At the conference, donors will – excuse me – at the conference, donors will outline their commitments to Afghanistan’s development linked to continued Afghan progress on political and economic reforms. The conference sends a strong signal to the Afghan people and to the region that the international community remains committed to a stable and prosperous Afghanistan.

And then just an update with regard to Hurricane Matthew. This morning, Hurricane Matthew made landfall on Haiti, bringing high winds and heavy rain along with it. It’s too early to fully assess the scope of the damage, but we’re continuing to closely monitor the storm’s progress and assess initial damage. We have also already started mobilizing assistance to communities impacted, including providing $400,000 in initial relief assistance to Haiti and Jamaica.

The U.S. Agency for International Development has deployed a Disaster Assistance Response Team, so-called DART, to the Central Caribbean. And the DART, which is an elite team of disaster experts, is coordinating with governments of the affected countries and humanitarian organizations who are already on the ground to bring vital humanitarian assistance and logistic support to those in need in the aftermath of the hurricane. The DART currently has experts in Haiti, Jamaica, and the Bahamas. The U.S. Government is also communicating with officials in Cuba, Dominican Republic, as well as the Cayman Islands in order to coordinate relief efforts if requested.

As mentioned yesterday, USAID’s Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance strategically pre-positioned some emergency relief supplies in Haiti, and it’s begun to prepare additional shipments of commodities from its emergency stockpiles in the region for rapid distribution to the thousands of impacted families. We’ll work with international partners to distribute critical relief supplies, manage emergency shelters, and provide logistic support to humanitarian organizations.

Also, just as a reminder, we issued a Travel Alert for Cuba in addition to the Travel Warning we issued over the weekend for Haiti, Jamaica, and the Bahamas. We continue to advise U.S. citizens in affected areas to make preparations immediately to shelter in place in a secure location and to follow to the emergency instructions provided by local authorities.

That’s it. Matt?

QUESTION: Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Just on that, really quickly --

MR TONER: Yeah, please.

QUESTION: -- do you have in one place – can you – embassy – affected embassies, embassy closures, that kind of thing? Without having to look at each individual Travel Warning?

MR TONER: Yes. Hold on one second; let me see if I can find that really quickly.

QUESTION: If you can’t, it’s fine. But --

MR TONER: That’s okay. No, the – it – so we have not evacuated any U.S. embassy personnel. What we did is we enacted authorized departure via commercial airlines. That was permitted for eligible family members in Kingston, in Nassau, and in Port-au-Prince. And some have departed. But the ambassadors and I would say critical staff remain in place.

QUESTION: I’m – that – okay. Thank you for that, but I’m --

MR TONER: You’re talking about --

QUESTION: -- more about embassies that are going to be closed for business, like they can’t help people.

MR TONER: We’ll try to get an update on that. Yeah. We’ll just get an update.

QUESTION: Thanks. And then I wanted to ask – on this?

QUESTION: Uh, no. Syria.

QUESTION: Yeah, Syria. So since it’s now been a day since you guys have suspended the contact with the Russians on Syria, and there’s been a lot of talk since then about what potential options you have for going forward, and I am wondering if there is any clarity yet about what is possible, what is likely, or when – and when a decision might be made.

MR TONER: Well, there’s – excuse me. There’s some clarity – not a tremendous amount of detail yet. Just to reiterate what Secretary Kerry said, just because we’ve temporarily or suspended the cooperation that we had bilaterally with Russia on Syria doesn’t mean we’ve closed any doors with regard to multilateral action. And certainly, I think, we’re examining closely our approach going forward. And in that regard, the interagency, the departments and agencies, are discussing diplomatic, military, intelligence, and economic options. And we’ll all have these discussions going forward. But I think essentially our view remains the same. We walked away with – from this agreement that we’d reached with Russia with a certain degree of frustration and outrage and sadness, because we still think that that agreement, had it been implemented, would have provided the best way forward, which is a political process and a political transition and a political solution. We still – the options going forward that are being considered – and we’re looking at the range, but our stress is still on the political resolution.

QUESTION: Yeah. But it’s – okay. Well, I mean, I ask you --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: Well, you can take – I know you’re not going to answer this, but I’m going to ask anyway.

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: What are the diplomatic, political, and intelligence options?

QUESTION: And military.

MR TONER: Well, again, I’m not going to --

QUESTION: Didn’t I say military? Oh, diplomatic, military, and intelligence – sorry, not political. I couldn’t read my writing.

MR TONER: That’s okay. (Laughter.) Look, I mean, I’m not going to get into the details. As we develop options going forward and look at what is reasonable – and again, not just – this is not just about the U.S., but I want to stress the fact that we’re going to work within the multilateral framework. We’re going to work with other members of the ISSG. There’s already a meeting, I think, that was announced by Germany tomorrow in Berlin that we’ll participate in. But we’re looking at a range of options, some of which we’ve talked about here from the podium before. But I don’t want to preview or get in front of anything that hasn’t been formally sussed out.

QUESTION: Are all of those options multilateral options only? Or are you considering some unilateral diplomatic, military, intelligence, and economic options?

MR TONER: So my answer to that is going to be that we always, I think, consider unilateral options when looking at a situation like Syria.

QUESTION: And you are now?

MR TONER: And we are now.

QUESTION: Yeah. Thanks.

MR TONER: But as I said, we’re also looking at – with the Russian channel with regard to Syria suspended, we’re looking at how we can leverage and work with the other members of the ISSG.

QUESTION: The Secretary just --

QUESTION: (Inaudible) talked about the economic sanctions against Russian actors?

MR TONER: Again, I’m not going to close the door on any options. They’re – all things are being discussed. But I’d just --

QUESTION: But you’ve expressed a preference for multilateral action, especially as regards sanctions, and you’re meeting tomorrow with Europeans.

MR TONER: Well, we’ve talked about – I think with respect to some of the legislation that’s been proposed on the Hill, we’ve talked about the fact that, regardless of where economic sanctions are applied, but with respect to, for example, Ukraine, that it helps to work in concert with likeminded partners and allies, as we did with respect to --

QUESTION: Would you describe the people meeting in Berlin tomorrow as likeminded partners and allies?

MR TONER: Well, I mean, yes. You can look from the list of those attending. And again, I think this is just – in the wake of the inability for us to get this September 10th agreement, Geneva agreement, in place, it’s a chance for us to get together with some of our closest partners on this to talk about the next steps.

QUESTION: Mark --

QUESTION: Secretary Kerry is not attending that meeting in Berlin.

MR TONER: He’s not.

QUESTION: He’s flying back.

QUESTION: Political directors, right?

MR TONER: He is not --

QUESTION: It’s been reported that he has meetings with the principals committee tomorrow at the White House?

MR TONER: I can’t confirm that right now. But I can say that I believe it’s going to be Tom Shannon who attends tomorrow’s meeting in Berlin.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: Mark is what you just --

MR TONER: I’ll get to you.

QUESTION: Just a quick one on this.

MR TONER: Yeah, please.

QUESTION: What are you – the Secretary said we’re not giving up on the Syrian people and we’re not abandoning the pursuit of peace. So other than discussing options, what are you actually doing to pursue peace in Syria?

MR TONER: Well, again, I think there’s always going to be ongoing discussions about the best way forward and looking at the various options. I mean, I don’t – I’m not coming out here with anything to announce or anything to even really signal as a direction we may be headed. We’re looking at a range of things to do. But I think what’s important here is that there are other options out there. There are other players in this region. And we can work, we believe, in a multilateral way. We did so once before when the ISSG was first formed to get a cessation of hostilities in place. No one’s underestimating, frankly, the challenge here, because when you’ve got what is by any sense or definition an ongoing assault on the people of Aleppo, that that’s going to be hard. But we’re going to continue to pursue efforts.

QUESTION: Syria.

QUESTION: Mark, I just want to --

MR TONER: I’ll get to you.

QUESTION: -- follow up on a couple of things. You said that you have sadly and reluctantly basically walked away from the ceasefire. What was the one event in your – I mean, you’ve talked about this before, but you could – could you tell us now what was the one event --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- that basically made you walk away from this deal? Was it the bombing of the convoy? Was it the continuous bombing? What?

MR TONER: Well, I mean, it’s hard to pinpoint one event. Certainly, the bombing of the humanitarian convoy after over a week of trying to get that convoy up and running and get it the access and the papers and all the documentation that it needed to get into Syria, only to have it bombed was demoralizing to say the least and an outrage, and we said as much.

But then the fact that that was followed with, as I said, a full-on assault on Aleppo, it called into question, I think, the very feasibility or reality of a cessation of hostilities or even what we had talked about, which was a seven-day suspension or rather – not suspension but a reduction in the level of violence. We had two or three days where – that we talked about. There was a significant reduction of violence. And we talked about it at the time; there were violations on both sides. But then if you went into the weekend – I’m talking about the weekend before UNGA, before the UN General Assembly – it really started to deteriorate.

QUESTION: So in terms of timeline, because the suspension happened --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- two weeks after the bombing, it really did not impact walking away --

MR TONER: Well, we talked – I think again, and the Secretary spoke to this several times, we continued to talk to Russia about actions that we felt could be taken to re-establish the credibility of the process, and that didn’t happen.

QUESTION: And Ambassador Churkin yesterday said basically that what sort of broke the ceasefire was the fact that you guys did not want to do something that you obligated yourself to, which is separation, or separating the terrorists from the moderate opposition.

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: Why is that such a daunting – why is that such a difficult thing to do?

MR TONER: Well, look, we’ve spoken to this many times.

QUESTION: Right.

MR TONER: It’s a hard thing to do given the circumstances, and it was only made harder by the fact that many of these groups were under assault, under attack by the regime, aided and abetted by Russian air forces. It didn’t make that piece of it any easier. But that’s an ongoing challenge.

QUESTION: But isn’t it true though that these groups were mixed with one another and, in fact, that made it easier for --

MR TONER: Well, we’ve acknowledged --

QUESTION: -- for elements like Nusrah --

MR TONER: Some.

QUESTION: -- to move about and arm and regroup and so on?

MR TONER: But I mean – some. And again, we’ve talked about the dynamic there and the fact that there is that mixing of some members of the opposition, moderate opposition, with Nusrah. Part of that, again, is exacerbated by the fact that when the regime attacks them, they’re defending themselves. And frankly, as we’ve said many times before, it drives them into the arms of the extremists.

Please.

QUESTION: Mark --

MR TONER: Gayane. I’ll get to you, Michel.

QUESTION: Secretary Kerry said the Syrian regime and Russia seem to have rejected diplomacy. On September 12th they were on a diplomatic path, then something happened. What do you think led to the failure of diplomacy?

MR TONER: Well, again, I think it was we had a succession of events that led us to the conclusion that there was no viability to this process going forward. And you know this. Everybody in this room knows that this wasn’t a decision made in haste. There was a rough week at UN General Assembly given some of the events on the ground in Syria, but we continued to keep that process going. But I think at a certain point the decision was made --

QUESTION: Certain things --

MR TONER: Sorry. The decision was made that --

QUESTION: (Inaudible.) I understand.

MR TONER: -- that we felt that the process couldn’t go on as such.

QUESTION: Didn’t it fail after some rebel groups, specifically Ahrar al-Sham in Aleppo, used the ceasefire to strengthen their positions? Didn’t it fail after ISIL nearly took over Deir al-Zor following the U.S. bombing of the Syrian military, admittedly by mistake? Did those things play no role in the failure of that deal?

MR TONER: Well, again, I think – look – and we’ve talked about this – there were a few good days of reduced violence in the beginning of the seven-day period, and then there was a series of events, certainly the attack by mistake on Syrian forces but then followed by the attack on the humanitarian convoy and then subsequently by an increase in attacks on civilian targets in Aleppo that were unconscionable, to say the least. And look, we can talk all about the fact that some rebel groups or some opposition groups may have used the pause to resupply. That’s a reality and that’s something that the strategists looking at what was happening in Aleppo had taken into consideration. That was something that was worked out in great detail in the discussions we had prior to the September 10th agreement that we reached with Russia. We all knew the dynamics going into this, but we had to get through that seven-day period, and then we could have implemented the JIC or the Joint Implementation Center. But we never got there. So you have to give this time – we had to give this time – to really solidify. And we didn’t – and we never got to the point where we could do that. One more.

QUESTION: Just a few more. Yeah.

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: Actually can I have two more, please?

MR TONER: Okay.

QUESTION: Thanks much. Suspending ties with Moscow over the failure of that deal – was it a diplomatic move or a political one in your view?

MR TONER: Well, I mean, I think it was a diplomatic move. And I would just note that – and we’ve talked about this before – it was a suspension. We haven’t permanently closed the door, but I think we would need to see something – some action by Russia or the regime or both that really led us to believe that there was any reason to pursue it again.

QUESTION: I’m going to quote – so the Russia foreign ministry spokeswoman today was quoted as saying – and I would like to get your reaction to that quote --

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: -- “The whole time we were involved in these negotiations in this peace process, we realized clearly that the U.S. did not have a joint position. Different structures and organizations in Washington had different views on what’s going on in Syria. We were dealing with people who were changing their view and opinion every day. That was the main reason why they failed in fulfilling those agreements,” end quote. Was everyone on the U.S. side on the same page when negotiating the deal?

MR TONER: So we’ve been very clear about how the inner agency process works in Washington or in the United States. We think it’s very effective and it creates a single policy and a single path forward. But to get there, part of that, rightfully so, should always be a matter of debate and discussion, with alternate viewpoints and alternate options being presented. But ultimately, it’s the President who decides the way forward and he makes the decisions as the Commander in Chief.

QUESTION: Just one more. Just one more, please. How did Secretary Kerry --

MR TONER: Last one.

QUESTION: How did Secretary Kerry specifically evolve on diplomacy in Syria? He was taped recently saying that he argued for use of force. How did he evolve?

MR TONER: I’m sorry, I missed the – how did he evolve?

QUESTION: So how did Secretary Kerry evolve in his position on diplomacy in Syria? He was taped recently saying that he argued for use of force. How did he evolve?

MR TONER: Well, first of all, I’m not going to speak to either the fact that he was taped or his conversations that were private with members of the Syrian opposition. Look, Secretary Kerry has been very clear that he wants as robust a policy going forward to provide him the diplomatic leverage that he felt he needed in order to bring about a diplomatic process or a political transition in Syria.

QUESTION: Sorry, Mark, on your answer --

MR TONER: Yeah. That’s okay.

QUESTION: In your answer to the penultimate question there --

MR TONER: Yeah, sure.

QUESTION: -- you said that the interagency process is very effective and designed – creates a single policy. Isn’t the idea once the President makes up his mind and decides on the policy that the dissenters shut up and don’t complain publicly? That’s --

MR TONER: Precisely, I mean, that’s – as the Commander in Chief --

QUESTION: Did that happen in this case?

MR TONER: Again, in a policy and an issue as – like Syria – I mean, any given day there’s different elements and different dynamics to be considered. And I think that that always goes into --

QUESTION: Okay. And that happened?

MR TONER: Yes.

QUESTION: Did it create a single policy with no dissent?

MR TONER: Yes.

QUESTION: Well --

QUESTION: Okay. It did? Because there were a lot of people complaining about it.

MR TONER: I understand that there’s that --

QUESTION: And not secretly --

MR TONER: I understand that there’s the perception of that.

QUESTION: -- not whispering in the background.

MR TONER: I understand there’s a perception of that.

QUESTION: Perception? That’s --

MR TONER: But what I would say is that --

QUESTION: Doesn’t that compromise the effectiveness of this --

MR TONER: Again, we carried out the policy that the President had dictated that he wanted to pursue to the utmost degree that we could.

QUESTION: Mark, you talked about coordinating with partners in the ISSG --

MR TONER: Yep.

QUESTION: -- forum. Russia a member of the ISSG --

MR TONER: They are.

QUESTION: Will they attend the meeting tomorrow and --

MR TONER: Tomorrow is not – I mean, it’s made up of members, but it’s not an ISSG meeting. There is, I believe, just at the working level, an ISSG meeting in Geneva. I’m not sure whether Russia will take --

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR TONER: I think so. I’ll let the Germans speak to who’s participating, but I believe that’s it.

QUESTION: But Russia --

MR TONER: Sorry.

QUESTION: -- will be there or not?

MR TONER: Tomorrow in Berlin? I don’t believe so. But again, I’d refer you to the Germans. They’re going to be – and I don’t know whether there’s going to be a working-level ISSG meeting in Geneva, but that’s a routine meeting. But those are ongoing.

QUESTION: Because Russia co-chairs the ISSG.

MR TONER: Correct. Correct.

QUESTION: That means they should be there.

MR TONER: I’m just not going to speak to whether they’re participating or not. I just don’t know.

QUESTION: My second question is news reports said that Russia has deployed, for the first time, S-300 antimissile system to Syria, in addition to the S-400. Can you confirm these reports?

MR TONER: Don’t know if we can confirm categorically or definitively yet, but we saw the announcement. Doesn’t seem consistent with their stated goals, which are to counter extremists, as in ISIL and al-Qaida, neither of which, the last time I checked, have an air force.

QUESTION: And what does it mean for you?

MR TONER: Our first goal is to protect U.S. interests, national security interests. We’re going to continue to do that. We’re going to continue to counter out – to carry out our counter-ISIL operations in Syria, and we’re going to continue to protect our air forces – our airwomen and airmen – as they carry out those missions.

QUESTION: Does it give you pause when you consider, let’s say, like maybe targeting Syrian targets in Syria and so on? Air Force targets, air fleets, and so on --

MR TONER: Again, I’m no military expert.

QUESTION: -- by air?

MR TONER: I’m no military expert, but given --

QUESTION: Because these are obviously intended for fighter aircrafts and jets and cruise missiles, as a matter of fact.

MR TONER: I won’t challenge your assumption, but we haven’t confirmed definitively. I haven’t seen a Russian confirmation that they’re actually deployed.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: Well, they have.

MR TONER: What’s that?

QUESTION: They have.

MR TONER: They have confirmed?

QUESTION: The --

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR TONER: Oh. I haven’t seen it.

QUESTION: Also said something like there is a missile called the S23, which is designed for --

MR TONER: Again, there are these --

QUESTION: -- to shoot down a cruise missile.

MR TONER: I mean, we note their deployment, then, and as I said, it’s – it seems inconsistent with their goals.

QUESTION: Is the U.S. going to be continuing doing what it’s been doing in Syria or is it waiting for a new strategy?

MR TONER: Well, I think – so yes, in the sense that we’re going to continue to carry out support for groups within the counter-ISIL, counter-Daesh coalition – those groups that are fighting in northern Syria to clear out, to destroy and degrade Daesh. We’re also going to continue to carry out airstrikes. In fact, yesterday, you saw that, as the Pentagon confirmed, there was a strike against a senior al-Qaida figure that was carried out. Again, it shows the fact that through our strikes, we’re able to carry out very targeted strikes against senior leadership, rather than wholesale hitting of areas that include civilian populations.

But just in general, we’re going to continue those operations, full stop. And with regard to the way forward and the civil war in Syria, we’re talking to likeminded allies, partners within the ISSG, and we’re meeting internally as a government to plot out next steps.

QUESTION: What are requirements that it’s looking for for the next multilateral agreement? What are main stipulations?

MR TONER: Well, I mean, again, we – what we want is – I mean, we thought we were there with Russia, but what we want to see is a seven-day or – cessation or significant reduction in violence, a durable ceasefire or cessation of hostilities put in place, humanitarian access, which never happened during the last attempt to every place, but we would appreciate just some humanitarian access. And then, obviously, ultimately getting the political negotiations back up and running in Geneva.

QUESTION: Well, what leverage does the U.S. still have without Russia on its own to bring towards a multilateral agreement or any kind of agreement?

MR TONER: Well, look, I mean, it’s – that’s a fair question. I think as we assess going forward, though, it’s a matter of Russia being further isolated through its actions. Russia has been in Syria actively for the past year. It said it was going after al-Qaida and Nusrah – and Daesh, rather. We haven’t seen that to date, at least a concerted effort to do so. Frankly, it’s been there primarily to aid the regime, but it hasn’t built a broad coalition, it hasn’t, frankly, built much support at all. It’s only isolated itself on the international stage because of its actions, which include carrying out airstrikes against civilian centers, civilian populations, hospitals, and other civilian targets.

QUESTION: Well, so if Russia was involved in another --

MR TONER: Last question.

QUESTION: -- multilateral agreement, what precautions would you make Russia take before entering into a multilateral --

MR TONER: I can’t predict. I mean, I can give you broad strokes what those might be. One includes ceasing to carry out strikes against civilian populations. And then also, what we wanted to see at the end of last week was the regime grounding its air force.

Please.

QUESTION: I just want to follow up on what you said – a year ago, Russia began its involvement in Syria. Yesterday --

MR TONER: Intensified. Intensified.

QUESTION: Yeah, yeah – no, they began on the 30 of September last year.

MR TONER: Right.

QUESTION: So it’s been a year. Yesterday, Mr. Churkin said if it hadn’t been for Russian – Russia’s interference, Damascus today would be in the hands of Daesh. Do you have any comment on that?

MR TONER: That’s a common narrative that the Russians put forward.

QUESTION: You don’t believe it. I mean --

MR TONER: Look – I reject that, and we reject that, because while everyone recognized for the past year or before that – but it was one of the primary tenets of the ISSG when it formed was the fact that you needed to, in some way, shape, or form, retain some of the infrastructure, some of the institutions of the Syrian Government as you went forward or moved forward with a political transition. Assad is not a future leader of that country. He can never be.

Please.

QUESTION: Yeah. Turkey has been a major supporter of the Syrian opposition and it’s a member of the I-I-S-G, and Vladimir Putin will visit Turkey next week for the World Energy Conference and he will meet with President Erdogan. Will any senior U.S. officials be at the conference, and if so, will they meet with the Russians? If not, has Turkey provided you any information on what Erdogan might be speaking – might be saying to Putin and --

MR TONER: Well, I mean, we – so we --

QUESTION: -- is there things you’d like him to be saying?

MR TONER: Sorry, didn’t mean to cut you off.

QUESTION: No, that’s okay.

MR TONER: We consult closely with Turkey on Syria all the time, continuously. I’m sure we’ll be consulting as – in the run-up to this meeting next week and after that. Turkey has played an increasingly helpful role, especially in the operations around their borders, trying to clear out some of the borders and also permitting the counter-ISIL coalition to use Incirlik Air Base.

I understand this visit by Putin was long planned. I can’t speak to who, what – or what level or what – or actually who among the U.S. Government who might be at this conference. I just don’t have that information yet.

QUESTION: Well, would you expect Erdogan to speak very harshly to Putin about what the Russians have done in Syria?

MR TONER: I – honestly, I can’t predict what he may discuss with President Putin.

QUESTION: Mark, I have to leave.

MR TONER: Yeah, please. Of course.

QUESTION: Can I just ask one very brief – it’s off topic, but I just – Tom Shannon is going to Berlin for this. He was supposed to go to Venezuela, was he not, this week? Is that still – is that happening or has it been postponed?

MR TONER: I believe so. I’m not sure that that was ever announced, but he’s definitely attending Berlin, so that’s – he’s not going to Venezuela.

QUESTION: Can we change topic?

MR TONER: We can change topic.

QUESTION: Can we go to the Palestinian-Israeli issue?

MR TONER: Sure, and then I’ll get to you.

QUESTION: Okay. Yesterday, I asked Elizabeth on the demolition of homes --

MR TONER: Yep.

QUESTION: -- in East Jerusalem and she responded by saying that – she stated your position but also said that you call on both parties to reduce tension. In this particular case, what could the Palestinians do? What would be their part in this aspect --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- the home demolition?

MR TONER: I mean, look, I think – I know she was speaking broadly about – not necessarily to this specific issue or topic of demolitions, but we’re talking about the general environment which is not conducive to creating the kinds of conditions we need to see in order to get some kind of peace plan back on track.

QUESTION: But this has nothing to do with incitements or anything. The Israelis claim that the Palestinians do not get the proper permits, which they never give them a proper permit, and these Palestinian families grow. I mean, they have large numbers and so on, so they need to expand, which they never get. What should they do?

MR TONER: Well, again, I think we – we remain concerned about --

QUESTION: Should be able to – should people be able to build their – in their own homes and expand to accommodate their other members of their family and so on?

MR TONER: I think we’ve talked about this before, Said. Certainly, that said, anyone in the United States, I know, if they want to put on an addition to their house or do some work or expand their house, they need to get proper permits. That’s part of having a legal system in place. But that said, there should be a way --

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR TONER: -- but there should be a way for them to do so.

QUESTION: So is Israel within its legal right --

MR TONER: I apologize?

QUESTION: -- to do that? Is Israel within its legal right to deny – to continue to deny?

MR TONER: I frankly don’t have enough detail on what their claims are and what their counterclaims. I think we’re just concerned that we have seen an accelerated rate of demolitions recently, and anytime we see that, we believe that it’s not helpful to the overall climate that we think needs to be in place in order for talks to get started.

QUESTION: I have just a couple more.

MR TONER: Please.

QUESTION: Isn’t it particularly cruel to have people demolish their own homes? As an alternative to that would be just huge sums of money that they must pay the occupational authorities.

MR TONER: Again, we’re concerned by what we’ve seen. We share those concerns with the Israeli Government. I’ll leave it there.

QUESTION: And let me ask you one more thing about the Women’s Boat that is getting ready to dock in Gaza in a couple days. They’re calling on you, they’re calling on the international community and so on to press upon Israel not to intercept by force the boat. Would you call on Israel not to intercept by force this boat?

MR TONER: Sure. This is the --

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR TONER: -- all-women --

QUESTION: Yes.

MR TONER: -- Gaza – yeah – flotilla. Well, so while we underscore the need for international support for Gaza and its recovery, we do call attention – the Department of State does have a Travel Warning in place for Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza, and our longstanding recommendation is that U.S. citizens stay out of Gaza entirely due to those concerns. I think in this particular case we would hope that the boat operators heed the instructions of Israeli authorities in order to best ensure the safety and security of the people onboard the boat. And I would also just add to that that there are other ways to get assistance into Gaza that are accepted and authorized by the Israeli Government.

QUESTION: How would you end the siege? How should the Gaza siege end? Because this has gone on for far too long. How should it end and when should it end?

MR TONER: Well, I mean, certainly we’d like to see it end as soon as possible. But that’s – that takes both sides, and certainly by both sides I mean that the Israelis need to be assured that tunneling and other security threats that are currently posed by some of those who live in Gaza to the citizens of Israel need to end.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Mark?

MR TONER: Yes, sir.

QUESTION: Do you have anything beyond what Kirby has said in Brussels and Josh Earnest has said from the podium at the White House on Mr. Duterte’s latest comments that they’re at odds with a warm relationship and that you haven’t had any formal communications about altering the bilateral relationship?

MR TONER: I don’t have much to add to that. I mean, again, I thought he put it very well, which to say we’ve spoken to this kind of rhetoric and it’s at odds with the relationship we feel like we have with the Philippine people and with the Philippine Government. And we have not seen any real diminution in that relationship. So recognizing that we’re a treaty ally of the Philippines and also that we have the strong cultural bond, people-to-people bond, we’re going to continue.

QUESTION: You see why we ask you about this every day.

MR TONER: I understand, yes.

QUESTION: I mean, he’s the head of state.

MR TONER: I understand.

QUESTION: Are there any other countries in the world where the head of state talks that way where you don’t see any change in the relationship?

MR TONER: Again, that’s really --

QUESTION: What does he have to say? Or will he have to write it down and post it so you have a stamp on it?

MR TONER: No, look. I mean, no one’s giving any head of state a free pass on unhelpful rhetoric. But I think what’s important is that any bilateral relationship be seen in the broader context, and by broader context I mean the fact that we have had and continue to have good, solid cooperation and productive cooperation with Philippines on a number of levels. And we’re going to continue to pursue that. We’re not going to walk away.

QUESTION: Can you --

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: Can the U.S.-Philippine relationship withstand this kind of rhetoric for the rest of President Duterte’s term? I mean, he’s been in office for three months and change, right? He’s sworn at the U.S. President twice. He said that the military exercises that I think are beginning today will be the last ones, although the foreign minister then said well, no, the ones in 2017 are going to happen. I mean, it’s – can you keep your upper lip this stiff for another five years or however many years it is?

MR TONER: I’ll just say in response that the United States is going to live up to its commitments and is going to continue to move forward with this relationship. I can’t speak on his behalf. Okay.

QUESTION: Mark, you have described this as unhelpful rhetoric, but I’d like to get you to specifically respond to a quote from – this was the second speech of the day after the “go to hell” remark where he says, “I would be reconfiguring my foreign policy. Eventually in my time I would break up with America. I would rather go to Russia or to China. Even though we don’t agree with the ideology, they have respect for the people.”

Can you give us a specific response to that type of comment?

MR TONER: I do not want to get into a tit-for-tat with President Duterte. I would simply say that we have a very strong bilateral relationship and a very strong people-to-people relationship, and I think if you asked any Filipino citizen they would say that same thing.

QUESTION: Well --

QUESTION: But they voted this guy into office.

QUESTION: -- he’s the president.

QUESTION: But Mark, you talked about previously that relationships are not a zero-sum game, that you don’t mind that the Philippines would be getting closer to China or Russia.

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: But does that extend to arms sales as well?

MR TONER: Again, I’m not aware of what they may be talking about with Russia or China, but it’s not – we’re not trying to make this an either/or proposition. We value our relations with the Philippines. They’re a strong ally, a strong partner in the region. Again, we’ve had decades of strong relations with the Philippines. We’ve had each other’s backs and we want to continue that cooperation going forward. Public comments, rhetoric aside, we believe that the foundation still exists for that relationship to continue and strengthen.

QUESTION: You don’t have a problem with --

QUESTION: Is that --

MR TONER: We’ve got a lot of patience.

QUESTION: So you don’t --

QUESTION: Is that relevant to foreign policy and security policy or is it some sort of --

MR TONER: I’m sorry?

QUESTION: Is he being a vigilante or is he conducting himself --

MR TONER: I’m not going comment on --

QUESTION: No, I’m saying, how would describe his security and foreign policy?

MR TONER: Oh, again, I think at the – I mean, I – he may in fact still be forming his policies going forward. He’s only been in office a few months, as someone just reminded me. I’m not going to speak to the course he may take. All I can speak to is the current state of our relations, and government to government, people to people, they remain strong.

QUESTION: It sounds like he might – he just wants you to stop criticizing his plan to kill all the drug addicts and traffickers.

MR TONER: Well, look, we’re never going to give – whenever we see or hear of credible allegations of human rights abuses, we’re never going to give that a pass. And that I will --

QUESTION: Well, it’s (inaudible) again tomorrow with it, but yeah.

MR TONER: That it, guys? Thanks.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:24 p.m.)

DPB # 169

The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department.
External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.

Daily Press Briefings : Daily Press Briefing - September 27, 2016

Mark C. Toner

Deputy Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC

September 27, 2016









Index for Today's Briefing

DEPARTMENT



SYRIA



TURKEY



SYRIA



TURKEY/REGION



AZERBAIJAN



AFGHANISTAN



INDIA/PAKISTAN/REGION



CHINA



SOUTH KOREA/NORTH KOREA



PANAMA



TURKEY



PANAMA




TRANSCRIPT:

2:20 p.m. EDT

MR TONER: I have a very brief topper. Secretary Kerry will deliver remarks on the importance of the Trans-Pacific Partnership to our national security, our economic standing at home and abroad, our strategic interests in the Asia Pacific, and our diplomatic leadership around the world. And he’ll do so at the Woodrow Wilson Center for International Scholars in Washington at 11:00 am on Wednesday, that’s tomorrow, September 28th. And we’ll have a notice to the press with more details on that.

Matt.

QUESTION: That was brief.

MR TONER: I told you. I strive to be brief in my briefings. Sorry, go ahead.

QUESTION: Well, it is the operative word --

MR TONER: That’s right.

QUESTION: -- preceding the gerund --

MR TONER: And too often they’re not.

QUESTION: Let’s start --

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: Let’s start where we left off, before the TPP speech announcement, on Syria.

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: Has there been any further contact between the Secretary and Foreign Minister Lavrov? If not --

MR TONER: There – sorry.

QUESTION: Well, go ahead.

MR TONER: No, no. There has not.

QUESTION: Okay. So in the – anticipating that answer, are there any plans to? Or are we in a situation where it’s just hopeless and there’s not any real reason to have a conversation?

MR TONER: I think there are always plans to. And I – while I can’t say with certainty that they’ll talk in the next 24 hours or 48 hours, I certainly know that the Secretary is open to talking to Foreign Minister Lavrov. So I don't want to give the impression that there’s no interest in keeping that channel open. In fact, I think there is. But I think, as I said yesterday, we need to see some measures offered by Russia and on the part of the regime that change the reality on the ground. And that goes without saying, given the continued onslaught of the regime on Aleppo.

QUESTION: Are these teams still meeting in Geneva or is that basically – is the ceasefire or the cessation of hostilities task force or whatever it was called – is that basically a dead item now?

MR TONER: That’s a fair question. I don't know whether they’re still meeting in Geneva. I can take that question.

QUESTION: Well I – two – I mean, there are two parts to it. One, I mean, are they actually talking now? But also does this structure that you guys created --

MR TONER: Are we still – yeah.

QUESTION: -- that the ISSG created – is it still alive?

MR TONER: My understanding is that it hasn’t been disbanded, but certainly the – again, we’re under no illusions that the cessation of hostilities, such as we had envisioned it in Geneva ten or so days ago, is still in effect.

QUESTION: Well, how about in Vienna several months ago?

MR TONER: Fair point.

QUESTION: But you’ve said that Secretary Kerry is open to restarting the dialogue. Does that mean he’s waiting by the phone for Lavrov to call him?

MR TONER: Not at all. Not at all. And I --

QUESTION: Or has he made calls that have been refused?

MR TONER: Not at all on either count. Look, I think the Secretary was very clear, both in Cartagena yesterday, in Colombia, but also in his remarks over the weekend that he has not closed the door on this diplomatic process and, as the Secretary of State, he’ll never do that.

He said it would be diplomatic malpractice to do so, and his point is is that, as long as he’s Secretary of State he is going to pursue a diplomatic process that ends the fighting and allows for a peaceful political transition in Syria.

But that said, we’re under no illusions, given the intensity of the conflict in and around Aleppo over the past 72 hours, with barrel bombs, indiscriminate bombings, that we’re anywhere near reaching the seven days of cessation of --

QUESTION: But --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- a Syrian diplomatic process, is that simply the channel between himself and the Russian foreign minister? Or are there other diplomatic initiatives --

MR TONER: No, we continue to consult with other members of the ISSG, and that continues. But --

QUESTION: So in your answer to Matt’s question --

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: -- you said obviously he’s still keen to talk, but he’s not going to initiate?

MR TONER: I think, again, where – look, I think where he left it last week and in his most recent public remarks yesterday is: What’s happening in Aleppo is unacceptable, we recognize that the cessation of hostilities is badly weakened, if we could say even that, and that we need to see proposals going forward on how to resuscitate this cessation of hostilities. And what the Secretary talked about was reestablishing credibility in the process. And that’s – he talked about it when he spoke in the Security Council last week, but that’s what we’re looking for.

So we continue to be open to having that dialogue and those discussions with Russia.

QUESTION: And does he believe that Russia does want to restart the dialogue?

MR TONER: Well again, that comes down to – I mean, I think we’re always open to that – or at least we remain open to that. Let me put it that way.

Please.

QUESTION: You say the cessation of hostilities is badly weakened, but, I mean --

MR TONER: That may even in itself be overstating it.

QUESTION: Yeah, I mean, isn’t it gone? You have a massive air --

QUESTION: Under --

MR TONER: Understating it. Thank you.

QUESTION: -- and ground assault on the largest city in the country.

MR TONER: It’s unacceptable, and that’s absolutely right. What’s happening in Aleppo is unacceptable.

QUESTION: But --

MR TONER: He said as much, and it’s – you’re right, that we – so I guess my point is we cannot look at what is happening and simply turn away and pretend that there is still a credible cessation of hostilities in place.

QUESTION: So if it is unacceptable, is the U.S. Government willing to do anything other than to remain open to resuming a dialogue with Russia to try to stop it, or are you just going to accept it?

MR TONER: Well – sorry, I didn’t know – so we very much call on Russia to stop attacking the civilian residents of Aleppo. We’re going to continue – as I said, Secretary Kerry, Secretary of State Kerry, as the nation’s leading diplomat, is going to continue to pursue the diplomatic options that he has left in front of him. And as he said, he’s going to continue to pursue those until they’re exhausted.

As to what other options or other directions we may go in, I can’t speak to any – or I can’t announce anything or even lean into anything today because, while those discussions continue, and I talked about it yesterday, we’re still pursuing the agreement that we reached in Geneva as the best way forward.

QUESTION: And are any of your Gulf allies now proposing, more vehemently, providing additional arms including, perhaps, MANPADS to the opposition?

MR TONER: I wouldn’t presume to speak on their behalf and I’d have to refer you to them to talk about what they may or may not do. I think speaking broadly we have said that there are scenarios out there where, if this collapses altogether, if it descends further into conflict, that there is that possibility. But I can’t speak to – on behalf of these governments. Please.

QUESTION: A follow up on --

QUESTION: (Inaudible) contingency plans to deal with the humanitarian catastrophe when Aleppo falls?

MR TONER: Well, I mean, I – look, we’re – insofar as we’re, one, announcing more humanitarian assistance, both within and I think Anne just said three quarters, if I’m not mistaken, of that will go inside Syria. We are looking at trying to alleviate the humanitarian suffering and looking towards how that might even increase in the days and weeks ahead.

And I think also we’re going to continue to push hard for humanitarian access. I know the World Health Organization called for, in fact, humanitarian corridors to evacuate the injured from Aleppo. And we certainly support that, but we also would add that you shouldn’t – the injured shouldn’t have to leave their homes to get this kind of treatment, so what we want to see is sustained access.

QUESTION: Twelve hundred million people live in East Aleppo.

MR TONER: I agree, it --

QUESTION: That would be a – if they end up on the road --

MR TONER: I agree.

QUESTION: Turkey’s border’s closed.

MR TONER: I agree, and those are all things we’re looking at and considering going forward, but right now we just want to see an end to the fighting.

QUESTION: Follow-up --

QUESTION: Mark, I wanted to follow up on --

MR TONER: I’ll get to you, I promise.

QUESTION: -- Arshad’s question --

MR TONER: Yes, sir.

QUESTION: -- and start by reading you some statistics from the White Helmets. This is the unarmed civilian rescue workers in Syria and Aleppo. They said just over the past eight days, a thousand dead, 1,700 airstrikes, 19 of them with bunker-busters; 200 of the strikes with cluster bombs, hospitals now declaring they’re no longer able to take in new patients. Only 30 doctors left in Aleppo.

Is it – setting aside the idea that the ceasefire is not working, is it possible to argue that the atmosphere of the ceasefire has actually made things worse? Has this brief cessation led to an even worse bombardment and humanitarian situation? Of course not intentionally, but --

MR TONER: Right.

QUESTION: -- could you not make that argument?

MR TONER: Justin, it’s hard to evaluate what the strategy behind this flagrant onslaught on Aleppo is. We talked a little bit about it yesterday. Whether it’s the regime’s insistence on pursuing a military solution to the conflict there even though they and even though Russia claims to want a political solution and that there is no military solution, it’s really hard to evaluate what’s behind this acceleration and this ramping up of its assaults on innocent civilians in Aleppo. We’re going to continue to push hard through whatever channels we have for the regime to stand down and to try to work, as I said, to put back in place some kind of reduction in the level of violence. But those statistics you read are extraordinary, and you said they’re from the White Helmets?

QUESTION: Mm-hmm.

MR TONER: Yeah. I mean, and we would just obviously – the Secretary attended an event when he was in New York about the White Helmets, and we certainly commend their selfless, courageous efforts in the face of these attacks.

QUESTION: What makes Aleppo different? What makes --

QUESTION: Their commander’s in town --

MR TONER: Sorry. That’s okay.

QUESTION: What makes Aleppo different from the Yezidis who were on Mt. Sinjar, from the Libyans who Qadhafi said he was going to hunt down like rats? What’s the difference here? You have 250,000 people in a defined area that are now surrounded that are subject not just to air, but now to ground assault. What’s – why did the United States deem it to be in the U.S. national interest to intervene in those other circumstances but not in this circumstance?

MR TONER: Well, first of all, I don’t want to necessarily get in the habit of comparing different conflicts and different circumstances, such as the ones you raised, because every set of circumstances is a little bit different. And in the case of Aleppo and the case of Syria, it’s hard to find one that’s more complex. We’ve talked about that. But also the fact that really until the past few weeks, we felt like we were on a firm path towards a possible diplomatic resolution to this. We still believe that’s possible. As I said, we haven’t given up on that process. But that’s where we still are in terms of our approach.

Now, that doesn’t mean we’re not mindful – I don’t know how anyone could not be – of the tremendous humanitarian suffering that’s going on right now in Aleppo, and that’s why we’re working so hard to ramp up our assistance but also to gain access for humanitarian convoys. And I would just finish by saying we’re continuing to weighing all – we continue to weigh all options. Those discussions are ongoing. I don’t want to rule anything out, but right now we’re focused on the diplomatic one.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: When you say you don’t want to – I’m sorry, the last one from me.

MR TONER: Yeah, please.

QUESTION: When you say you don’t want to rule anything out, Secretary Powell once stood at that exact podium and said in early 2003, “The time for diplomacy is over.” Is it conceivable to you, since you don’t want to rule anything out, that the Administration may come to the conclusion that having expended five years of effort on diplomacy and particularly three and a half under Secretary Kerry, that the time for diplomacy is over and that you need to make use of other elements of national power? Or is that not conceivable to you?

MR TONER: I think those – again, as part of, frankly, a healthy debate within any Administration, those conversations are always ongoing – how you approach or how you resolve an issue like this or a problem like this, a conflict like this. Ultimately, that’s a decision for the President to make.

Please.

QUESTION: A Reuters article – co-authored by Arshad, by the way – cites U.S. officials who believe the Gulf states may soon begin to arm Syrian rebels with MANPADs to shoot down aircraft. One U.S. official was quoted as saying, “The Saudis have always thought that the way to get the Russians to back off is what worked in Afghanistan 30 years ago: negating their air power by giving MANPADS to the Mujahideen,” end quote. About two weeks ago, U.S.-backed rebels drove U.S. Special Forces out of the town of Al-Rai, shouting, “Infidels, crusaders, dogs, pigs” at them – their words. In light of the fact that some rebels are quite openly anti-American, are you worried that these MANPADS could one day be used to shoot down U.S. planes?

MR TONER: So first of all, I’m not going to confirm what anonymous U.S. officials may or may not have said. I think I’ll just answer your question more broadly by saying that we cannot dictate what other countries – and I’m not naming names – but may or may not decide to do in terms of supporting certain groups within Syria.

QUESTION: So you will not try to stop them from providing rebels with MANPADS, with anti-aircraft weapons?

MR TONER: I’m not saying that at all. What I’m saying is ultimately, and we’ve talked about this, is that you may have a further deterioration on either side, both among the opposition but also by the regime. And by deterioration I mean more arming and more conflict between them, an intensification of the conflict.

As to the specific comments that were made about what or may – what may or may not be provided to – by governments to different rebel groups, I’m just not in a position to confirm or speak to that from this podium. Sorry.

QUESTION: Does the Administration do anything to stop its allies from providing these powerful weapons to rebels in Syria?

MR TONER: What we’re engaged with – our allies, and frankly, all of the members of the ISSG, which is, as we know, not necessarily all like-minded governments or nations, but they all share, purportedly, a common vision for the outcome that they want to see in Syria. We’re in consultation with all of those governments at all times, including last week in New York. What came out of that ISSG meeting last week in New York was a recommitment, even in the face of what was happening in Syria then and has intensified and worsened over the ensuing days – was a commitment to the Geneva agreement that we’re – that would put in place seven days, followed by establishment of a JIC, followed by the grounding of Syrian regime’s air power.

Please, Barbara.

QUESTION: Just to follow up on Justin’s question --

MR TONER: Yep.

QUESTION: -- does the Administration see what’s happening in Aleppo as a qualitative difference from the violence we’ve seen over the past years? I mean, that’s what’s suggested by the reaction in the Security Council on Sunday – the anger about the bunker busters and the allegations of war crimes against Russia. So is this seen as a change, a qualitative change?

MR TONER: I think – without necessarily trying to characterize it, I think we said it’s a violation of international law, as I think – as Secretary Kerry put it in speaking at the UN last week. I think he called it a flagrant violation of international law when you’ve got indiscriminate attacks against civilian populations, strikes that are hitting civilian targets, hospitals, et cetera. There has been an alarming increase in both the intensity and the targeting of these attacks. I don’t think – as I said, I think we’re all aware of that in this room.

QUESTION: But if there’s an alarming increase in the intensity and the targeting and the introduction of new, more powerful weapons, you still continue with the same strategy? I mean, if the situation has gotten that much worse, the same strategy is somehow supposed to deal with it?

MR TONER: Barbara, what I would say to that is we are within the State Department focused on the diplomatic side of this equation and we’re continuing to pursue the diplomatic options that are available to us. We worked through many months to reach the agreement that was reached in Geneva with the Russians. We still believe it’s a viable path forward despite – or in spite of the increased fighting that we’ve seen over the past week or so. We need to get back on track. What we’ve talked about, how to get there – the Secretary suggested some proposals, but we need to see Russia’s response to those proposals.

QUESTION: Can I just ask one quick question on Turkey as well?

MR TONER: Of course.

QUESTION: Do you have any information from Tony Blinken’s meetings in Turkey today? There’s been a – the Turkish president has called a meeting of his top officials, all of his top officials tonight with no suggestion of what it’s about. But the speculation is that it’s possibly off the back of Mr. Blinken’s meeting and it’s about Turkish participation in Raqqa.

MR TONER: I don’t – I mean, I don’t have much of a readout. I apologize. He’s, obviously, as you mentioned, in Ankara, along with Special Presidential Envoy Brett McGurk and Deputy Assistant Secretary Jonathan Cohen and the Commander of the Operation Inherent Resolve Lieutenant General Townsend. He is meeting – I think he’s discussing with Turkish officials plans to take back Mosul, Raqqa, and Dabiq, and he’s had meetings today with Turkish officials, focused on the details of how to implement those plans, along with – or with – in cooperation with our Turkish partners. I know he visited also the Turkish parliament earlier today, which was, as we know, damaged in the attempted coup earlier this year. If I can get a further readout or additional readout, we’ll certainly make that available to you guys.

QUESTION: Turkey?

QUESTION: Change of subject?

QUESTION: Can we stay on Syria for a second?

MR TONER: Yeah, let’s finish up with Syria. Please.

QUESTION: Just on the 364 million, I just wanted to follow up on another question.

MR TONER: Yeah. Sure.

QUESTION: If three-fourths of that money is going to be spent inside Syria and humanitarian aid convoys are getting bombed, I mean, how do you spend that money inside Syria and what do you spend it on? Do you have sort of details?

MR TONER: So – and I’m not sure that Anne mentioned this, but we are going to put out a fact sheet, or it should be out now already, about the 364 million. And in that fact sheet, it does talk a little bit about who we work with, the different operations of the United Nations that Anne mentioned, and other international organizations, NGOs as well, that through these organizations we’re able to provide assistance to, I think, 14 governorates in Syria, supporting – helping alleviate critical humanitarian needs.

But you’re absolutely right that there are parts of Syria that still remain what we call besieged areas, and we still don’t have full, unlimited access to those areas, so that remains a challenge. But there are areas, obviously, where at least some humanitarian assistance is able to filter in, and always in the goal – our goal, rather, in providing that humanitarian assistance is to be able to keep people in place. We don’t want to see people displaced, either internally or obviously to the countries and regions that border Syria, but even beyond that to Europe and elsewhere. But we’re going to continue to work through our partners on the ground in Syria. We are able to provide, as I said, limited – and there’s people who can – far more expert who can talk about how we do that. But we are able to work, obviously, within a very challenging security environment, or these people are able to work to provide some humanitarian assistance. But again, it’s not enough. It’s not full access.

QUESTION: Okay. But has that been cleared with the government? I mean, aid in Syria has been sort of a central part of this conflict and is sometimes – the government accuses aid groups or feels that aid is going to rebels. I mean, it’s --

MR TONER: Right.

QUESTION: Surely there must be a concern that this could only exacerbate the conflict?

MR TONER: Well, and it certainly speaks to, again, the courage of some of these aid groups, including the UN, but also these NGOs that operate in that kind of environment. They continue to --

QUESTION: (Sneezes.)

MR TONER: -- God bless you – they continue to push the boundaries and continue – and I think that was evident last week, when, right after the attack on that aid convoy headed to Aleppo, I think 24 to 48 hours later, they were again staging convoys to try to get access to some of those places in Syria. I think that speaks to the courage of these individuals.

QUESTION: Okay. But have you cleared this aid with – has there been any coordination with the government?

MR TONER: I think I’d have to leave it to the UN and to the NGOs themselves to talk about whatever clearances or – but my understanding is that they would always seek, first and foremost, to have the authorization of the Syrian Government to operate within whatever geographical area they’re operating in, just as we attempted to do last week for this aid convoy that was struck. So bearing in mind – I’ll get to you in a second. I’m going to --

QUESTION: Yeah. Of the dying days of the ceasefire, the narrative from U.S. officials is we’d leave the door open but our patience isn’t limitless. But now it’s more a question of: well, it would be malpractice to close the window at any time to any kind of peaceful solution. Is the idea of the patience being limitless now being dropped and you’re saying now, in fact, it is limitless, you’ve got to keep the window open?

MR TONER: Well, again, I think we are at a difficult juncture, but that’s often the case in conflict zones, and certainly one as complex as Syria. And despite all of the setbacks and all of the challenges, we still believe it’s worthwhile to pursue a diplomatic process that was worked out with Russia to the agreement and consent of the other members of the ISSG and, frankly, that many within the moderate Syrian opposition had also bought into.

But again, recognizing that, when you’ve got the moderate opposition under attack in Aleppo and elsewhere, they’re not going to adhere to any ceasefire or cessation of hostilities. And we talked a little bit about this dynamic yesterday. That just exacerbates what’s already a difficult situation, because they’re under attack by the regime – of course they’re going to defend themselves.

So I don’t know how to put it in a way that conveys the sense that we are trying to always resuscitate the diplomatic process that we believe can eventually lead to a peaceful resolution of the conflict in Syria, but we also recognize that it’s gotten very hard.

Please, sir.

QUESTION: My question is about Panama’s expedition request.

MR TONER: Let’s get finished with – on these other questions, because – I’m sorry, sir. Our common procedure is to move through all the different regions.

QUESTION: Turkey. Yesterday, Turkish spokesman finally said that YPG forces had moved east of the Euphrates, which is something that the United States has been saying for weeks.

MR TONER: Yes.

QUESTION: And I wondered, is that – since Deputy Secretary of State Blinken and McGurk had arrived – just arrived in Turkey, I wondered, is that something that they helped clarify? And in any case, does that Turkish statement about the YPG satisfying their geographical requirements – does that indicate that the U.S.-Turkish dispute over the YPG role in fighting ISIS has been largely resolved, or is it still an issue?

MR TONER: Well, so we also saw those remarks yesterday and it was gratifying to see that they also confirmed what we had been saying for some time, which was that in the past – not sure of the timeframe, but the past weeks or so that we’ve seen them – these groups – Syrian Kurdish groups who had been fighting in that area, again, adhere to their commitments that they made to us and withdraw from the area around the Euphrates – east of the Euphrates. So that’s a good thing.

We certainly – as we said at the time, the last thing we want to see is these forces come into conflict with Turkish forces who are on the ground, as well. And we also called for a de-escalation at the time and urged that all of the parties there keep their eye on the prize, so to speak, in keeping the pressure on Daesh, keeping the pressure on destroying and dislodging Daesh, because that’s the overarching security concern. So even as Turkey sought to re-establish control over its border region and you had these various groups, including the Syrian Kurds, working to liberate areas also in northern Syria that were Daesh-controlled, we didn’t want them to come into conflict. Again, it speaks to the complexity of the battlespace there.

Your last question has --

QUESTION: Well --

MR TONER: -- oh, is it all – look, we’re going to continue to – sorry, I didn’t mean – I just remembered what you asked – so we’re going to continue to have those conversations, as you saw last week, with Turkish authorities. And we have Deputy Secretary Blinken in Turkey today with a group of government officials and military officials. And we’re going to work closely with Turkey to de-conflict and to coordinate on efforts to secure their borders, but also to drive out and destroy Daesh.

QUESTION: But do you think you’re making progress towards that goal? Is that what that statement might indicate?

MR TONER: Look, I think we’re – I think we’re --

QUESTION: Give you a chance to say yes.

MR TONER: I know. (Laughter.) I’m always careful, you’re a spokesperson. I think we – I don’t want to say “making progress.” I think we’re pleased to see the confirmation, as I said, from the remarks from the Turkish Government yesterday. We’re going to continue to keep up our engagement with Turkey and with YPG forces in order that there is no kind of conflict – conflict there.

Please, Nike.

QUESTION: Can I ask a couple of different questions? Are we ready to move on?

MR TONER: (Laughter.) That’s the idea of the briefing.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: First, on Azerbaijan, do you have anything on the referendum in Azerbaijan? Because --

MR TONER: I think I do.

QUESTION: Okay. Because opposition --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- and civil society are saying that there is some movement by the – to expand the presidential power.

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: I wonder if you have anything.

MR TONER: So we are aware, as you noted, that Azerbaijan conducted a constitutional referendum yesterday. It came off without any security incidents. I think the Venice Commission – it was in the – or on the ground, rather, noted that the process would have benefitted from greater public discussion in the lead-up to the vote. We would urge the government to address reports of voting irregularities, and we do remain committed to helping Azerbaijanis build a stronger democracy and encourage political transparency and dialogue within the country.

You had other questions?

QUESTION: Yeah. Can I ask about Afghanistan?

MR TONER: You certainly can.

QUESTION: First, I’m wondering if you --

QUESTION: Sorry. Can I ask one more about Azerbaijan?

MR TONER: Of course.

QUESTION: Is it good that one family has ruled this country for so long and that the son of the previous ruler can now rule it for even longer?

MR TONER: I think our focus, Arshad, is on how do we improve the institutions and how do we improve or work with the Azerbaijani people and government to improve the process, the democratic process. It’s not for us to dictate what the outcome of that democratic process may or may not be, except to say that where there are irregularities they should be investigated, where there are glitches in the process they should be looked at and improved.

QUESTION: But the question is more – is it a democratic process?

MR TONER: Well, again, I think we’re looking at the election that took place yesterday, and I think we found that it was marred by some reports of voting irregularities, and that’s what we’re going to --

QUESTION: Yeah. But when you have situations where people are put in a position where they’re able to be presidents for life, is that – is that democracy?

MR TONER: Again, I think in any of these kinds of situations, Matt, we’ve – Azerbaijan is not unique in having longstanding presidents or heads of state.

QUESTION: Not at all. I’m not saying it’s unique at all. I’m just wondering --

MR TONER: But no, no, no, let me – but let me finish. No, no. Let me finish.

QUESTION: -- in the case where you have --

MR TONER: But I think that our point of concern is always in trying to work within the structures that are there to improve the democracy or democratic institutions, to improve and work where we can to improve to the process, rather than we can’t dictate that term limits.

Please.

QUESTION: Can we move on?

MR TONER: We can.

QUESTION: Afghanistan. First, do you have anything on the overnight attack at a security outpost near Kunduz, because reportedly Taliban was behind it?

MR TONER: Let me see if I have anything on that. You’re talking about – where was this again?

QUESTION: Kunduz.

MR TONER: Oh, yes, I do. So you’re talking about reports and the outpost near Kunduz, right?

QUESTION: Yes.

MR TONER: Well, we’ve seen reports, obviously, that Afghan soldiers were killed. I believe it’s reportedly an insider attack.

QUESTION: Yes.

MR TONER: We certainly offer our condolences to their families, loved ones, and colleagues. I would say attacks like this only strengthen the resolve, we believe, of Afghans who are fighting with bravery and with determination on the battlefield every day. We believe that Afghanistan’s security forces remain determined and resolved to fight for the security for their country and their citizens. And we’re going to – we, the U.S., and obviously with our NATO allies and partners, are going to remain committed to supporting those forces, making sure that they’ve got the capabilities and the training to carry out their mandate.

QUESTION: And then another question on Afghan.

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: Its national unity government is nearing a two-year completion of its term. What is your assessment on the political reforms required by that deal in Afghanistan?

MR TONER: Sure. So you’re right that President Ghani and Chief Executive Abdullah developed a new electoral decree when they were – came into office, and that will determine the process for selecting new members of the Independent Elections Commission as well as the Electoral Complaints Commission. And these are important bodies, because they’ll manage the elections, and they have to be viewed as credible by Afghans if future elections are to meet even a minimal threshold of success. So we are urging, and continue to urge, both leaders to make more rapid progress on that front.

We also – as you know, there’s going to be the Brussels conference next week looking for donor commitments for Afghanistan, and that’s going to strengthen Afghan institutions, spur economic growth, support the Afghan Government’s reform agenda, and send a strong signal to the Afghan people and the region that the international community remains committed to a stable and prosperous Afghanistan. But, ultimately, these are conversations that need to be had among Afghans and Afghan leaders. I’d refer you to the Government of Afghanistan to talk about their political and reform agenda.

QUESTION: What is going --

MR TONER: A couple of questions – go ahead.

QUESTION: What is going to happen after two years is up? I mean, is the U.S. going to broker extension of the deal?

MR TONER: I’m not going to predict what role, except to say that we’re – we remain committed to working with the Afghan Government and leadership in trying to continue along the reform agenda that they’re working on, but also, as you note, to ensure the smooth democratic transition to the next government.

QUESTION: Staying in the region, but a different issue.

MR TONER: Yeah. So I’ll take one, two, and then back to you for the last --

QUESTION: Okay.

MR TONER: Please.

QUESTION: On – India today said that talks and terror cannot go together and as such, India informed that it will not be participating in the regional South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation summit, which was scheduled to be held in Pakistan next month – in November, I think. So what’s your take on that? U.S. is --

MR TONER: I’d refer you --

QUESTION: -- observer to that.

MR TONER: Sure. Yeah, I’d refer you to the Government of India to comment on their decision not to attend this meeting. We’ve --

QUESTION: What is observer take on it? Because you are an observer, you go --

MR TONER: We are.

QUESTION: -- there, U.S. goes there, every --

MR TONER: I mean, look, what I would say more broadly is – and we’ve said it many times from the podium – is we want to see closer relations and a normalization of relations, frankly, between India and Pakistan. It would be the – to the benefit of the region. And we want to see de-escalation in the political discourse between the two countries and greater communication and coordination between them.

QUESTION: What is your prescription for de-escalation of tension?

MR TONER: What is the --

QUESTION: Your prescription for de-escalation of tensions?

MR TONER: It’s not for us, necessarily, to offer a prescription. I mean, I think we would – and we’ve said, again, many times that we want to see a de-escalation and that’s, obviously, facts on the ground or actions on the ground, but also within – with – that applies to the rhetoric that’s flying back and forth as well.

And again, I mean, it’s in both countries’ mutual interest to put aside tensions, work towards putting aside tensions and de-escalating tensions, and establish more normal channels of communication.

QUESTION: But do you think talks and terror can go together? Talks and terror can go together simultaneously?

MR TONER: I – I’m not sure what your reference is or what your inference is.

QUESTION: There can be terrorist attack coming from across the border at the same time (inaudible) --

MR TONER: Well, I mean, clearly we’ve talked about that before is, while we’ve seen Pakistan make progress on some of the terrorist groups operating within its own borders and carrying out attacks within Pakistan’s borders, that we continue to put pressure on Pakistan to respond to those groups who are, quote/unquote, “seeking safe haven on Pakistan’s borders,” that – who are intent on carrying out attacks elsewhere in the region.

Please.

QUESTION: Thank you, Mark. The first time the United States take individual sanctions on Chinese-owned companies – is there any other countries U.S. taking actions, except to China?

MR TONER: So you’re talking about the actions that were announced yesterday --

QUESTION: Yes.

MR TONER: -- I think by the Department of Treasury and Justice. Nothing to preview at this point in time, but we’d refer you to the Department of Treasury for talking about – more about implementing those actions taken yesterday.

QUESTION: Second question and the last week, South Korean Foreign Minister Yun Byung-se mentioned about – after UN General Assembly, he noted that North Korea should be disqualified from UN member status. What is your comment on his mention?

MR TONER: You’re talking about his remarks --

QUESTION: About disqualified North Koreans --

MR TONER: Yeah. I mean, I think the call we heard from – or of – from the foreign minister – was it foreign minister’s remarks? I’m sorry.

QUESTION: Yes.

MR TONER: Yeah – last week from Korea was a natural result of North Korea’s continued dangerous provocations in the region. North Korea’s actions continue to undermine stability on the peninsula, undermine the credibility and authority of the international system that has repeatedly warned North Korea to abandon its nuclear missile program. So in general, we think it’s important for the international community to explore options to impose real costs and consequences on North Korea’s bad behavior. But I’d refer you to the North – or the – to the Korean Government to – for details on their statement.

QUESTION: Do you think the North Korea should be deprived of the qualification in member of United Nations?

MR TONER: Again, I think – I’m not going to speak directly to that statement by Korea, the Korean Government – or foreign minister, rather. I think I’d just spoke to it more broadly that as North Korea continually violates the international system, it’s incumbent on the international community to look at ways to hold them to account.

Please, sir. Last question.

QUESTION: Okay, thank you. The question is about the extradition request by Panama for the ex-president of their country, Ricardo Martinelli. And I’d like to ask you what you can tell us about the process today, a little bit more broadly if there are any – if you see any diplomatic obstacles, requests for asylum, immunity, or anything like that.

MR TONER: Yeah. This is an extradition request by the Panamanian Government for --

QUESTION: Yes.

MR TONER: Yeah. So we wouldn’t necessarily speak to the details of any extradition request. That’s usually kept confidential because it is a legal process and a determination made through a legal process. I’d refer you to the Department of Justice. They may be able to provide you more of a status check if that – as that request moves forward, but beyond that I can’t really speak to it.

QUESTION: Well, Mark, you really didn’t think you were going to get away with that, did you – not being challenged?

MR TONER: Get away with? Oh.

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR TONER: Challenge away, Matt.

QUESTION: Well, I’m just thinking about one extradition request that you have been --

MR TONER: And I said “usually.”

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR TONER: And that was an exception.

QUESTION: And can you explain to us why that was an unusual – why that is an exception other than the fact that you guys think that it serves your interest to talk about that one and not necessarily to talk about this one?

MR TONER: Well, I --

QUESTION: And for those who may not know what I’m talking about --

MR TONER: As much as we – so he’s talking about Gulen.

QUESTION: -- it’s Gulen.

MR TONER: Yeah. So as much as we’ve acknowledged that such an extradition request was made, I don’t think we’ve gotten into the details or the nitty-gritty.

QUESTION: You talked about dossiers being delivered and at one point it wasn’t enough to be a --

MR TONER: But --

QUESTION: -- a formal request, then it became enough to be one.

MR TONER: But I think what – sure, Matt. So first of all, he’s welcome to go to the Department of Justice and see what they can give him in terms of where the status of this is. I just don’t – I don’t have that information in front of me. But normally we don’t talk about extradition requests.

QUESTION: And so why was the Gulen case different?

MR TONER: Well, again, I think it was – first of all, it was a political upheaval for the country that created a great deal of public outcry within Turkey and allegations and requests that the Turkish Government made about this extradition. So given all that, we responded in a very measured way but said in a very measured way publicly that we were going to evaluate this as we evaluate all extradition requests.

Now, you – you’re right, we did confirm once we received that, because as the Secretary said in the immediate aftermath of that failed coup attempt when asked about this very subject – would we extradite Gulen – we said – he said there’s a process here. We respect that treaty that we have with Turkey, and when we get a request, we’ll --

QUESTION: Okay.

MR TONER: -- vet that. Sorry.

QUESTION: So all that has to happen in the case of Panama or any other country that wants you to --

MR TONER: Yes, is create a huge – (laughter).

QUESTION: -- is to have public – political upheaval and a lot of angry complaints, public complaints from the government and – is that correct? That’s what tips the --

MR TONER: That’s – anyway.

QUESTION: That’s what tips – makes the case?

QUESTION: Once the DOJ and the State and the courts are finished, then the Secretary of State signs off on the extradition.

MR TONER: I think that’s how the process works, yes.

QUESTION: So we’ll --

QUESTION: I got one more on Latin America --

MR TONER: Please, sir.

QUESTION: -- and that has to do with Venezuela.

MR TONER: I closed my book, come on.

QUESTION: Venezuela.

MR TONER: Sure. Of course, of course.

QUESTION: And the meeting that Secretary Kerry had with President Maduro last night.

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: I saw the readout, which was, shall we say, sparse on details, to say the least. And I don’t have – I only have one question about it; others might have other questions. But I just – did the case of Josh Holt, the American who’s been in prison there – did the Secretary raise that with President Maduro?

MR TONER: I know we’re following this case as closely – we do raise him regularly with Venezuelan authorities. I can’t confirm that was raised directly with President Maduro in the meeting yesterday.

QUESTION: You can?

MR TONER: I cannot. So I’ll take the question.

QUESTION: Do you know why? This is a pretty high-profile case.

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: Do you know why it wouldn’t have been raised, why the Secretary wouldn’t have raised it?

MR TONER: I can’t speak to it. I wasn’t there, so I don’t know how long the meeting was. I don’t know how – I just can’t. I’m sorry.

QUESTION: Well --

MR TONER: I mean, I don’t know why it wouldn’t have been raised.

QUESTION: Can --

MR TONER: I can’t confirm that it wasn’t raised.

QUESTION: Right. Well, can someone look into it? Just because the cases of Americans who are in prison --

MR TONER: Of course. Of course. And --

QUESTION: -- this is your – what you say is your highest obligation.

MR TONER: And what I can say is that we call on the Venezuelan Government to respect due process and human rights. And as you note, we do take the welfare of American citizens very seriously.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR TONER: Thanks, guys.

(The briefing was concluded at 3:07 p.m.)

DPB # 164

 



 



 

The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department.
External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.

Daily Press Briefings : Daily Press Briefing - September 15, 2016

Mark C. Toner

Deputy Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC

September 15, 2016








Index for Today's Briefing

SYRIA



DEPARTMENT/IRAQ



TURKEY



ITALY



ROMANIA



INDIA



AFGHANISTAN/REGION



LIBYA



YEMEN/SAUDI ARABIA




TRANSCRIPT:

1:09 p.m. EDT

MR TONER: Good afternoon, everyone. That’s actually a really cool new camera angle that we have now from the – focuses on Matt and then the rest of – everyone else is --

QUESTION: Oh, great.

MR TONER: (Laughter.) So we’re watching you. Anyway, as apropos of nothing. Anyway, welcome to the State Department. Happy first day of Our Oceans conference.

QUESTION: Thursday.

MR TONER: And happy Thursday, as well. I don’t have anything to lead off with, so over to you Matt.

QUESTION: Really? I thought you were going to start off with a long and very comprehensive review of what has happened so far at the ocean conference. But since you’re not, let’s start with --

MR TONER: No, it’s – there’s – was an exciting morning with the President here and everything and a great kickoff, but nothing to add.

QUESTION: Let’s start with Syria.

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: Surprise, surprise.

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: So, it seems as though there continue to be violations and there continues to be no aid getting through to Aleppo, with various people making various accusations about who is responsible for that. And de Mistura coming out and basically saying there’s a serious problem here. So what is the U.S. take of the situation? Why is this not working the way it’s supposed to be working? Do you have any way or any plans to fix it and – well, let’s start there.

MR TONER: Sure. So first of all, in answer to your first question, or first part of your question rather, levels of violence are still far below what we had been seeing prior to September 12th. We continue to receive reports of incidents from both sides. And by both sides I mean both sides – that includes the regime. And we continue --

QUESTION: And – so it includes the regime and the opposition --

MR TONER: And the opposition.

QUESTION: -- that you support.

MR TONER: That’s correct. As I said, both sides. And obviously, both we and – both the United States and Russia have to do all we can do to further pressure or influence the respective parties to this cessation of hostility to reduce these incidents. But we still believe that, by and large, the cessation of hostilities is holding, it’s not perfect. We expected a somewhat uneven start to this, but from what we’ve seen so far, and what I said yesterday is it’s worth continuing.

QUESTION: Okay, but that --

MR TONER: Right, you also spoke about – sorry, the second part of your question. I apologize. The second part was about humanitarian assistance. And you’re right, that is important element – an important element. We talked about if there’s two pieces to this as we move towards the next step, which is the establishment of the Joint Implementation Center, you’d have to have the seven days, and then you also – of reduced violence – and then you also have to have the humanitarian assistance. And up ‘til now, we have not seen the humanitarian assistance being delivered.

QUESTION: And – who --

MR TONER: It’s a concern and --

QUESTION: Yeah, but who’s – who is it that is responsible for that?

MR TONER: Well, so what we understand is that the UN is obviously prepared, poised to deliver humanitarian assistance to priorities – priority areas, including Aleppo – we’ve talked about that – as soon as it receives the necessary authorization from the Syrian authorities. So, again, it’s incumbent on the regime and those with influence on the regime to ensure that all measures are in place so that these humanitarian supplies can be delivered.

QUESTION: All right, and then you just – you --

QUESTION: Could I just follow up on that quickly?

MR TONER: Please, go ahead.

QUESTION: So de Mistura has apparently said that the process for delivering humanitarian aid under the terms of the ceasefire is different from normally. Normally you would need formal letters of authorization, but under the ceasefire, it’s just – it’s not nearly as bureaucratic as that. Is that your understanding?

MR TONER: You know what, I don’t have the detailed knowledge that – to say yes or no to that. My understanding is that there still needed to be some kind of authorization granted, so I don’t want to speak incorrectly on this matter. But there does, I think, need to be some kind of understanding reached, obviously, for these convoys, or these aid convoys to get the access that they need. There needs to be some kind of --

QUESTION: And is that the main obstacle?

MR TONER: -- accordance with the regime to allow them to enter.

QUESTION: And that’s the main obstacle. Is it?

MR TONER: That’s what we’ve seen.

QUESTION: And any suggestion as to why three days – what’s today, Thursday – four days into the ceasefire, this very key element of it, which seems sort of obvious to follow up on, is not being done?

MR TONER: I don’t have much to add beyond what I just said, which is that it continues to be held up and the UN is indeed, as I said, poised to deliver this aid, but they need the necessary authorization to move forward. And absolutely right to say that it’s a key element of this agreement moving forward.

QUESTION: I just wanted to --

MR TONER: Please.

QUESTION: You used again that you – phrase that you have used since this deal took effect --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- four – three or four days ago, depending on how you’re counting, and that is that you always expected there was going to be an uneven start to it. But we’re now halfway towards what was supposed to be seven days of – when is it no longer an uneven start but rather a failure?

MR TONER: Well, certainly we’re not there yet. I would just say that it has not been ideally – or clearly, the goal here is to reach 100 percent reduction in violence. We’re not there and we’re not claiming to be there. We’ve seen incidents. I know that there’s been various reports about the numbers of incidents and violations that have been out there in the press. I’m not going to categorize or give a number to what we’ve seen except to say that we’ve seen incidents by both sides. And we need to do better, but it’s our consideration, our assessment up till now that it’s still continuing to hold largely and there’s been what we would deem a significant reduction in the level of violence.

QUESTION: So you’re comfortable with uneven as still the adjective to describe --

MR TONER: Well, we’re not – I don’t want to say – right. We’re comfortable in that it’s – in that there’s – in saying – I’m comfortable in saying that that’s the current state of play, that it’s not perfect, it’s not complete. But obviously I’m not comfortable with saying that that’s the goal here. The goal is a complete and nationwide cease – cessation.

QUESTION: Understood. My – last one, please.

MR TONER: Yeah, please.

QUESTION: What exactly are you doing on your side to get, for lack of a better word, your guys in line and complying with the agreement?

MR TONER: Well, we are continuing – excuse me – with very close outreach to the opposition forces on the ground, trying to get them to adhere to what they agreed to adhere to, which is to pull back – to pull back from their positions where they’re in areas where Nusrah is operating. They need to pull out of those positions and they need to, obviously, abide by the cessation of hostilities. We’re almost hourly contact with them to work on issues as they arise, and then we’re going to continue to do that, because as I said before, that’s on us. We need to – it’s on us to convince the opposition, the moderate opposition to comply with the cessation.

QUESTION: Mark, I have a --

QUESTION: The use --

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: You say that “we” have an understanding of the situation that the violence is down but not all disappeared. Is – do you still share the opinion of the Russians? Do you have the same outlook on this or have your views begun to diverge? We’ve seen complaints from the Russian military that you haven’t done enough to rein in your rebels, as it were.

MR TONER: (Laughter.) No, I mean, look, we – two things. One is I want to be very clear that we’ve seen violations on both sides. Two, we also own that our responsibility in this agreement moving forward is to get the opposition to comply with it, just as we have been very clear that it is incumbent on Russia to convince the regime to comply with it. So far we haven’t – we’re not perfect on either side, so we want to get there, move towards it.

QUESTION: If the situation is like this in three days’ time, will you form the JIC?

MR TONER: So we haven’t seen the humanitarian access, and that’s a piece of this as well. So I’m not going to put a – say we’re at day two or day three on this. What I can say is that it continues to be our assessment, and I think Russia’s assessment as well, although Secretary Kerry and Lavrov – and Foreign Minister Lavrov haven’t spoken yet today – but it continues to be our assessment that this is worth pursuing, it’s worth continuing, that it’s – we’ve seen a significant reduction in violence. But we need to see the humanitarian access begin to take hold, because that’s an integral part of this. And then, again, if we get to seven days, then we can move forward with the JIC.

QUESTION: If we get to seven days, but you can’t tell us how far through seven days we are?

MR TONER: I don’t want to give that today.

QUESTION: Okay. Now, the French foreign minister, Jean-Marc Ayrault, complained today that the French haven’t seen the detail of the document. Obviously we’ve asked for it here as well, and you’ve said that there are reasons why you don’t want to give the detail of the document. Is there a reason why your allies can’t see the document, and would you share it with them before an ISSG meeting so at least they know what they’re talking about?

MR TONER: So, in answer to your second question first, certainly we’ll be talking to all members of the ISSG who are in New York next week. I can’t formally announce there’s going to be an ISSG meeting next week yet, but certainly we’ll be talking to the other members of the ISSG in New York next week. And the topic of that conversation will be in large part walking them through the arrangement and making sure that they understand clearly and have a good comprehension and grasp of the arrangement. In response to your first part of your question, look, this was a – the text as it was worked out was a bilateral U.S.-Russia arrangement. And as such, we haven’t had the opportunity yet to fully share it with all members of the ISSG, but that’s our intent to do it.

QUESTION: So Mark, you said you’re going to be talking to all the members. That’s not the same as sharing the document with them, which is what they’re looking for.

MR TONER: I can’t say that we’ll share the full text of the document at this time, but we’ll certainly, obviously, be there to answer all their questions and to walk them through in great detail.

QUESTION: Why don’t you want to share the text with your allies? These are people that are --

MR TONER: I understand that.

QUESTION: Isn’t – aren’t they all part of the coalition against ISIS?

MR TONER: They are, they are. And I’m not ruling out that we won’t, I just can’t categorically say we will. But what I can categorically say is we’ll be sitting down with them next week in some shape or form. I can’t formally announce that the ISSG will be meeting yet, but we expect to be sitting down with each of them next week and walking them through in great detail the arrangement.

QUESTION: And Mark, on humanitarian aid.

MR TONER: Yes.

QUESTION: Is this a deliberate – do you think that this is a deliberate effort by the Syrian Government to stop the aid or do you think it’s just the issue of this is a war, you’re trying to get the message through to the different parts of the country? What is that you really --

MR TONER: Yeah. I mean, I honestly – I can’t say with complete certainty. It may be a little bit of the fog of war, but again, it’s – it needs to be dealt with and addressed before we can move on with the next stage of the agreement. And so it’s day one, okay; day two, okay, but a little bit more serious concern; now we’re in day three and we still haven’t seen this access really begin, so it’s of increasing concern.

QUESTION: Are you questioning whether the Russians really have that influence over the Syrian Government to persuade them to open up these corridors?

MR TONER: Corridors? Sorry, I didn’t mean to finish your question for you.

QUESTION: No --

MR TONER: No, look, I mean, this agreement is based on our belief or our understanding that Russia is able to deliver with regard to the regime complying with the agreement, and that includes cessation of hostilities, but it also includes humanitarian assistance. I don’t have a clear understanding why that second piece of it has become or is – has been so difficult. But we expect that the Russians will be able to convince the regime to comply, whether it’s whatever logistical problems, fog of war – whatever it is, we need to see that assistance flow.

Yeah, Nick.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) just to go back to Lesley’s question.

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: I know Secretary Kerry had addressed this, but it still doesn’t feel like we’ve gotten a complete answer. What is it about this agreement that makes you not want to share it? I mean, we had the U.S.-Israel agreement yesterday; you come out with a fact sheet that sort of gives blow by blow what’s going on there. I know there are security issues to deal with, but it’s just so strange that we have this really big, important agreement and you’re not willing to share the text.

MR TONER: Well, a couple of things to say about that. One is that it’s – it is a bilateral arrangement. It is – it does deal with sensitive issues that we believe, if made public, could potentially be misused or misinterpreted or used by – I know Secretary Kerry talked about the spoilers or would-be spoilers of this – but also could put some of these opposition groups, moderate opposition groups, at risk.

But all that said, we have done our best both with the media but also with the other members of the ISSG to talk them through and answer their questions about the agreement or the arrangement, and we’re going to continue to do that. And at some point, we may very well make this thing public. It’s just we’re not at that point yet.

QUESTION: Do you regard --

QUESTION: Does that – does that --

QUESTION: -- (inaudible) as a would-be spoiler or is an enemy to the moderate opposition?

MR TONER: You’re talking about – I’m – I missed the first part.

QUESTION: The Government of France, is that a would-be spoiler?

MR TONER: No, of course not, of course not. And as I said, we’ll --

QUESTION: So those two --

MR TONER: As I said --

QUESTION: -- explanations don’t apply to --

MR TONER: I understand that.

QUESTION: -- to the question of the French foreign minister.

MR TONER: And I said that we’re obviously going to be sitting down with other members of the ISSG next week in New York walking them through in painstaking detail and answering every question they may have about the agreement.

QUESTION: Does that mean --

QUESTION: Would you object if Russia shared it with more people?

MR TONER: I mean, that’s ultimately a decision for Russia. I’m not going to speak on behalf of them.

QUESTION: But does that mean that you don’t trust the other members of the ISSG to keep this confidential?

MR TONER: Not at all, not at all, not at all. I just think we’re at a point now – and it’s true as well with our engagement with the opposition – it’s a complex agreement. We’re trying to lay it out as clearly and as fully as we feel we can given the sensitivities of parts of it or elements of it. But we’re working with the opposition and we’re working with the other members of the ISSG. And frankly, it’s in our interest that the other members of the ISSG understand – and we’ve been engaging with them on this – what this agreement’s about, because it’s – again, this hinges on their ability to convince the groups that they support within the moderate opposition.

QUESTION: Can you --

QUESTION: And just the last thing, does the --

MR TONER: Please, and I’ll --

QUESTION: Do the spoilers include the U.S. Defense Department?

MR TONER: No, that’s not at all what I meant and not at all what the Secretary meant.

QUESTION: Can you be – as generally as possible, what – because I know you – because to say it would give it away.

MR TONER: That’s okay.

QUESTION: What --

MR TONER: What sensitive information --

QUESTION: What generally is the threat to the moderate opposition?

MR TONER: I think it has to do with what we talked about, within the designated area where some of these forces lie or where they’re located at. And we’ve even talked about this in terms of even with the Russians that we’ve been not fully sharing information until we get to the point where we’re setting up this Joint Implementation Center.

QUESTION: Well, yeah, but this is the agreement beforehand, which the Russians already know. (Laughter.)

MR TONER: I understand that. I understand that.

QUESTION: Presumably they --

MR TONER: But I’m just saying that there’s – I understand that, but what I --

QUESTION: Okay. So when it does come out – this is my pledge to you, Mark – when it does come out, because it will --

MR TONER: Yeah. Yes, it will.

QUESTION: -- we’re going to go line by line through it. And I want to know, when we go through it line by line, what exactly was so sensitive --

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: -- that posed a threat to the opposition or that could have been used by spoilers.

MR TONER: Okay, okay.

QUESTION: Just one other --

MR TONER: Understood. I think Kirby’s briefing that day. (Laughter.) Sorry.

QUESTION: Have you – is there a deadline for this separation --

MR TONER: That’s right, perfect.

QUESTION: -- of al-Nusrah from opposition? Have you said to the moderate opposition what – is there a deadline for that, or is the deadline when the areas have been designated and if they’re not out of them, then they’re targets?

MR TONER: Well, once we declare and stand up the JIC, then that’s when, as we’ve laid out, that this joint coordination or joint effort to target Nusrah would begin. At that point, it’s incumbent on the moderate opposition, if they haven’t done so yet, to disengage with the – with areas – or the – from the areas where they’re with Nusrah or cohabitating with Nusrah.

QUESTION: So essentially, the deadline is once the JIC is ready to go; then if the moderate opposition is in the designated areas, they – they’ll be targeted.

MR TONER: Obviously, we want to see that sooner rather than in the eleventh hour for them to do that, but that would be the quote/unquote “deadline.”

QUESTION: Just one last thing.

MR TONER: Please.

QUESTION: So you talked about the – on the humanitarian aid front about --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- you don’t know whether it’s logistical problems or fog of war that’s holding this stuff up, but surely you have to take into account the possibility that the government, the Syrian Government just simply doesn’t want the aid to go through. And in that case, I mean, it sounds like – I mean, logistical reasons --

MR TONER: Well, in that case --

QUESTION: -- or fog of war seems like – seem like excuses.

MR TONER: No, but in that case – no, I’m not trying to deflect that in any way. In that case, that’s an integral part to the agreement and that would be a --

QUESTION: I mean, they didn’t sign on to it.

MR TONER: -- a possible deal breaker, but we’re not there.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR TONER: Yes, but I’m going to go with you first since I’ve --

QUESTION: Thank you very much. Could you give us a readout on the meetings that Deputy Secretary of State Blinken is having in Erbil today?

MR TONER: Yep, sure thing. Hold on one moment.

So as you said, he is in the Iraqi Kurdistan – Deputy Secretary Antony Blinken, Tony Blinken, is in the Iraqi Kurdistan Region today. He did meet with President Barzani and other senior regional government officials, and they continued discussions on efforts to, obviously, degrade and defeat Daesh and also support for – ongoing support for the Peshmerga. And as well they talked about the response to the urgent humanitarian IDP crises in Iraq. And finally, they also addressed ongoing preparations and cooperation between Baghdad and Erbil ahead of the liberation of Mosul.

QUESTION: I know that the Kurdish report – press reports are saying that President Barzani raised the issue of a post-ISIS Mosul, how it’s going to be politically governed and administered. Do you have any details on that?

MR TONER: I mean, I don’t other than what we’ve said always all along, which is that whenever these cities, towns, regions are liberated, what we want to see as quickly as possible – obviously, we want to see the area made safe, and that’s a huge challenge in many of these areas because there’s land mines and ongoing threats to citizens or civilians who may be returning. But the other thing is we want to see is services restored, government – local government restored. We want to see as quickly as possible structures put back in place that will allow civilians, those who have been displaced or those who’ve endured living there under ISIL control, be able to resume normal lives. So local governance is what we want to see back in place.

QUESTION: An emphasis on what the local people want?

MR TONER: That’s what I’m saying, yes.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: Turkey?

MR TONER: Turkey and then you. Sorry.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: U.S. Ambassador John Bass has been under fire for his statement a couple days ago he issued regarding southeastern cities of Turkey recently taking from local government and giving to government-appointed trustees. And the U.S. ambassador issued a concerned statement. Do you have a comment regarding his situation in Turkey?

MR TONER: Regarding his situation in Turkey? Yeah. He remains our ambassador to Turkey, and I’d let his comments and statements speak for themselves. But obviously he enjoys the full confidence of the President and the Secretary of State.

QUESTION: So his statement regarding concern over these local government, most of them in southeastern of Turkey, taken as he is intervening Turkey’s internal affairs. There are Turkish ministers who came out to condemn his remarks or statement, including foreign minister and other ministers. What’s your response to this argument that he is intervening Turkey’s internal matters?

MR TONER: We would disagree. And again, his comments stand. We support his comments. And as we’ve said all along in our relationship with Turkey, where we do – and we have a strong relationship with Turkey obviously across many aspects, but when we do have disagreements with regard to human rights or the state of Turkey’s democracy, we feel we have a strong enough relationship to make those concerns public.

QUESTION: So you are saying this statement is not ambassador’s personal initiative? This is your government’s also?

MR TONER: Look, I mean, any time an ambassador speaks it’s on behalf of the U.S. Government.

QUESTION: So can we stay with the U.S. ambassadors in uproar for – or causing uproar, furor?

MR TONER: Okay. (Laughter.) Where’s that? Where’s the next one?

QUESTION: There’s two, actually; two others.

MR TONER: Okay.

QUESTION: Maybe you’re not aware of them. Italy and Romania.

MR TONER: I believe I’m aware of --

QUESTION: Are you familiar with either of the situations?

MR TONER: Go ahead. I think I’m aware of the Italy --

QUESTION: I was going to ask this yesterday but we didn’t have time.

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: So --

MR TONER: Why don’t you ask me the question first?

QUESTION: Well, I just want to know what you have to say about the situation with the – your ambassadors in Italy who’ve been (inaudible) --

MR TONER: With regard to our ambassador to Italy, Ambassador Phillips – I think you’re talking about comments he may have made about the – or he made, rather, about the referendum.

QUESTION: Yes.

MR TONER: Well, I’m not going to parse his comments, which I understand were made at a think-tank event. But I will say that the United States solidly supports Italian efforts to streamline and modernize political institutions in Italy and put the country on a path to long-term political stability and economic growth.

QUESTION: All right. And you know – are you familiar with the issue in Romania, which is – yes?

MR TONER: Yes, I can go to that one next.

QUESTION: The flag, the photo.

MR TONER: Yeah, I do know what you’re talking about of – yeah. So as our – I think our embassy has already put out a statement about this. But Ambassador Klemm is our ambassador to all of Romania. He regularly travels throughout the country meeting with diverse groups from all parts of Romanian society. And as an ally and strategic partner of Romania, the United States supports and applauds Romania’s democracy and its efforts to consolidate democratic institutions with the full, equal participation of all segments of Romanian society.

QUESTION: So more broadly, that’s three ambassadors we’ve just gone through here who have --

MR TONER: Yes.

QUESTION: -- who have been at the center of something. And then, of course, there is Ambassador Goldberg in the Philippines who was also recently the subject of a bit of controversy. Are you concerned at all that there seems to be a – I mean, this isn’t two – this isn’t the age-old saying two’s a trend. This is four now.

MR TONER: No, look, Matt. I mean, it is – and I think the Secretary would agree that our ambassadors, wherever they serve, are our frontline diplomats. We want them to be as engaged on the issues that are in our interest and in the interest of human rights and the ideals that we hold dear as a nation as they can possibly be. And if that’s being out there within the population or working with different segments of the societies or speaking on where they see or have concerns, speaking out about those concerns, we support them fully.

QUESTION: Thanks.

MR TONER: Yep. In the back.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR TONER: Oh, I’m sorry. Tejinder, I can go to you, I promise. Yeah, I’m sorry.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR TONER: Didn’t mean to slight you, sir.

QUESTION: No --

MR TONER: Yeah, and we got – so 10 minutes. Go.

QUESTION: Okay. So the first question is – I have just two questions. One is the Senator Warner and along with another senator has written a letter to Secretary Kerry about the Guardian, this system, aircraft system sale to India. The question is: Has the Secretary received the letter? Has he responded? I know you won’t talk about the sale and all that, but has he received the letter? Has he responded?

MR TONER: So I’m not sure – I can’t confirm that he’s received the letter. We will get an answer for you on that because we can do that.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR TONER: But like any piece of congressional correspondence, once we do, we would obviously assess it and respond accordingly.

QUESTION: I was just wondering because it says here that – I have the copy of the letter, September 2nd, and today is 15.

MR TONER: I just can’t --

QUESTION: So how long it takes to travel --

MR TONER: I’m sure it’s a matter of days, if not a day, but I just don’t have confirmation that we’ve received it and the Secretary has read it.

QUESTION: And the second question is I had earlier asked about – there’s a delegation of Indian members of parliament visiting Washington, D.C. I had asked about their – if they are going to visit this – have a meeting with this building people. And nothing has come to date, so have you --

MR TONER: This is a – I’m sorry. I apologize. What is --

QUESTION: An Indian – a delegation from the Indian parliament, members of parliament, is in town. I was told that – there were two questions. Who is paying for it? That they clarified that U.S. is not paying. And the second: Was there meetings in this building?

MR TONER: Let me take that and get back to you.

QUESTION: Okay, thank you.

QUESTION: I have a question.

MR TONER: Just quickly, and then I’ll get back --

QUESTION: Do you want to go ahead?

MR TONER: Yeah. Lalit, and then I’ll get to you.

QUESTION: I have a few questions on Afghanistan. The president of Afghanistan is asking Pakistan to include India in the transit trade agreement. I am asking this question because this agreement between Afghanistan and Pakistan was signed as a result of tough negotiations done by late Ambassador Holbrooke. At that time India was not included in the agreement. Now Afghanistan is asking that India should be included so that it can import --

MR TONER: So you’re talking about – I apologize. You’re talking about a meeting with – I’m sorry.

QUESTION: I’m talking about Afghanistan’s – Afghanistan is asking about including India in the transit trade agreement it has with Pakistan.

MR TONER: With Pakistan.

QUESTION: Yes.

MR TONER: And what our position is on that?

QUESTION: Yes. Yeah.

MR TONER: I would just say, speaking broadly, that we would support stronger trade relations within the region. And we’ve long said that it’s a priority for the United States at least, but it should be a priority for the countries in the region to all work more cooperatively and constructively together. And a trade agreement would be part of that.

QUESTION: So do you – you support Afghanistan’s viewpoint that India should be included in that --

MR TONER: I think we would encourage, as I said, stronger trade relations between all the countries of the region.

Nike.

QUESTION: At the same time, Afghanistan has also said that if India is not included, Pakistan denies (inaudible), it will deny Pakistan the right to transit its goods to Central Asia through Afghanistan. How --

MR TONER: Well, look, those are – I’m not going to weigh in on the negotiations between – bilateral negotiation between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Afghanistan is a sovereign country and it has its own rights – it has rights to make its own decisions with regard to who it decides to allow trade relations with. But broadly speaking, again, it’s in the interests of the region, it’s been a consistent goal of ours strategically to promote stronger relations between all the countries.

Nike.

QUESTION: I have one more quickly. President of Afghanistan was in New Delhi meeting Prime Minister Modi this week, and India has announced 1 billion aid to Afghanistan. What do you say about that? Do you have any thoughts on it?

MR TONER: Well, I mean, look, this is something – we obviously support India’s generosity and focus on Afghanistan and willingness to help Afghanistan become a stronger, independent country that has the stronger economic growth, certainly, but also has the capacity to defend itself and provide for the security of its people. The fact that India is willing to invest in that future we view as a very positive sign and we appreciate India’s effort.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR TONER: Please, Nike.

QUESTION: Quickly on Libya, do you have anything on the --

MR TONER: On --

QUESTION: Libya.

MR TONER: Libya, okay.

QUESTION: Do you have anything on the report put together by a panel of British lawmakers in which it’s saying that the military intervention by Britain in 2011 is based on, quote, “erroneous assumptions and an incomplete understanding?” First of all, I would like to get your take on that.

MR TONER: Well, so we’ve talked a little bit about this. I know that there was – our own President, President Obama, made some remarks in an interview he gave several months ago talking about how after the fall of Qadhafi, there wasn’t enough done in the immediate aftermath of his downfall to help Libya become secure, to help it – a new government get on its feet, and those were errors, I guess, in the sense that we didn’t do enough. And that obviously includes the United States but obviously other partners as well, including the UK – that we weren’t there when – that immediate aftermath to provide Libya with the support that it needed at that juncture to deal with the continued security concerns it had and security situation that it had on the ground.

But let’s look at where we are today and the effort that’s been made to establish a political party and a government, a new government that is able to begin to build the institutions that will provide for Libya’s security and provide economic prosperity to Libya. So I think we recognize that, again, in the immediate aftermath of Qadhafi’s downfall, not enough was done to secure Libya and to help the new government stand on its feet. But since we’ve – since that time, there has been tremendous focus, and certainly Secretary Kerry has led many of these efforts in order to set up a new government – the GNA – but also to go after and help it cope with threats from ISIL and really consolidate power within Libya.

What we need to see more progress on is exactly that. We need to help the government stand alone as the legitimate government of Libya and we need all the various sects and parties to come together underneath that government. And only then can the GNA provide for Libya’s long-term security.

QUESTION: Mark --

QUESTION: Because --

MR TONER: Yeah, I’ll get – I promise. I promise --

QUESTION: Because U.S. also took part in the bombing. So are you saying that the report find – found by those British lawmakers are correct?

MR TONER: I’m not sure. I haven’t read the full report. What I was told was that it pointed or had concerns about the fact that not enough was done in the immediate aftermath of Qadhafi’s downfall to support Libya. Now, if that’s my – if that’s not correct, I’m not sure what else you’re pointing to out of that report.

QUESTION: Are you seconding the finding that the intervention is based on erroneous assumptions and incomplete understanding?

MR TONER: The intervention that – to stop Qadhafi?

QUESTION: The intervention – yeah.

MR TONER: Not at all, and we’ve spoken very strongly about that. I mean, we had, at the time, statements that Qadhafi was making that he was going to go into various cities that were held by – or rebel-held cities, that he was going to hunt people down like dogs from house to house and kill them. Basically, he was predicting or pledging that he would carry out mass killings. And so based on that, we had every right, we believe – the international community – to do what we did, which was carry out airstrikes.

QUESTION: Mark, we --

QUESTION: Of course, Assad said the same thing.

MR TONER: Yes, he has essentially said – well, he’s made many of the same threats, but --

QUESTION: And he actually carried them out.

MR TONER: Well, we acted before Qadhafi was able to carry those out, but --

QUESTION: Right. But you didn’t act in Syria.

MR TONER: Well, we’ve got a plan in place for Syria that we’re trying to – anyway, last question.

QUESTION: Okay. Well, Mark, we have a story on the wire saying that Tom Shannon met with a Houthi team in Oman this week with a proposal on Yemen. Can you confirm that, that he was actually in Muscat and presented a U.S. proposal to them and that they’re going to go back to Sana’a with this proposal to discuss it?

MR TONER: Sure. What I can say is – and certainly Deputy Secretary Shannon is at the forefront of this. But these efforts to get a cessation of hostility in place in Yemen – and that does include, obviously, convincing the Houthis to abide by that cessation of hostilities as well as – and you saw we put out a statement about this I guess last week – that Saudi Arabia would also be on board, as long as the Houthis lived up to the same requirements or the same standards.

QUESTION: So was he there this week?

MR TONER: I can’t confirm his travel. That’s why my second part of my answer was --

QUESTION: Okay.

MR TONER: -- I can’t confirm that this meeting actually took place, but we’ll try to get you that confirmation.

QUESTION: And is this the same proposal that John Kerry was discussing with the Saudis a few weeks back?

MR TONER: It is part of the same effort.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: Two things on this. Isn’t it under secretary?

MR TONER: Did I say – I apologize. Under Secretary Tom Shannon.

QUESTION: And you can’t confirm his travel, but can you confirm that he was, in fact, in this building yesterday signing the MOU with the Israelis?

MR TONER: Yes. Yes, he was, but she said last week.

QUESTION: I know, but --

MR TONER: Okay. Yeah, I can. Yes.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR TONER: Thanks.

(The briefing was concluded at 1:47 p.m.)

 

The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department.
External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.