U.S. Department of State's Blog, page 11

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

Mark C. Toner

Deputy Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC

September 14, 2016









Index for Today's Briefing

SYRIA/REGION



BELARUS



ISRAEL



DEPARTMENT




TRANSCRIPT:

1:21 p.m. EDT

MR TONER: All right, I don’t have anything at the top. So I will turn myself to your questions.

QUESTION: Okay, Syria. Let’s start with Syria.

MR TONER: Okay.

QUESTION: Russians have today, once again, complained that the opposition is not respecting the cessation of hostilities and that you guys, meaning the Americans, and your partners are not doing enough to, one, stop them from firing; and two, to not doing enough to get the guys that you support to get away from Nusrah – well, what was Nusrah. So, I’m just curious how you respond to that.

MR TONER: Sure. Well, I can start off by saying that the Secretary did speak with Foreign Minister Lavrov earlier today. It was – I guess I would describe it as a signals check, where we stand in terms of the cessation of hostilities and the seven days that’s required before we move to the next stage. And I think there was agreement between the two of them that as a whole, despite sporadic reports of violence, as a whole the arrangement is holding and violence is, I’d say, significantly lower in comparison to previous days and weeks.

I’m not – I can also just add that as part of their conversation, they agreed to discuss and agreed to extend the cessation for another 48 hours, obviously with the goal being that this would last seven days and then we would move, as I said, to the next step, which is the establishment of the JIC.

In response to your question on who’s responsible and some of the comments we’ve seen out of Russia, I – we are not going to be in the habit of saying, this many, this many. We’ve seen violations by both sides. I’m not going to give a – attach a number to each side, but we’ve seen violations by both sides. And look, we’ve always been clear, just as we have said that Russia’s responsibility is to exert influence or put pressure – however you want to put it – on the regime to abide by the cessation of hostilities, it is incumbent on us to persuade, convince the moderate opposition to also abide by the cessation of hostilities, and ultimately, that’s a decision they’re going to have to make.

So we’re going to – we’re continuing to monitor this very closely. We’re continuing our outreach to the Syrian moderate opposition – that’s been ongoing – and trying to explain the arrangement to them, answer their questions. And again, we’ve seen, as I said, sporadic reports of violence, but in large part we think it’s holding.

QUESTION: Okay. So that means that you have not seen enough of – I don’t know if “enough” is the right word. You haven’t seen anything that would cause the clock to reset on the seven days?

MR TONER: Right. Right. We would say it’s broadly holding --

QUESTION: So you’re in --

MR TONER: -- and worth – and for the – and we want to see that continue, the status quo continue.

QUESTION: So we can say we’re in day two now of the seven; is that right?

MR TONER: Well, I mean – so that’s a completely fair question, and the answer I’m going to give you is probably not satisfying, but as we talked a little bit about yesterday, the other component we need to see and, frankly, we haven’t seen yet, is the humanitarian assistance.

QUESTION: Right. And so then this may not be enough to count as day two what you have seen so far, right?

MR TONER: Right. So we continue – as I said, we continue to closely consult with the Russians to work towards and assess where we’re at in terms of the cessation of hostilities. I think what I can say is that we agree that it’s worth extending this and moving forward.

QUESTION: Is there a way to catch up, so to speak, on aid deliveries to make up for the fact that there wasn’t unimpeded access yesterday and so far today?

MR TONER: Sure. I – and again, that’s a good question as well. I think with – in terms of humanitarian access, we want to see obviously the absolute goal here is full, unimpeded access to all besieged areas. We don’t – what we want to see over the next seven days is increasing access. We don’t need to hit 100 percent – six days, sorry.

QUESTION: Wait, wait, can I follow up on this?

MR TONER: Please.

QUESTION: Because this is something that I had raised with you last night and I don’t feel like we’ve gotten a clear answer on it.

MR TONER: Okay.

QUESTION: You – having read what the Secretary said in Geneva carefully and then again released in Washington, if the standard for moving to set up the JIC is seven days of both reduced violence and increased humanitarian access, then as I understand it right now you’re at day zero counting toward that goal, because there’s been no significant increase in the humanitarian access. Correct?

MR TONER: I’d say we have yet to see a marked increase in humanitarian deliveries. And I think Staffan de Mistura spoke about this yesterday. It was a convoy of some 20 countries he mentioned that were unable to get access yet.

QUESTION: Right.

MR TONER: So absolutely. So --

QUESTION: So you’re at day zero?

MR TONER: Again, I don’t – I apologize, but I don’t want to get into “it’s day zero, it’s day one.” We’re about to go to day two. What I would say --

QUESTION: But you set these – but you set these markers, Mark. You set the markers. I think it’s incumbent on you to explain to us --

MR TONER: Yep.

QUESTION: -- since you set the markers yourself to explain in a reasonable fashion what they are. I mean, what he said, assuming it’s correct, is both increased – decreased violence and increased access.

MR TONER: So the markers --

QUESTION: You haven’t had any increased access as I understand it. Right?

MR TONER: That’s right.

QUESTION: And last I heard that --

MR TONER: I just said that.

QUESTION: -- yeah, right. And the – right. So in fact, unless you’re playing games here, I think you’re at day zero. Right? Because you want both.

MR TONER: Again, I’m just not going to – I’m not going to say it’s day zero, it’s day one and a half, it’s day one. What I am going to say – and I’ve said before – is – and you’re absolutely right, it’s a twofold deal here. We’ve got to see sustained reduction in violence and we have to see humanitarian access. We haven’t seen the humanitarian access yet, so we’re still continuing to assess this. We’re talking to the Russians. We’re looking at this. We’re pressuring them to pressure the Assad regime. But at this point what I will say is from what we’ve seen thus far, it’s worth continuing, it’s worth extending this and moving forward.

QUESTION: I get that. One more.

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: Is it correct that you need to see both for seven consecutive days, or not?

MR TONER: In terms of the reduction of violence, yes. In terms of the humanitarian access, I don’t want to hold up that marker as full, complete humanitarian access. But what we want to see is increased humanitarian access over the course --

QUESTION: Over seven days.

MR TONER: -- over the course of the seven-day period. So I guess my answer to Matt’s question, which he said “Can you catch up” – absolutely. We can make up that by allowing these trucks to get in to deliver foodstuff and humanitarian assistance to these besieged areas, and every day after that by increasing those deliveries. But we haven’t seen it yet.

QUESTION: So it’s not seven days then.

QUESTION: But now you just said over the course of seven days. So in other words, if all of a sudden, I don’t know, every single aid delivery that had been held up during the course of the first six days, if every single one of those is delivered on the seventh day, then it would still be okay? Then you would create the JIC?

MR TONER: No. Again --

QUESTION: See, the problem is --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- is that when you set out seven days as the deadline for two things to happen --

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: -- I think that Arshad’s right, that it’s incumbent on you guys to say whether or not you have hit day one or day two, or – I mean, it sounds like you’re not going to be prepared even on day five or the fifth day of this to say whether or not things have gone in. So in fact, it’s not really a seven days where you need to see both, because one of them, the aid, could all happen on the last two days or the last day and it would be all right. Is that correct?

MR TONER: Again, I think I would just say, it’s – what we’re looking for is increased humanitarian access, not full-stop, complete, and nationwide, sustained humanitarian access, although that’s the ultimate goal. And as I said at the start, I know that my answer in terms of where we are with regard to the seven days is going to be unsatisfying. But I think that’s part of what we’re trying to assess and continue to assess – working with Russia, getting input, looking at the number of violations and where these – any of these violations constitute one egregious enough to pause it or to reset the clock, as we talked about yesterday. Again, Secretary Kerry spoke with Lavrov this morning. They agreed that it’s worth continuing. It’s not necessarily a – I’d say a clean process in the terms of judging this. I think we’re trying to look at all the variables here and assess this going forward. I hope at some point to be able to say, “Yeah, we’re close or we’re day five or we’re day seven and we reached it,” honestly, but I don’t want to get into like a daily count.

QUESTION: But Mark --

MR TONER: Please.

QUESTION: -- if you’re – I mean, I understand – and you just said it’s not necessarily a clean process, and I understand maybe you want to maintain some ambiguity about precisely what you want so that you can plant a flag and declare victory after seven days even if you haven’t gotten seven days of both. But if that’s the case, right – if you’re willing to kind of bend or move the goalposts, right – what incentive do the people on the other side of the table have to actually meet what you really want? I mean, if you’re not going to hold to it, if you’re not going to say, “Yeah, we want seven days of reduced violence, yeah, we want seven days of increased humanitarian access, no, we’re not catching up, we really want to see this,” then what incentive do – does – why shouldn’t the government and the Russians play games with you since you’re not holding firm on what you said you wanted, which was seven days of both?

MR TONER: Sure. So a couple of thoughts, and that’s a completely valid point to make, Arshad. One is that we always anticipated there’d be an uneven start to this, and we said as much and the Secretary said as much. And it has been – it has not been 100 percent reduction in violence, but it has been what we would deem or assess to be a significant reduction in violence, significant enough to keep this moving forward. In terms of what incentive is on – is there for the other side, if you will, to keep up with this, we have always said that at a certain point we’re going to walk away from this if we don’t feel that it’s in our interests. Now, we’re not there yet, but we’re not going to keep letting them or let anyone move the goalposts on us.

And again, ultimately, this is a matter for not just the regime, although last time with the cessation of hostilities, as we said, it was mostly on the regime side – they were carrying out airstrikes that led to the deterioration of the cessation of hostilities – but it is incumbent on both sides; it’s incumbent on the moderate opposition to live up to this too. So what we’ve seen the last 24 hours, a little bit more than 24 hours, a good, substantial reduction in violence and a period of calm. We want to see that move forward. We’re continuing to talk to the Russians, assess it. We need to see much more in the terms of humanitarian assistance; we’re not there yet.

So that’s why I don’t want to say, “Yeah, this is day one but not on the humanitarian assistance.” I’ll try to get a closer and a better read for you tomorrow, but we’re just kind of – we – I understand that the two tracks are not moving concurrently in perfect --

QUESTION: And the problem is you don’t --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: It’s not that you’re moving the – well, you could argue that you are moving the goalposts, but you’re now not even willing to state what the goalposts are, that they are in fact seven days of both.

MR TONER: Well, again, I’d say we have been very clear that we wanted to see both a reduction in violence and increased access for humanitarian assistance.

QUESTION: For seven days?

MR TONER: Again, I think over a seven-day period we want to see that increase, but we certainly don’t want to – we didn’t expect, to be perfectly honest, to see full and unimpeded humanitarian access from day – from hour one.

QUESTION: Can I ask a couple just very simple things?

MR TONER: Of course.

QUESTION: Have you seen airstrikes by the Syrian Government in the last --

MR TONER: Oh, I’m sorry. I didn’t realize that was a question. Sorry, you caught me mid-gulp.

QUESTION: Have you seen airstrikes by the Syrian Government?

MR TONER: I’ll say we’ve seen – what I can say is we’ve seen --

QUESTION: (Sneezing.)

MR TONER: God bless you, sorry.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR TONER: We’ve seen violations on both sides.

QUESTION: Right, but that doesn’t address whether the violations are airstrikes or something else.

MR TONER: I’ll have to look into that. I don’t know if I can clarify that there are airstrikes or not.

QUESTION: And then the last one for me on this --

MR TONER: Yeah, please.

QUESTION: I want to see if I can understand what is the ultimate – Secretary Kerry said on Monday that the Syrian Government would not be obliged under the agreement to cease flying over defined agreed areas until joint U.S.-Russian strikes have begun – not until you began setting up the JIC, not until the JIC was up and running, but until there have actually been airstrikes, joint U.S.-Russian airstrikes. Is that correct?

MR TONER: Until – yes, until that – those – that coordinated airstrikes have begun.

QUESTION: Okay. So that means that the Syrian Government, as I understand it – and please correct me wrong – is free to – as of right now, it can strike Nusrah anywhere it wants, correct?

MR TONER: So the only caveat to that is exactly what we’ve just spent the last ten minutes talking about, which is we need to see a period of reduced violence.

QUESTION: Right.

MR TONER: And what we’ve seen consistently over the past weeks and months is that the regime airstrikes are hitting moderate opposition. Now, they claim to be going after Nusrah. So we need – we can’t see that kind of – that would be – I think, on a steady basis that would be a, quote/unquote, “deal breaker.”

QUESTION: But right now they’re allowed to hit Nusrah. As long as they’re not hitting the moderate opposition, they’re allowed to hit Nusrah, correct?

MR TONER: That’s my understanding, yes.

QUESTION: Yes. And so they are allowed to continue to hit al-Nusrah, to fly anywhere they want and to hit al-Nusrah, all the way up until the joint airstrikes start, which is when then they have to stop --

MR TONER: That’s right.

QUESTION: -- flying in the defined area --

MR TONER: In the designated area, yes.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: Mark, a follow-up.

QUESTION: Thanks.

MR TONER: Yep.

QUESTION: Yesterday the senior Administration official said that only Nusrah and ISIS were fair game for targeting and strikes and so on. What about the other 21 groups that said they will not abide by the ceasefire? Are they also fair game? Are they also – will they be targeted by either the JIC or by the Syrian regime --

MR TONER: Sure. Right now it’s – right now it’s Nusrah and ISIS. And thank you for – because I was a little bit fuzzy on that yesterday, so actually, just let me finish. So I said – somebody asked me – I can’t remember who yesterday – is it just Nusrah who can be targeted by joint U.S. and – or coordinated U.S. and Russia strikes. I said I thought it was just Nusrah. That was incorrect. It’s Nusrah and ISIL targets, so just for the record. For the record it’s --

QUESTION: Nusrah and ISIS. But you also have 21 other groups that they said they don’t recognize the hudna, the cessation --

MR TONER: Who said this? I’m sorry? You’re quoting --

QUESTION: Twenty-one groups. Twenty-one groups. They issued a statement. There are 21 opposition groups that they said will – they will not abide by the – there are tens, dozens of groups. So they said they will not abide by the ceasefire, or hudna in Arabic; they will continue to strike against the regime; they will continue in their fight to bring whatever Islamic state into Syria. What about these groups? Are they to be targeted by the regime and it’s fine if they do? Is it fine? Are we likely to see – in seven days or when your joint operations begin, are we likely to see those groups are being targeted? And who is the moderate opposition that you keep alluding to?

MR TONER: So, Said, to answer your questions to the best of my ability, right now the focus is on getting the moderate opposition – and you know who the designated moderate opposition is; we’ve talked about it before – to abide by the cessation of hostilities. Ultimately, this is self-selection and we’ve talked about this before as well. If the regime or the – certain groups within the moderate opposition don’t comply with the cessation of hostilities, then they’ve identified themselves as not a part of it.

We’re not there yet. What the focus is on right now is getting the sustained period to seven days, and then at that point setting up the JIC, the Joint Implementation Center, and then coordinating – and this will be done, I understand, pretty quickly. We talked about this yesterday but I got a little bit more clarity on this. It’s not going to be a matter of days or weeks. They’re going to begin this very quickly, realizing the urgency of the situation. But once those coordinated strikes begin, then the regime will have to abide by its obligation to not fly in that designated area.

Now, you talked about this large group of opposition who we said the other day we’ve not seen any opposition party say it would not abide by this agreement. I think there’s a lot of rhetoric out there right now. I can tell you that our special envoy, Michael Ratney, who works very closely with the moderate Syrian opposition, is in touch with them and working very closely with them to explain the details of this and to convince them to support it. We understand that’s our responsibility in this, just as we call on Russia to be – to exert its influence on the regime.

Likewise, within the ISSG we call on Turkey, we call on Saudi Arabia, other members of the ISSG to exert what influence they have on the various parties on the ground. It is, in a sense, incumbent on the stakeholders. This whole thing rests on our ability to exert that kind of influence on the various players on the ground. But we believe that all sides here recognize that this is, as imperfect as it is, an opportunity to get us to the next level.

QUESTION: Has there been any push by some of your allies to include al-Nusrah as part of the cessation of hostilities – your allies in the Gulf, maybe Saudi Arabia and so on?

MR TONER: No, not that I’m aware of.

QUESTION: And my last question --

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: Regarding what the Secretary said today, he said that this is a last chance to keep Syria united. Could you elaborate on this? What does – he meant by that?

MR TONER: I mean, he also said, I think it was in an interview he did with --

QUESTION: NPR.

MR TONER: -- NPR, National Public Radio. I mean, he also spoke about the fact that this is – and he said this last week in Geneva – this is an opportunity. It’s not a done deal. It’s not a fait accompli. But the alternative is to allow the situation, the current situation, to worsen. You’ve got 450,000-some Syrian civilians who have been killed in the fighting. That’s only going to grow exponentially, and Aleppo will continue to fester and be besieged and possibly be overrun. So, frankly, the alternatives – and that’s something that we’ve made very clear to the moderate opposition – are not in anyone’s favor, not the regimes favor and not the moderate opposition’s favor and certainly not the Syrian people’s favor.

QUESTION: Mark?

MR TONER: Please, Michel.

QUESTION: News reports talked about differences between --

MR TONER: Whose – I missed the first part of your question, I’m sorry.

QUESTION: News reports talked --

MR TONER: News reports, got it. Sorry.

QUESTION: Yeah, talked about differences between the State Department and the Pentagon regarding this agreement and especially that the Pentagon refuses to coordinate with Russia. To what extent you are on the same page with the Pentagon on this agreement?

MR TONER: Well, again, I think – and the Secretary spoke about this yesterday – what really matters here is that the President of the United States supports this agreement, and our system of government works in such a way that everyone follows what the President says.

QUESTION: They don’t have to be happy about it.

MR TONER: I think, though, that that’s being --

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR TONER: Sorry, just to finish my question – or finish my response, though. I think also, though, I think maybe the interagency differences of opinion are being overplayed a little bit in the sense that I don’t think that anyone in the U.S. Government is necessarily taking at face value Russia’s or certainly not the Syrian regime’s commitment to this arrangement. Just to the contrary, we’ve tried to work into this process signals checks and ways that we can monitor whether it’s really being implemented in the way that we’ve agreed to implement it.

So it’s not that the State Department is on one side and the Department of Defense on another. I also think some of the comments from the Department of Defense were just about speaking to the fact that there’s logistical challenges of setting up the JIC and coordinating these joint or these – coordinating these airstrikes – not joint – and that’s going to require additional effort and additional time. So I’ll leave it there.

QUESTION: That means there are differences between the State Department and the Pentagon regarding this agreement?

MR TONER: Again, I don’t want to – I think that’s --

QUESTION: You say that the President agrees on this agreement. You didn’t say that the Pentagon agreed on this agreement too.

MR TONER: I think there’s – and I’ll leave it here. I think there’s, again, skepticism on the part of many people within the interagency and within the U.S. Government, but that’s to be expected. What’s important is that we continue to try to implement this agreement to the best of our ability. And part of the agreement is built on not just blind trust in the Russians’ actions but on the fact that we expect to see the Russian and – Russia and the regime comply with the agreement.

QUESTION: My second and last question.

MR TONER: Please.

QUESTION: Russia has said today that they need to release the content of the agreement, and the Syrian opposition is asking the U.S. to release this agreement. Why are you still saying that you don’t want to release it?

MR TONER: Sure. I mean, we’re talking about that, and I said yesterday we’re continuing to assess whether we’re going to release it or whether we might release aspects of it or – not aspects of it, pieces of it or parts of it. We understand it’s an extremely complex agreement and we’ve tried our best, even through doing a couple backgrounders with some of the senior Administration officials who have worked closely on this agreement – we’re doing our best to explain what is, I think everyone agrees, is a very complex agreement. And we’ll continue to look at whether it’s in everyone’s interest to release the agreement in full or partially redacted or however. We haven’t made that decision yet.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR TONER: Please, Nike.

QUESTION: Yes, can we move on quickly?

QUESTION: Can I ask one on Syria then follow --

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: Are there any plans to use the opportunity of UNGA to get an ISSG meeting together?

MR TONER: Looking at that, and that’s under discussion. And certainly, as you note, it’s an opportunity; everybody’s there. So nothing formally to announce, but definitely looking at it.

QUESTION: Yeah, Belarus. After the --

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR TONER: Yeah, sure. Oh, I’m sorry, he’s had – one more on Syria. I’ll get to you, Nike. I promise.

QUESTION: Do you know if Jabhat al-Nusrah ever committed any terrorism against the United States? The Syrian Jabhat al-Nusrah, the branch of al-Qaida.

MR TONER: Sure. So Nusrah Front is obviously part of the al-Qaida umbrella terrorist organization. And while it has committed, obviously, to ousting Assad, it also is committed to expanding its reach globally and regionally, and that is consistent with al-Qaida’s longstanding approach. So we’ve also seen that Nusrah Front leaders maintain the intent to conduct eventual attacks in and against the West, and there is increasing concern about their ability to conduct these kinds of external operations. And we would also note that they’ve had – in the past, they’ve held – kidnapped and held at least one American hostage. But, so in answer to your question is we believe their intent is to carry out eventually – if they’re able to establish the ability to do so, to carry out attacks against the West.

QUESTION: You still make a distinction between the so-called Khorasan group and the bulk of Jabhat al-Nusrah. The Khorasan group has been targeted before and – by U.S. strikes and has been described as the Khorasan group, but other people regard it as part and parcel of al-Nusrah. Is that one of the reasons why you regard them as terrorists?

MR TONER: I’ll have to check on whether we’ve changed our – I don’t think we have. Yeah.

Please, Nike.

QUESTION: Quickly, Belarus: After the parliamentary election in – on September 11, the State Department issued a statement saying that strengthening the democracy in Belarus will pave the way for better relations between these two. Now, my question for you is: Is there any plan or any discussion to exchange ambassadors between Minsk and Washington? Because the president of Belarus is saying that both country have agreed to do so. Can you confirm that?

MR TONER: So to answer your last question first, I’m aware of some of those comments. We do have increased bilateral engagement with Belarus on a range of issues, but I don’t have anything to announce in terms of re-establishing an ambassador there.

But more generally, taking a step back, we do welcome the peaceful conduct of their September 11th parliamentary elections, recognize – we recognize that there’s been improvements – limited in scope, but improvements in the electoral process. And we also would note that we’ve seen alternative voices that will now be represented in the parliament for the first time in 12 years.

That was the pros. The cons are that elections still fell short of Belarus’s international obligations and commitments to free and fair elections, and that was detailed in the OSCE/ODIHR report or statement, as well as, I think, Council of Europe also had an observation mission there on the ground.

So we’re reviewing the entire process, including pre-election or the run-up to the election, election day, and the post-election period, to assess how it will affect our bilateral relations going forward.

So I guess to cut to the chase, we’ve seen some improvements, and that always allows us to increase incrementally our bilateral engagement with Belarus, but we’re not quite there yet. But we continue to see positive signs.

QUESTION: So I guess is there any implication one way or the other on the 2006 sanction regime? Any discussion to review that?

MR TONER: Well, so those sanctions – that sanctions regime are tied to issues of democracy and human rights in Belarus, and if Belarus does take what we assess to be significant steps in those areas, the U.S. will look at providing additional sanctions relief. Again, I don’t have anything – announced today, but if – conversely, if Belarus takes actions contrary to its international obligations and commitments, then we also retain the flexibility to increase those sanctions or to revoke sanctions relief.

So I think we’re continuing to assess this day by day, week by week. The parliamentary elections we believe showed some promise, but we need to see more.

QUESTION: Final question --

MR TONER: Please.

QUESTION: -- before the 2 o’clock signing MOU, could you address some criticisms from the Congress for one Senator Graham, who told VOA that the MOU is not binding on Congress and that he is planning to introduce legislation that would have a supplemental appropriation for Israel? Could you address some of the criticism?

MR TONER: Well, I certainly can’t speak to what Congress may or may not do in terms of the MOU, and I can’t say a lot about the MOU signing because there’s going to, as you alluded to or you mentioned in your question, there’s going to be a ceremony at 2:00 p.m., so we actually – we should probably wrap this up. But we did announce, as you all saw yesterday, that the United States has concluded a new 10-year memorandum of understanding with Israel on security assistance, and that’ll span Fiscal Years 2019 I think through 2028. This is a sign of our unshakeable, ongoing commitment to Israel’s security, and it constitutes the single largest pledge of bilateral military assistance in U.S. history and includes both foreign military financing, as well as an unprecedented multiyear commitment of missile defense funding. So this is no small matter here; this is a significant pledge to ongoing security cooperation to the state of Israel. But I’m not going to get into – there’s going to be others speaking momentarily about the upcoming event.

QUESTION: Iraq? Iraq?

QUESTION: Really quick, just follow-up – a really quick follow-up.

MR TONER: Really quick follow-up and then David.

QUESTION: Yeah, quick follow-up on that.

MR TONER: Yeah, quick.

QUESTION: Okay. Is it really necessary at this time to give Israel almost $40 billion worth of arms when it’s really prosperous, the state is prosperous; it is not threatened by anyone; it is more powerful, has military superiority over any combination and so on, at a time when these funds could go, let’s say, to infrastructures that are crumbling and so on, on the principle of it? I mean, Israel has an arms industry – an export arms industry that is very healthy and very viable and so on. Why is it necessary at this particular juncture to give Israel $40 billion worth of arms at a time when it does not need it?

MR TONER: I think it speaks to our unshakeable commitment to Israel’s long-term security in a region where we assess and Israel certainly assesses that it continues to be under threat. And again, others will speak to this momentarily more articulately and eloquently than I could, but our relationship with Israel is based on many issues and many areas of common cause, but one of those is a commitment to Israel’s security.

Please, David.

QUESTION: Could I please --

QUESTION: This sum comes out of foreign military financing, which is a --

MR TONER: That’s right.

QUESTION: -- which is a fixed envelope. So given that this is going to be bigger than it was before, who’s losing out?

MR TONER: What do you mean? For who’s not in the – who’s getting --

QUESTION: Given that a greater proportion of this fixed envelope --

MR TONER: Who are we taking from Peter to pay Paul is what you’re actually asking me.

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR TONER: I don’t have specifics on that. I’ll take the question.

QUESTION: That was a very nice biblical reference.

MR TONER: Thanks, guys. I really do have to cut it off because it’s at two.

QUESTION: Could I ask just one question? I’ve been sitting here.

QUESTION: Do you know what the oceans conference costs?

MR TONER: I’m sorry?

QUESTION: Do you know what the oceans conference costs?

MR TONER: Oh, I don’t, and I will get you – I’ll get you an answer for that, or I’ll try to. But we looked into that, and part of the problem is – couple quick points to make, and then I know we’ve got to step down. So one of this is – this is – this conference, Our Oceans conference, is back to back with the AGOA, the African Growth and Opportunity Act conference, so in a sense they’re sharing some of the physical facilities for both conferences. So we’re trying to disaggregate and get a clean assessment of what one or the other costs.

But the other thing is that – the other couple points I could make and Catherine Novelli, Cathy Novelli, Under Secretary Novelli spoke to is there’s been a lot of cost sharing that’s gone into this. We are in fact doing it on site here at the Harry S. Truman Building, so that’s a money-saving thing, but also there’s a lot of public and private partnerships involved in this. For example, we’re doing an event in Georgetown, National Geographic’s heavily involved. So there’s a lot of, again, private enterprises or private companies, organizations stepping in to also host events.

And then the other thing is – worth mentioning is the billions of dollars that this has – that these conferences, now the third one, have engendered on the part of the nations and governments participating in them.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) in what it costs and how much comes out of --

MR TONER: Yeah, I get it. (Laughter.) Sorry, that was an overly long answer to your question.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR TONER: Yeah.

(The briefing was concluded at 1:58 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 - September 13, 2016

Mark C. Toner

Deputy Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC

September 13, 2016









Index for Today's Briefing

SECRETARY'S SCHEDULE



SYRIA



IRAN



BURMA




TRANSCRIPT:

1:22 p.m. EDT

MR TONER: And I know we weren’t able to answer all your questions about bilats or about possible other discussions, as you mentioned, about – concerning Syria and other – I think all this will take shape over the next few days, so just bear with us.

QUESTION: Are you going to announce them piecemeal or will there be another meeting like this with more details?

MR TONER: We’ll probably put out, for planning purposes only, a media note. But we’ll also – as we get closer to Saturday we’ll let you know what the set-in-stone bilats are.

QUESTION: Thanks.

MR TONER: Yep.

QUESTION: Really, there isn’t a single one that’s set in stone right now? I just – I don’t believe that.

MR TONER: You find that hard to believe? Well --

QUESTION: No, no, I don’t find it hard to believe. I find it impossible to believe. (Laughter.)

MR TONER: When we have something to announce, as you’ve often heard, then we’ll announce it.

Go ahead, Matt.

QUESTION: You don’t have anything to start with? How about a preview of the upcoming General Assembly session? (Laughter.)

MR TONER: Check.

QUESTION: Yeah. So as your previous briefer just said, yes, the Secretary did speak quite a bit about the Syria deal yesterday. Unfortunately, not all of it was 100 percent accurate, apparently. I have a couple of questions.

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: I just want to see how far – how much more we can clarify what this deal does and what it doesn’t do --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- if, in fact, we get to seven days of reduced violence.

MR TONER: Right.

QUESTION: So the first question is: Under the terms of the deal, as everyone knows, if there is this seven days of reduced violence, the U.S. and Russia will set up this Joint – the JIC.

MR TONER: Right.

QUESTION: Does that – is that – does that exist, or will it exist as soon as people have confirmed the seven days of reduced violence? Or is it – does the seven days, confirmation of the seven days of reduced violence, merely mean that the process of getting the JIC stood up begins?

MR TONER: So you are right that we need to see the seven days of reduced violence. At that time, once that assessment is made – and let me just clarify as well, when we talk about seven days of reduced violence, we’re also talking about sustained humanitarian access as well, and too often that’s left off the – left out of the discussion or not emphasized enough. But we need to see both.

At that point in time, my understanding is that the JIC, Joint Implementation Center, will begin to be set up. It’s not – my understanding, again, is that there won’t be an “open” sign hung out on a door immediately; but that once we get to that point in time – seven days of reduced violence and humanitarian access – at that point in time, we’ll set the JIC up. Now, how long that will take before it’s operational, I don’t have a solid answer for you. I’ll try to get you more clarity on that.

QUESTION: Okay, well, what needs to be done – I mean, what needs to be done between you and the Russians should we get to the seven days and the sustained humanitarian access to set up the JIC? Have the rules of engagement or the decisions about how much and what kind of intelligence sharing – have those details been arranged, or is that something that is still TBD?

MR TONER: Sure. I don’t want to get into too much --

QUESTION: And will be still TBD --

MR TONER: Sure. I don’t want to get into too much detail and get too far down this hypothetical road, because we’re just one day into this. But I think, in response to your question, we have been, obviously, throughout the past several months now been talking and coordinating closely and trying to – in trying to reach this agreement with the Russians. So to an extent, these channels are already established. And indeed, as we’ve talked about a lot from this podium and elsewhere, there are these groups working in Geneva already.

So in terms of what needs to be done to set up the Joint Implementation Center after we reach the seven days of calm or reduction in violence, my impression is it’s not going to be a tremendously heavy lift because, again, we’ve already established a lot of this and done a lot of the legwork in just getting to the point of agreement. But there will have to be a certain level or certain degree of coordination ongoing. We’ll have to establish processes. We’ll have to establish a means of communication. And we’ll have to, as you mentioned, talk about the mechanisms by which we share information and intelligence and how that works.

We all know globally how this works, right? We’re going to have an agreed upon area that – and then the regime would not be able to fly anymore within that area, that consolidated area that we’ve talked about. And once we get to that point, then we will begin coordinating with Russia on airstrikes specifically targeting Nusrah in a strategic and a very calculated way.

QUESTION: Well, the reason why the timing --

MR TONER: Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: -- of all this is important is because it is not the creation of the JIC that is the trigger for Assad having to ground his air force over the designated area, correct? It’s actually when the U.S. and Russia begin the joint operations that they will be – according to what was said yesterday and repeatedly over and over again, it is not the JIC being established that is the trigger. It is the commencement of joint U.S.-Russian strikes. And what you laid out just now and noted that it’s taken several months to get just to this point without any of the details of how this cooperation or coordination is going to take place, you’re looking at potentially weeks more where Assad’s air force isn’t grounded while the two sides try to hash out exactly what and how the JIC is going to do – what it – how it’s going to do its job. Right?

MR TONER: So a couple of points on that. One is we all recognize that – the urgency of putting the JIC up and running, getting it up and running as quickly as possible. Once we get to that seven-day mark of a reduction in violence along with sustained humanitarian access, we all recognize that that is a key to the agreement of – or Assad’s forces no longer being able to fly missions within that designated airspace. So I don’t think it’s going to be a matter of weeks. I can’t put a specific day or time on it, but it’s not going to be a matter of weeks.

QUESTION: But is it correct that it’s not the creation of the JIC that stops – that grounds the air – the Assad air force? It is the commencement of the joint operations, or is that not correct?

MR TONER: I’ll try to get clarity on that. That’s a good question. I’m – I believe it’s the former but – or the latter, rather, but I’ll get clarity on that.

QUESTION: The former and the latter?

MR TONER: The carrying out of – no, I said I believe it’s the latter.

QUESTION: The latter. So it is the commencement of the airstrikes that does it?

MR TONER: Let me double-check. I’ll take the question.

QUESTION: So – so in other words, there is another period of time after the seven days during which Assad’s forces can do whatever they want essentially.

MR TONER: Again, nobody is talking about certainly – that was the other point I wanted to make, and thanks for bringing it up, is we are talking about a sustained period where there is – sorry, a period where there is a sustained reduction in violence. What we have seen time and time again – and it’s what caused the last cessation of hostilities to fray and ultimately collapse – was the fact that the regime carried out airstrikes saying it was going after Nusrah but, in fact, was taking out civilian targets.

So to say – to make the claim or to ask the question of whether the regime can continue willy-nilly to carry out airstrikes in the name of going after Nusrah, that’s not the case. We’re already looking at who is abiding by this reduction in violence since yesterday, and we’re already assessing when there’s – when there are allegations of violations who’s responsible for that and whether they’re legitimate violations are not. So that part of that process is already going on.

QUESTION: There are legitimate violations?

MR TONER: I said where there are legitimate violations.

QUESTION: Right. Do --

MR TONER: We haven’t seen that thus far. But I’m saying it’s not like we – sorry, just it’s not like we’re saying to the regime, sure, do what you want for the next seven days or until a JIC is set up. That’s not at all --

QUESTION: Does the clock reset or is it – is this coming Monday a one-time-only deal? In other words, if there is a violation tomorrow, a serious one, do you start again on counting seven days from Wednesday?

MR TONER: So, in theory, how this works is – and I can just say that over the last 24 hours, while we have seen some violations, and I think Secretary Kerry spoke to this yesterday that this isn’t going to be a clean start to this, there are going to be some ongoing incidents of violence. But so we have seen, as I said, some reports of sporadic violence, but thus far the arrangement as a whole seems to be holding --

QUESTION: (Sneezing.)

MR TONER: -- and the violence – God bless you – is lower in comparison to previous days and weeks. But as I said, we anticipated an uneven start to the cessation of hostilities.

So as we move forward, just to answer your question directly, every day we continue to work within the U.S. Government, but also consulting closely with the Russians, assessing, as I just talked about, where there are credible reports of violations. We’re assessing those jointly. If we get to a point then – if we get to a point where we believe that there is a credible series of violations or a credible incident of a violation of the cessation of hostilities, we do reserve the right to make the decision to say we’re setting the clock back to zero.

QUESTION: So the clock can reset?

MR TONER: The clock can reset.

QUESTION: All right.

MR TONER: And then – sorry, just to finish my answer – we also reserve the right, if this goes on and on and on to a point where we believe it’s no longer in anyone’s interest to continue this, to simply walk away and say --

QUESTION: All right.

MR TONER: -- the agreement is null and void.

QUESTION: Last one.

MR TONER: Please.

QUESTION: A lot of this confusion could be cleared up if you guys would just make this deal public. Foreign Minister Lavrov said earlier today that he saw no reason not to make it public and that, in fact, it should be made public so that people could judge for themselves whether or not it was being violated. And he said that it put the onus on you guys to make it public. So what’s going on? I mean, will you make it public so that --

MR TONER: Well, we certainly appreciate his commitment to transparency. I mean, look, Matt --

QUESTION: Really? Did I sense some sarcasm in that or were you being serious?

MR TONER: Not at all. Look --

QUESTION: Let the record reflect that even the answer, quote, “not at all,” was also sarcastic.

MR TONER: (Laughter.) Thank you, James, for your commentary.

No, look, let’s be very clear. So we were and have been very clear about saying that, given the level of detail of this agreement, there are some operational details, areas of sensitivity that we believe we don’t want – or would not be in the interest of the agreement or in anyone’s interest to share. The Secretary alluded to yesterday the fact that there’s a lot of would-be spoilers out there who want to bring this deal and take it apart and make it fail. We’re mindful of that. So it’s still our assessment that we don’t want to share this thing publicly, but that assessment is ongoing. We’re still continuing to look at it and if we get to a point where we believe we can share the details, we will.

QUESTION: Mark, I have some follow-up.

MR TONER: Yeah. Please, Lesley.

QUESTION: So yesterday we heard the Secretary said that were some violations, but what are you seeing today?

MR TONER: So, as I said, it was an uneven start, but what we saw over the first 24 hours was the fact that – or we believe that the arrangement as a whole appears to be holding and that violence is lower than it was in the previous weeks and months. I’m not prepared to say this is – check the box that this is day one of seven days. I think we’re going to continue to assess that as we go forward and, as I just made clear to Matt, we can always see a significant violation in the days ahead that force us or force the Russians to reset the clock. And so going forward, we’re just taking this day by day, hour by hour really, and assessing that this is meeting the criteria. But the other thing is, just the fact that we’ve seen a reduction in violence isn’t enough. We need to see access for humanitarian assistance. Now, we believe that’s moving. We’ve seen some signs that that’s moving, but we still haven’t seen the access. We need to see that concretely take place.

QUESTION: And are you – for this access, are you talking about Aleppo specifically? Because that seems where it seems to be targeted.

MR TONER: It’s one of the critical areas, but there is many besieged areas in Syria. And I wouldn’t say that it needs to be 100 percent, but we need to see a significant and sustained humanitarian access.

QUESTION: And then I have a follow-up on --

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: -- what this deal is about. So several senior U.S. officials told us that Assad’s forces had to be grounded. That was the U.S. push. Now, over the last few weeks, things started developing in which we saw the U.S. saying, well, Assad’s forces can continue to fly even after the JIC is formed in certain areas where Nusrah and Islamic State are operating but that the opposition is not there. What happened in between? Was that a concession that happened on the U.S. part?

MR TONER: No, I don’t think so at all. I mean, I think we’ve been very clear how we envision this arrangement to work, which is that the – once the JIC is established, it would cover a designated area. In that area, the regime’s air forces would no longer be able to fly. The intent here is to take that element out of the equation, because what we saw with the last cessation of hostilities – by far, the preponderance of violations of the cessation were on the part of the regime and the preponderance of those violations were the regime saying we’re just striking Nusrah targets when, in fact, they were going after opposition targets and in many cases hitting civilian targets. And as we all saw, what was a credible ceasefire in the initial weeks and even months frayed and deteriorated rapidly because of that.

So we’re trying to take Assad’s air forces out of the equation. That’s the goal here, and if we get there, then we can have coordination between the U.S. and Russia deciding what targets are legitimate targets – are Nusrah targets – and then agreement on who hits those targets between us – the U.S. – or Russia. So again, it’s also about strategically going after Nusrah, and we’ve talked a lot about, in this room – and how previous weeks and even months there was this marbleization, however we want to refer to it, in and around Aleppo, where you may have – regime forces or Russia’s may have said we’re going after Nusrah, but in fact they were hitting opposition forces – moderate opposition forces – who were intermingled. What we’re talking about now is a much more strategic approach.

And at the same time, concurrently, there is an effort to disaggregate these forces. We have made very clear to the opposition that it is in their interests to, where they are intermingled or commingled with Nusrah, to disengage. Sorry for the long answer.

QUESTION: And then – so Assad’s forces can continue to fly in those areas outside that designated --

MR TONER: Designated area.

QUESTION: Even through this week and continuing into the next months?

MR TONER: That’s my understanding, yes.

QUESTION: Mark, well – first of all, will the JIC have like a physical address, like CENTCOM? Is it going to have --

MR TONER: That’s a very good question. I’ll have to look at that.

QUESTION: And who will be in command --

MR TONER: I don’t know. I mean, in this day and age that’s important, but so much can be done, obviously, through the wonder of cyberspace and other connectivity that I can’t say that they’ll actually be cohabitating a specific building.

QUESTION: And this area that is in effect a no-fly zone for the Syrian air force, if, let’s say, a Syrian air – fighter jet violates this rule, who’s going to shoot it down, the Americans or the Russians? Or both?

MR TONER: So fair question. I don’t necessarily want to talk about rules of engagement or how these violations will be dealt with except to say that just as we have taken on the responsibility of ensuring that the moderate opposition abides by the cessation of hostilities, Russia has agreed to take on the responsibility of ensuring that the regime abides by its responsibilities, one of which is to adhere to this no-fly zone.

QUESTION: And my last question on this.

MR TONER: Yeah, please.

QUESTION: Now as a result of this agreement, are, let’s say, the lines delineated a lot better? Do we know who’s who in what area? Do you have, like, all the groups laid out and so on? Do you have a map of all --

MR TONER: I think there’s a much clearer understanding, and that was – again, a lot of the legwork of the past weeks and months was in trying to establish who was where. But I think also in the coming days, as we communicate with the moderate opposition and they understand that it’s, as I said, not in their interest to remain commingled with Nusrah, we are going to see a separation.

Please, James.

QUESTION: To this point of how only fairly recently we have been able to acquire a better sense of who exactly is where, by what means? Have we placed chips or other electronic tagging devices on the fighters we like?

MR TONER: I would really defer to the Department of Defense to talk about some of the operational aspects, and I’m not even sure to what level of detail they would be able to get into, since it does touch on intelligence assets and other ways and means by which we gather information about who is where. But – but – but --

QUESTION: How is it that our (inaudible) --

MR TONER: Sorry, just to finish my response, but recognizing the fact that this has been a challenge and remains a challenge. And that’s part of the reason why we made an effort to work out with the Russians where – or a mechanism by which we can share information about, if we get to that seven-day period and get to the point of establishing a JIC, whereby we can share information – again, not based on trust but based on a very sober assessment of who is where and located where so that we can avoid, as we – what we saw in the previous weeks and months and indeed years, which is indiscriminate attacks that hit hospitals, hit schools, hit civilians.

QUESTION: I just – I am curious about --

MR TONER: Please, yeah.

QUESTION: -- a state of affairs in which a given conflict involving multiple parties has been underway for over five years, but you are telling us here, now, that only very recently, as in the past week or so, we have suddenly been able to acquire a much better ability to discern one combatant set over another.

MR TONER: Yeah, no, I wouldn’t – and again, if I – if that was what I conveyed, then let me try to put it another way. I think that we have put great effort into trying to delineate because we realize how critical that is to any kind of sustainable cessation of hostilities on the ground. So we’ve put great effort into that through various assets. We also have, obviously, eyes and ears within the moderate Syrian opposition we’ve worked with over the past years.

And again, I think it’s absolutely critical for the success of this agreement – which we’re by no means ensuring the success of – there are a lot of challenges, but one of the big challenges is how do you separate the moderate opposition from Nusrah, where everyone agrees that Nusrah is al-Qaida-affiliated and is a common enemy and threat that we all can target.

QUESTION: Lastly, to Matt’s question --

MR TONER: Please.

QUESTION: -- about the release of the plan, in addressing that, you cited the remarks of Secretary Kerry, who averred to the existence of some number of concerned parties who are very eager to see the plan defeated and collapse. And I just wonder if that isn’t a recipe for never releasing any policy or any plan because there will inevitably always be individuals who look upon the policies or plans as promulgated by any administration and have a vested interest in defeating them or seeing them collapse.

MR TONER: Well, that’s a fair point to make. I think at this point in this stage, it is still our assessment that it’s too early to release the full details of this plan, but that’s something we continue to assess. I’m – far be it from me to say never will we release it. I don’t think that’s the case at all. And certainly, there’s a case to be made for being as transparent as possible. We’ve made efforts to explain what is, in fact, a very complex plan, but we’ll continue to assess that going forward.

I think the concern is just that it’s a very complex battlespace and we need to be very cognizant of the fact that given that complexity, there are a lot of spoilers, a lot of potential spoilers out there.

QUESTION: Can we go to Iran?

QUESTION: No, let’s do a follow-up --

QUESTION: No.

QUESTION: Syria --

MR TONER: Let’s finish up. Guys, and I apologize. I’ve got about five more minutes. I know there’s a lot of questions. Please, David. I apologize.

QUESTION: Oh. Well, on the subject, then, of transparency, will the JIC, when created, be able to issue joint statements publicly? Or are we still going through the podium if we want to ask about their assessments? When the previous ceasefire came into effect, we were repeatedly told we don’t want to litigate individual allegations of the ceasefire violations --

MR TONER: Right, right.

QUESTION: -- this is going on in private. Will the JIC continue that – with that? Will they – will deliberations of the JIC remain secret?

MR TONER: It’s a good question. It’s my understanding that they won’t issue – become or have a mechanism within the JIC to issue statements, but I don’t have a solid answer on that.

QUESTION: So we still ask you what the JIC thinks of the --

MR TONER: I think that’s the – yeah, I think that’s the – that’s my understanding.

QUESTION: Okay. And --

MR TONER: But if that changes, I’ll let you know.

QUESTION: And does it replace the de-confliction body that exists (inaudible) beforehand? Is it a development of that?

MR TONER: No, I would also – I would say it’s somewhat separate because the de-confliction is about de-conflicting the overall airspace in Syria where you have U.S. fighters and other anti-ISIL coalition fighters operating and in that same airspace Russian jets operating. And that, as we made very clear, was simply a very straightforward logistical de-confliction mechanism to ensure that we weren’t operating in the same airspace to ensure the safety of our crews.

QUESTION: But insofar as we – I mean, to follow up from the previous question, we don’t know whether it’ll have a physical address, but if it has one it’s in Geneva?

MR TONER: That would be most likely, yes.

QUESTION: And is there a table with soldiers and spies and generals around it?

MR TONER: I’ll try to get more color and context for you as we go forward.

QUESTION: Is it a buffet? (Laughter.)

MR TONER: I’d love that.

Please.

QUESTION: Just some clarification on the targeting. So is the idea that with this no-fly zone the Syrian air force would not have anything to target other than ISIS if it was – if it was airborne?

MR TONER: That’s correct.

QUESTION: And would the Russians and the Americans also carry out joint operations against ISIS, or are you very much focusing on Nusrah?

MR TONER: In terms of joint operations against ISIS, I can --

QUESTION: Or like this – through this mechanism I mean.

MR TONER: Right. I’m not aware that ISIS targets are on the table. My understanding is that it’s just Nusrah within that designated area.

QUESTION: And just finally, quickly --

MR TONER: I mean obviously, separately, we’re obviously going to continue to carry out airstrikes against ISIL.

QUESTION: Right. But not – but not as part of this JIC.

MR TONER: But my understanding not coordinated and not part of the JIC.

QUESTION: Okay. And in terms of – you keep saying that Nusrah is clearly al-Qaida and therefore it’s beyond the pale, but some of the arguments from the opposition is, A, Nusrah hasn’t carried out attacks outside of the country so it should be looked at differently; and, B, Hizballah is also on the terrorist list of the United States and it wasn’t designated in this – in the way the fighting is going on in Syria, so there are double standards. How do you respond to that?

MR TONER: Well, look, in terms of Nusrah, it’s our assessment that they do have aspirations to carry out attacks on the West. And in response to your second question, I would just say that there is joint agreement that Nusrah poses a threat not just to Syria but also to the region and to the United States. I would also add that --

QUESTION: But there is a joint agreement --

MR TONER: I would also add that with Hizballah and other groups that Iran has signaled that it will abide by the agreement. And that this agreement, as much as it holds, is – it is incumbent on all the members of the ISSG to exert whatever influence they have on the various operators on the ground in Syria to abide by the cessation of hostilities. We’ve always said that. This cessation of hostilities is only as strong as the members of the ISSG, the stakeholders, exerting the influence that they have on the different players and factions and operators on the ground in Syria.

I want to very quickly, if we can just finish, and then I know you have a question and I’ll take your question, Nike. I apologize.

QUESTION: Well --

MR TONER: Oh yeah. Yes, James. Yeah.

QUESTION: On Iran, we saw yesterday – we reported yesterday that on Saturday, September 10th, two U.S. Navy reconnaissance planes flying 13 miles off the shore of Iran received a warning from the Iranian military to either alter their course or be shot down by Iranian missile capabilities. First, most broadly, do you have a response to this sudden development?

MR TONER: My response would be in line with what we’ve said, because frankly there have been previous incidents much like this. I think we had one a week or so ago. And they’re concerning, obviously. They escalate tensions – and needlessly escalate tensions, frankly – and our forces within the area or within the region are operating according to freedom of navigation standards. We have conveyed our concerns to Iran.

QUESTION: How?

MR TONER: I know the DOD has conveyed its concerns. First and foremost, I’m doing it publicly. I don’t want to speak to other means of communications that we’ve had with the Iranian Government, but the fact of the matter is it is a matter of concern because we’ve seen a succession of these events over the past month or so. And – go ahead.

QUESTION: To that point, just this year we’ve seen the seizure of our sailors, we’ve seen a doubling according to the Pentagon’s numbers in the number of naval confrontations over this time last year. Now they’re threatening to blow our planes out of the sky. We’ve seen a very aggressive series of ballistic missile tests from the regime. There’s more American hostages in Iran.

And so I just wonder how you can possibly assess the evolution of this relationship in which the landmark moment is the finalization of this nuclear deal and rule out the possibility that, in fact, one of the byproducts of this deal has been to embolden the regime to worse rather than better behavior.

MR TONER: Well, we always were very clear that their objective in reaching a nuclear agreement with Iran was to prevent them from obtaining a nuclear weapon, which we, I think, all agree would only exacerbate the threat in the region of Iran as well as exacerbate tensions in the region and pose a real national security risk to the United States. We never said that this was going to solve all of Iran – Iran’s – excuse me – bad behavior. And in fact, we would like – as much as we would like to see Iran’s behavior change in the region, we’ve not seen a significant shift.

QUESTION: In fact, you have seen a shift. It’s gotten worse.

MR TONER: Well --

QUESTION: Am I correct about that?

MR TONER: Well, again, I don’t have all the facts and figures in front of me, but we have seen some disturbing, as you cited, trends. And I think – two things. One is that, in our view, it only makes the significance of the nuclear agreement that much more important, because the last thing anyone would want to see in the region is a nuclear-armed Iran. But it also shows that Iran has a choice to make. And if it wants to engage further with the West, following on the engagement that led to the nuclear agreement, more productively and play a more constructive role in the region, or continue with, as I said, its bad behavior. Thus far we have not seen that shift to a constructive engagement.

QUESTION: But you can’t rule out that, in fact, this deal has served as a cause for this more aggressive posture.

MR TONER: I mean, I can’t rule that out. I just – we’ve – Iran, like many countries, has an internal political process that’s defined by a lot of different dynamics. But I can’t give an assessment one way or the other in that regard.

QUESTION: Are three more American hostages --

QUESTION: So is it correct that you’re saying that the nuclear deal is important because Iran would be doing all the same stuff that it’s doing now --

MR TONER: And pursuing a nuclear weapon.

QUESTION: -- and with a nuke. Is that what you’re saying?

MR TONER: Right. Or possibly with a nuke, or at least pursuing a nuclear weapon.

QUESTION: But I think you’re right that they have shown a willingness to engage with the West, but it’s to engage militarily; is it not?

MR TONER: Well, again, I mean, they are a member of the ISSG, the International Syria Support Group. They have signed on to the goal of that organization, which is to end the conflict and lead to a political transition in Syria. We continue to look for signs that they’re willing to engage constructively across the board.

QUESTION: Right. But if that’s the only thing that they’ve done in terms of engagement or – except for the military stuff that you’ve been talking about --

QUESTION: Have you --

QUESTION: -- that’s pretty slim pickings.

MR TONER: Well, again, I’m not here to advocate on behalf of the Iranian Government and their engagement with the West.

QUESTION: Can you clarify if more American hostages were taken? Because James suggested that more American hostages were recently taken.

MR TONER: I don’t have a list in front of me, but there are --

QUESTION: But there are?

MR TONER: -- continue to be detained Americans, and we’ve expressed concern.

QUESTION: And how --

MR TONER: I don’t have a number. We continue to raise their cases, obviously, with the Iranian Government at every opportunity.

Please, Nike, last question.

QUESTION: Yes, Mark, thank you. Myanmar, or Burma. The de facto leader of Myanmar is visiting, Aung San Suu Kyi.

MR TONER: She is.

QUESTION: What will be the focal point, and how should we expect the issues of remaining sanction to be discussed?

MR TONER: Well, you’re right that she – we are very excited to welcome State Counsellor Aung San Suu Kyi on her first visit to the United States in her new role in government after Burma’s significant steps in its democratic transition. I think much has changed over the past several years for the Burmese people, but our goal remains the same with respect to Burma, which is to see a peaceful, prosperous, democratic nation emerge in which all people can live in relative harmony and are able to fully exercise their rights and continue to build a close friendship between our two countries.

So I think we’re going to talk about the gamut of issues – human rights, certainly, concerns, but also continued steps that Burma can take along the path towards a fuller and stronger democracy. Again, we’ve seen progress, but there’s more work that needs to done. So that’s going to be the – I think the focus of our engagement over the next couple of days.

QUESTION: Last time the U.S. announced the ease of some of the sanctions is on May 17. How do you address criticism and urge from the human rights groups that the remaining sanctions are critical to make – ensure the improvement of democracy in Burma?

MR TONER: Sure. I mean, look, we’ve always, as you posited in your question – the lifting of sanctions has always been in response to what we have seen as democratic progress on the part of the Burmese Government. We’re not ready to pull back all those sanctions yet. Some remain in place. And we always retain the right to continue those, as long as we feel that they’re useful.

Thanks.

QUESTION: In the past four months, do you see – what improvement do you see the lowest remain sanctions in terms of thwarting the human rights abuses?

MR TONER: In terms of?

QUESTION: Thwarting human right abuses and punishing the cronies and --

MR TONER: Well, again, I don't have anything to announce in terms of lifting additional sanctions. We continue to remain engaged with Burma. We continue to press them to make continued democratic reforms and certainly with respect to human rights.

Thanks.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR TONER: Thanks, everybody. I appreciate it.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:00 p.m.)

DPB #159

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 9, 2016

Elizabeth Trudeau

Director, Press Office
Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC

September 9, 2016









Index for Today's Briefing

LIBYA



DEPARTMENT



NORTH KOREA/REGION



SYRIA/REGION



SUDAN/REGION



MIDDLE EAST PEACE



SAUDI ARABIA/REGION/DEPARTMENT



INDIA/CHINA/REGION/DEPARTMENT



IRAQ/DEPARTMENT




TRANSCRIPT:

2:03 p.m. EDT

MS TRUDEAU: Good afternoon, everyone. I have a few things at the top then I’ll get straight to your questions.

First, on Libya. Yesterday the last remnants of Libya’s Qadhafi-era chemical weapons program arrived at a specialized destruction facility in Germany for a destruction under international verification by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. We thank Germany for undertaking this important mission, which was part of a robust international effort. The arrival of the chemicals in Germany also marks the final step towards the complete destruction of Libya’s former chemical weapons program and ensures these precursors can never be used as chemical weapons, including by non-state actors. The United States fully supported Libya’s request for international assistance to remove and destroy its remaining chemical weapon precursors through diplomatic support within the UN Security Council, as well as the OPCW. State Department contributed $5 million, along with logistical support, to this international effort. The United States will continue to work with the OPCW and international partners to rid the world of the scourge of chemical weapons.

Next – good news story. The United States is pleased to announce a contribution of nearly $37 million of humanitarian assistance towards the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to support critical education gaps for refugees in 16 countries. This contribution, funded through the department’s Bureau of Population Refugees and Migration, will help support commitments made by refugee-hosting countries to increase the number of children accessing quality education by providing additional resources to UNHCR to work with host countries. This announcement is part of the U.S. Government’s commitment to the President’s Leaders’ Summit on Refugees that President Obama is cohosting September 20th, along with our international partners during the UN General Assembly in New York.

Next, I draw your attention to a statement I just released by Secretary Kerry on North Korea’s nuclear test. I won’t go through that; I’m sure we’ll come to that in questions.

And finally, I’d like to wish Matt Lee a very happy birthday.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS TRUDEAU: And we’ll turn it over to you, Matt.

QUESTION: Happy Birthday.

QUESTION: Happy Birthday.

QUESTION: Thank you. Thank you. Another year.

MS TRUDEAU: Indeed.

QUESTION: I don’t – let’s see where to start here. I guess let’s start with North Korea and the statement.

MS TRUDEAU: Sure.

QUESTION: It’s pretty much the same reaction that everyone has been giving to this --

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah, I would say it was all five parties in the – for the six-party talks condemned. The international community has been very strong on this.

QUESTION: Right. So what is it that the Administration is hoping it will get out of the UN? Does it plan to do anything unilaterally outside of the UN system in response?

MS TRUDEAU: Well, I’m not going to get ahead of our discussions at the UN. It’s my understanding they meet today at 4:30, so we expect some sort of readout, some reaction from up there. We’ve been consistently clear that we will not accept North Korea as a nuclear state, nor will we accept North Korea’s possession of nuclear weapons. The President, in his statement, detailed also our commitment to work with our international partners as – on those lines and also reiterated our support to allies and partners in the region on their defense.

QUESTION: Right, but I mean, are you hoping that today’s meeting at the UN will result in some kind of action? Or are you prepared to let this go on for a while?

MS TRUDEAU: No, we’ve called for action and we’re going to work with our international partners. Let’s see where the UN Security Council goes today, Matt.

QUESTION: All right. And then I’ve raised this point before. You always say this about – you’re not going to accept North Korea as a nuclear power, but you do accept the fact that they just blew up a nuclear device – a nuclear weapon, right?

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah, we’ve commented on their nuclear tests – the second this year. You remember the last one in January.

QUESTION: Right. Exactly. So, I mean, isn’t it just – I don’t understand how you can say that you won’t accept that. I can see how you can say you won’t accept --

MS TRUDEAU: I – what I would say is --

QUESTION: -- you won’t accept their legitimacy as a member --

MS TRUDEAU: I --

QUESTION: -- of the nuclear club, but they clearly are.

MS TRUDEAU: What I would say is that we won’t stop our efforts on working to ensure that they come into compliance with their international obligations. We won’t stop our efforts in working with our international partners to increase pressure on this very opaque regime in reaction to provocative acts like this.

QUESTION: Right, but the very fact that they blew up a – or tested a nuclear weapon means that they are a nuclear power. You might not like it, but when you say you can’t accept it, I just don’t --

MS TRUDEAU: I think it’s one thing – we will not accept it – we will not stop our efforts to work.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah, I know we’ve got a lot on DPRK, okay, so why don’t we go, Janne?

QUESTION: Thank you, Elizabeth. Is there any communication with the United States before North Korea has the nuclear --

MS TRUDEAU: Between the United States and North Korea?

QUESTION: Yes.

MS TRUDEAU: No.

QUESTION: Because they usually a notice to U.S. and China that they’re doing the test.

MS TRUDEAU: I have nothing to read out on that, no.

QUESTION: But do you no ever talked with Chinese Government (inaudible)?

MS TRUDEAU: The Chinese Government would speak to their own communication.

QUESTION: They have something – have with --

MS TRUDEAU: I could not speak to that. The Chinese Government would speak to that.

QUESTION: Why are the U.S. intelligence didn’t know about this significant nuclear test?

MS TRUDEAU: Janne, as you know, we would never speak to intelligence matters from this podium, so I would dispute even the premise of your question.

QUESTION: But you knew about the (inaudible) --

MS TRUDEAU: I’m not going to speak to intelligence matters. We’ve been very clear, as the entire international community has, on our reaction to this very provocative action.

QUESTION: Do you know what size of this --

MS TRUDEAU: I know that there’s been a lot of discussion; there’s been some independent think tankers speaking about that. I’m not in a position to exactly characterize the size of this.

QUESTION: All right. Thank you.

QUESTION: Just a quick follow-up.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MS TRUDEAU: I’m sorry, Goyal. Go ahead, Oren.

QUESTION: There have been reports recently that kind of lay out the extent of procurement of nuclear material through China by North Korea through companies – North Korean companies – that are operating in China. And I guess I’m wondering whether – what the United States is ready to do to prevent that or to stop that from happening.

MS TRUDEAU: Well, I would talk about the sanctions program that we recently put in place, which are the hardest sanctions that have been put in place in decades against this regime. As I said to Matt at the top, we are committed to ensuring those sanctions are in place and actually those sanctions work in this. We’ll see where the UN Security Council goes this afternoon, but we are very aware that North Korea continues to seek, as we could tell, to develop this program and we’re very committed, along with our international partners, to take steps against it.

QUESTION: So the launcher that the North Koreans use for their – for some of – a lot of their missiles is a launcher that’s provided by China, and it’s – I mean, it’s like a – it’s a truck that’s a missile launcher. Doesn’t seem to have much of a dual-use there. So what’s the – these sanctions – China signed onto these sanctions also.

MS TRUDEAU: They did.

QUESTION: But they’re obviously – appear to be providing equipment to the North Koreans that they could use in this way, so what’s the United States – what kind of leverage does the United States have to affect the Chinese behavior?

MS TRUDEAU: Well, I would say a couple things on that. One, I would point you exactly to the statement the Chinese released themselves after this test, a very strong condemnation of this activity. As we seek to make sure that these sanctions work, we remain in close contact with our partners not only in the region but around the world. In terms of specific procurement actions, specific equipment, I’m just not going to speak to that.

Lesley on DPRK.

QUESTION: There was – yeah. Wasn’t U.S. aware of – were there any signs ahead of time that North Korea was preparing this kind of thing?

MS TRUDEAU: I can’t speak to intelligence matters.

QUESTION: Because there was a – what they call a sniffer radiation spy plane. There were tweets overnight about this saying that they were flying over the peninsula at the time. So – but were there any signs that you had, not speaking to your intelligence, that this was a possibility?

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah, I’m just not going to speak to that, Lesley.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Yes. Secretary of Defense Ash Carter in Norway said that China bears responsibility for these developments. Is that an assessment that you agree with at this time?

MS TRUDEAU: So I haven’t seen the Secretary’s remarks. I’d let the Pentagon speak to that. As we’ve said, we remain in close contact with all of our partners on this. We are committed to making sure that the sanctions that we have in place are implemented and enforced. We will continue to have those discussions. We will discuss it at the UN this afternoon and then we’ll move forward.

QUESTION: Well, it seems the Secretary Carter – I mean, the frustration with China seems pretty palpable. Is that something that you see in this building, as well, that there is a frustration --

MS TRUDEAU: I think what we see is an opaque regime undertaking provocative actions in violation of its international commitments. What we continue to do is have the discussions with our partners internationally to take steps to close the space through sanctions, through cooperation, through dialogue, and so that we can reduce the possibility of these actions happening.

QUESTION: How would you assess --

MS TRUDEAU: I’m sorry, hold on. Let’s go to Nike.

QUESTION: Thank you. Quick follow-up, Elizabeth. Secretary Kerry mentioned that he spoke to his counterpart from Japan and South Korea --

MS TRUDEAU: He did.

QUESTION: -- and clearly he was speaking to Lavrov. So my question is: Did he speak to his counterpart from China? It’s just a little bit that he speak to all the members from Six-Party Talks but --

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah, I don’t have a call with his Chinese counterpart to read out as of right now. Okay.

QUESTION: And then in the statement that he just issued that U.S. is open to authentical and credible talks, is there any discussion in the building that to maybe adopt a different approach?

MS TRUDEAU: No. We’ve consistently remained clear that we believe that we are open, as you mentioned, to authentic and credible negotiations. We believe that’s the path forward, but underlining authentic and credible within the Six-Party framework.

QUESTION: And then Secretary Kerry also mentioned that DPRK repeatedly violates its obligation under the UN Security Council resolution, which is required by the UN Charter that any member should abide by the resolution. Is there any discussion to kick them out of the UN?

MS TRUDEAU: I have nothing to preview on that.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Going back to China’s role in all of this, I mean, how would you assess China’s pressuring of North Korea and the fact that what – their cooperation so far hasn’t allowed for prevention of these types of provocative actions?

MS TRUDEAU: We’ve spoken about this a lot from this podium. I think we’ve spoken with you a lot about this. The Chinese came out very strongly after this incident, condemned this action. We will continue to engage in dialogue with our Chinese counterparts, both up at the UN this afternoon, as well as bilaterally. The international community is united on this, so let’s see where we go this afternoon and then hopefully we’ll have more to read out to you soon.

Matt, are we going to switch?

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MS TRUDEAU: Yes, sir. I’m sorry. Michel, are we still on DPRK?

QUESTION: No, switch to Syria.

MS TRUDEAU: Okay, let’s finish up DPRK.

QUESTION: One more DPRK very quick.

MS TRUDEAU: Okay, are you DPRK too?

QUESTION: Yes.

MS TRUDEAU: Okay, we’ll do these two and then we’ll switch.

QUESTION: Okay, go ahead.

QUESTION: Okay. UN Security Council resolution has existing sanctions against North Korea. There are so many sanctions every time they launch the – a missile, so which one is which and can you expect United States by themself more strong sanctions against the North Korea that as --

MS TRUDEAU: Janne, we never preview our sanctions actions before they happen. And specifically at the UN, as I said, they’re meeting today at 4:30. We’ll have that discussion there. Let’s see where that goes.

Okay.

QUESTION: So Kyle Cardine with Fuji TV. So with some timing, the Special Representative for North Korean Policy Sung Kim --

MS TRUDEAU: Yep.

QUESTION: -- is going to be in Japan and South Korea this weekend.

MS TRUDEAU: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Obviously, this recent test is going to be on the table for discussion --

MS TRUDEAU: Absolutely.

QUESTION: -- but what else is going to be discussed at those meetings?

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah, well, thank you for that. I’d also point out that Assistant Secretary Russel is also in Tokyo, as well. So as you mentioned, our Special Representative for North Korea Policy Sung Kim is actually traveling in the region, both Japan and the Republic of Korea. He is specifically there to discuss North Korean policy, so full-stop.

QUESTION: Okay. Is there going to be any discussion about the no-first-strike policy at all from --

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah, it’s – he’s going to be there speaking about North Korea writ large. I’m not going to get into, before those meetings, the exact details of those conversations.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS TRUDEAU: Thank you.

Okay, are we going to go to Syria? Is that where you’re going?

QUESTION: Syria, yeah.

MS TRUDEAU: Go ahead, Michel.

QUESTION: Yeah, any update from Geneva? Any --

MS TRUDEAU: I do not.

QUESTION: Why?

MS TRUDEAU: Because I would say that the talks continue. As soon as we have a readout, we’ll provide that with you.

QUESTION: And do you have any idea if they were able to solve the main (inaudible)?

MS TRUDEAU: Again, Michel, I’m not going to get ahead of the discussions of the Secretary in Geneva. We hope to have something to offer soon, but it’s not for me to get ahead of that.

QUESTION: And they will continue tomorrow or --

MS TRUDEAU: Michel, again, the talks continue. I don’t have a timeline. I don’t have a decision or resolution. We’ll see where they go and then we’ll have something to read out for you.

Samir.

QUESTION: On Sudan?

QUESTION: No, no, can we stay on --

MS TRUDEAU: I’m sorry. We’re going to do that. Go ahead, Matt.

QUESTION: Did you see this happen – at least I think it happened yesterday. A group of about 70, or more than 70 actually, agencies have said that they’re stopping – they’re halting their cooperation with the UN in Syria due to concerns about the UN – I don’t know if “complicity” is the right word, but due to the ties between the UN and the Assad regime. Do you have anything to say about that?

MS TRUDEAU: We do, and thanks for the question. We take very seriously the concerns raised by Syrian non-governmental organizations in their open letter. We recognize the mechanism – they referred the whole-of-Syria mechanism is far from perfect. However, we do believe it is an essential tool for coordinated humanitarian response in Syria.

We remain focused on the leading driving factor of this crisis. Many of the very serious concerns raised by these NGOs are directly attributable to the Assad regime’s blatant disregard for the humanitarian crisis it helped create. In our assessment, non-participation in the whole-of-Syria approach is counterproductive to efforts to deliver aid to the millions of people across Syria. We’d note that over the last five years, the UN’s staff and the partners have done extraordinary work in a very complex, a very dangerous situation. They’ve worked tirelessly to deliver this aid to the millions of people in Syria.

They also must operate with the permission of the host government, as we’ve talked about many times here. The whole-of-Syria mechanism helps the UN coordinate these operations. It also helps mitigate the dangers that these humanitarian workers face.

QUESTION: Right, but are you concerned that this is going to have a significant impact on deliveries?

MS TRUDEAU: I think because the letter just came in, we’re still assessing really what that impact would be. Of course, we’re concerned when you have frontline NGOs speaking about this, raising concerns, saying that they’re not going to cooperate. Our focus, as we’ve said many times from this, is getting the aid to where it needs to go.

QUESTION: Right, but you said that this was counterproductive not – for them not to participate.

MS TRUDEAU: We --

QUESTION: Does that mean that you’re telling them that they should – that you think that they should change their minds and should resume --

MS TRUDEAU: We think that the whole-of-Syria approach, while it has flaws that we fully recognize, is the best way to get the aid to the people who need it.

QUESTION: Right.

MS TRUDEAU: So we do believe it’s counterproductive.

QUESTION: Yes, but so I just wanted to make it clear.

MS TRUDEAU: Yes.

QUESTION: You want them to rescind their decision and --

MS TRUDEAU: We want them to refocus efforts on getting aid to people, yes.

QUESTION: Well, do you want them to cooperate with the UN or not?

MS TRUDEAU: Yes.

QUESTION: So you want them to change their decision?

MS TRUDEAU: We would like them to cooperate back with the UN.

QUESTION: All right.

MS TRUDEAU: Lesley, anything?

QUESTION: I don’t have anything.

MS TRUDEAU: Okay. You know what? Let’s go to Sudan.

QUESTION: Just --

MS TRUDEAU: I’m sorry. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Media reports in Israel stated that Israeli officials urged the U.S. during talks with Under Secretary Shannon in Jerusalem last week to bolster relations with Sudan after it cut its relations with Iran. Do you have any reaction to this information?

MS TRUDEAU: So what I would say is that the U.S. and the Government of Sudan regularly discuss the full range of issues that do impact our bilateral relationship. In our engagements, we primarily focus on U.S. engagement with Sudan, which focuses on our desire to see the end of conflict in all areas of Sudan, ensure humanitarian access, and see Sudan play a positive role in regional stability. So that’s really where our focus is on that. Okay.

QUESTION: But can you confirm the information coming from Israel?

MS TRUDEAU: I’ll just speak broadly on it. I’m not going to confirm that, no.

QUESTION: Can we stay on Israel just for a second?

MS TRUDEAU: Of course.

QUESTION: You may have seen – I think you have seen this video that Prime Minister Netanyahu has put out today in social media talking about settlements and talking about the Palestinians wanting to have a state that is – that has no Jews in it at all and saying that this is ethnic cleansing. And he also complains that – well, he says that that demand is outrageous, that it’s even more outrageous that the world doesn’t find it outrageous. And then he says some otherwise enlightened countries even promote this outrage.

So I’m just wondering, do you see yourselves – does the U.S., this Administration, see itself as a target of this accusation? And whether it does or not, what do you make of the general thought expressed?

MS TRUDEAU: So we have seen the Israeli prime minister’s video. We obviously strongly disagree with the characterization that those who oppose settlement activity or view it as an obstacle to peace are somehow calling for ethnic cleansing of Jews from the West Bank. We believe that using that type of terminology is inappropriate and unhelpful. Settlements are a final status issue that must be resolved in negotiations between the parties. We share the view of every past U.S. administration and the strong consensus of the international community that ongoing settlement activity is an obstacle to peace. We continue to call on both sides to demonstrate with actions and policies a genuine commitment to the two-state solution.

We have repeatedly expressed our strong concerns that trends on the ground continue to move in the opposite direction. Let’s be clear: The undisputed fact is that already this year, thousands of settlement units have been advanced for Israelis in the West Bank, illegal outposts and unauthorized settlement units have been retroactively legalized, more West Bank land has been seized for exclusive Israeli use, and there has been a dramatic escalation of demolitions resulting in over 700 Palestinian structures destroyed, displacing more than 1,000 Palestinians. As we’ve said many times before, this does raise real questions about Israel’s long-term intentions in the West Bank.

QUESTION: So you’re not a big fan of the video, I take it?

MS TRUDEAU: Correct.

QUESTION: So have you made your – not you personally, but has the Administration made its feelings clear to – other than your comments just now to the Israelis?

MS TRUDEAU: Yes. We are engaging in direct conversations with the Israeli Government on this.

QUESTION: And I mean, is there anything that you can do? I mean, he said this; he apparently believes it and it’s a pretty strong sentiment. You – even though disagree with it, I mean, what have you asked him to do? I mean, have you asked him to walk it back at all or --

MS TRUDEAU: I’m not going to get into our diplomatic discussions. What I would say is: unhelpful, it’s inappropriate. We’ll have our conversation with our Israeli allies and friends and we’ll see where that goes.

QUESTION: Do you --

QUESTION: What level is that --

QUESTION: Do you believe --

MS TRUDEAU: One second.

QUESTION: Do you believe that he was referring to the United States when he talked about some otherwise enlightened countries?

MS TRUDEAU: We would disagree with his broad assessment that – or the broad assertation – I won’t say assessment – that members of the international community who have expressed concerns on settlements are somehow expressing this view.

Nick.

QUESTION: All right, but --

MS TRUDEAU: Oh, I’m sorry, go ahead.

QUESTION: But you don’t dispute that you might be otherwise enlightened.

MS TRUDEAU: I am confident in our interpretation of his comments. Nick.

QUESTION: What level are those discussions happening at? Who is doing the discussing?

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah. I’m not going to read out those, but we are in direct contact with the Israelis.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MS TRUDEAU: Are we on this one? Tejinder.

QUESTION: Have you got any official question or request from the EU, because you won’t talk about the diplomatic – about – the most of the destruction that happens by Israel is the EU-funded projects. So EU is really like – so have they officially reached out to you?

MS TRUDEAU: I don’t have anything to read out on contact with the EU on that specific issue, Tejinder.

Are we still on this?

QUESTION: Saudi Arabia.

MS TRUDEAU: Sure. Go ahead, Michel.

QUESTION: Congress passed a bill today letting 9/11 victims sue Saudi Arabia. How do you view this bill? And secondly, how will it affect the U.S.-Saudi relations?

MS TRUDEAU: So we are aware of the House vote. If you’re looking for a specific comment from the Administration, I would refer you back to Josh Earnest’s comments at the White House on May 17th. The White House position has not changed.

While we remain absolutely committed to assisting the families of 9/11 victims and we sympathize with the motivation behind the legislation, we have serious concerns over the potential negative implications for U.S. interests and our national security.

QUESTION: How would the – it will affect or will it affect the relations?

MS TRUDEAU: The U.S. relationship with Saudi Arabia is strong. It’s based on a wide variety of interests. We’ll continue to work with the Saudi Government as we work to pursue global and regional shared interests on that. I – we continue to have conversations with the Saudis on this, but our relationship is strong.

QUESTION: Have you heard any complaint from Saudi Arabia after the bill passing?

MS TRUDEAU: For Saudi comment on the legislation, I’d refer you to the government – the kingdom.

QUESTION: Are you in discussion with them?

MS TRUDEAU: We’ve been in discussion. We talked to --

QUESTION: Today?

MS TRUDEAU: I have nothing to read out from today. I think this vote just happened.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS TRUDEAU: Okay, are we still on Saudi?

QUESTION: Yeah, one more.

MS TRUDEAU: Go ahead, Goyal.

QUESTION: As we approach this 15th anniversary of 9/11, which is connected or related to Saudi Arabia – well --

MS TRUDEAU: Well --

QUESTION: -- 15 of the 19 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia. That’s what I meant. What did we learn after 15 years, and what message you think you are sending to those who support terrorists or finance or train in the name of religion?

MS TRUDEAU: It’s a big question.

QUESTION: And first – I’m sorry to bother you, sorry to interrupt you. And first of all, my personal tribute to the U.S. and international community for this terrible 9/11 incident in New York and also to the families and victims: I’m sorry.

MS TRUDEAU: Thank you, Goyal. It’s a somber anniversary – not only the events of September 11th, but we also remember those who were killed in Benghazi. I think we’ll have more to say on the actual anniversary itself.

One thing I think that the President and Secretary Kerry have both spoken about as we take a look at the events of 9/11 is the issue of resiliency – how the American people, together with the international community, reacted and recovered from the events of 9/11. This is something – we remember the victims of that day every single day here at the State Department and certainly across the U.S. Government, and we will work on their behalf as well as on behalf of the American people to fight terror.

QUESTION: You think 9/11 is the part of this – what we see today? ISIL or ISIS came from 9/11, or what – where – people may have not forgotten 9/11, of course, but now they are focusing on global terrorism or threat is from the ISIL, so --

MS TRUDEAU: I would – I think that there’s books written about the genesis of Daesh as well as, certainly, about the attacks of 9/11. Where I would say is that terrorism, as we take a look at both Daesh as well as 9/11, is it comes in many forms. And as the international community, I think what we do find is our strength is standing together as we fight this in whatever form violent extremism comes.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS TRUDEAU: Go ahead, Lalit.

QUESTION: I have one question on India’s --

MS TRUDEAU: Of course.

QUESTION: -- membership to NSG, Nuclear Suppliers Group.

MS TRUDEAU: I’m sorry, one more time, Lalit.

QUESTION: India’s membership to Nuclear Suppliers Group.

MS TRUDEAU: Of course.

QUESTION: Secretary Kerry was in China recently on the sidelines of G20. You know China is the only country which has been objecting to India’s membership. Did Secretary Kerry speak to his Chinese counterparts or Chinese leadership on this issue?

MS TRUDEAU: So I don’t have those diplomatic conversations to read out, but I think as you know very well and we’ve been very clear since 2010, the United States has made clear our support for India’s full membership in the four multilateral export control regimes. We continue to believe India is ready for the NSG.

QUESTION: But did U.S. take up this issue with the Chinese?

MS TRUDEAU: In the last meeting, the NSG participating governments, as you know, did not reach a consensus decision – we spoke about it at the time – to admit any new applicant into the group. We were disappointed in the outcome. We continue, though, and will be, continued to work constructively with India and with members of the NSG on India’s accession in the months ahead. But on the particular conversations on China, because I know you’re going to come back and ask, I have nothing to read out on that.

QUESTION: Just last one.

MS TRUDEAU: Sure.

QUESTION: In all, is there any progress made after the last meeting on NSG?

MS TRUDEAU: One more time. I’m sorry.

QUESTION: Do you know any further progress has been made on NSG membership application?

MS TRUDEAU: Well, you know that discussions within that group are confidential within that group, so I’m not going to read out. But the United States remains committed. We believe India is ready for full membership. We will work towards that goal.

QUESTION: But based on that conversation, how far you are comfortable that India would get this membership?

MS TRUDEAU: I’m not going to forecast. It’s a consensus decision.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Iraq?

MS TRUDEAU: Of course.

QUESTION: Earlier today, the last remaining residents of Camp Liberty left for Albania. I’m wondering if you – it’s something that you guys have been working hard on, I know.

MS TRUDEAU: We have, and thank you for recognizing that. Today, two aircraft chartered by UNHCR carried the last members of the MEK out of Iraq to safe haven in Albania. The rescue of more than 3,000 MEK members is the culmination of a major diplomatic initiative by the United States in support of UNHCR’s efforts to relocate them. We are grateful to the Government of Iraq for facilitating the departure of the MEK, and we are especially appreciative of the extraordinary efforts of the Albanian Government and the Albanian Prime Minister Rama to welcome these people who are in need of international protection. These actions, we believe, are in the best traditions of the generosity and tolerance of the Albanian people.

And you guys.

QUESTION: On more on --

MS TRUDEAU: One more and then that’s it.

QUESTION: Yeah, yeah. Recently, Donald Trump said that North Korea is the China’s baby, so China should solve the problem. What do you comment on this?

MS TRUDEAU: I wouldn’t comment on comments made by U.S. presidential candidates. Thanks, Janne.

Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:34 p.m.)

DPB #157

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 8, 2016

Mark C. Toner

Deputy Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC

September 8, 2016









Index for Today's Briefing

DEPARTMENT



SYRIA/RUSSIA/REGION



IRAQ



AFGHANISTAN



RUSSIA



PAKISTAN



RUSSIA/PALESTINIANS/ISRAEL



NORTH KOREA/JAPAN



GREECE



INDIA/REGION



PAKISTAN/INDIA/REGION



IRAN/SAUDI ARABIA/REGION




TRANSCRIPT:

2:07 p.m. EDT

MR TONER: Happy Thursday, everybody. Welcome to the State Department. A couple very quick items at the top, and then I’ll take your questions.

This falls in the in-case-you-missed-it category, but just wanted to call attention to the fact yesterday in Laos – Laos, rather, President Obama announced a new State Department/Peace Corps initiative called English for All. English for All and its new website, which is englishforall.state.gov, will serve as a resource for foreign audiences interested in learning about the range of English programming offered by and supported by the U.S. Government. It will also be a helpful resource to those Americans who may be looking to serve their country by teaching English abroad. And worth noting that U.S. Government’s English instruction programs provide opportunities to learn English to millions worldwide every year.

Also, I just wanted to make note of the fact that tomorrow on Friday, September 9th, the State Department will team up with foreign diplomats to clean beaches across the United States. This is part – or in recognition, rather, of International Coastal Cleanup Day. This initiative will support the goals of Our Ocean 2016 conference, which is coming up next week. In collaboration with the Ocean Conservancy and its local partners, State Department personnel from the Office of Foreign Missions, together with foreign consular corps – the foreign consular corps, rather, will clean beaches in Chicago, in Galveston, in Kahuku, in Key Biscayne, in New York, and in Santa Monica, as well as Seattle.

And that’s it. Matt, over to you.

QUESTION: Where?

QUESTION: You said beaches --

MR TONER: All right. Sorry.

QUESTION: What was that?

MR TONER: Chicago. You know where that is --

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR TONER: -- Illinois; Galveston, Texas; Kahuku, Hawaii --

QUESTION: (Inaudible) the Great Lakes – the Great Lakes (inaudible) --

MR TONER: Yes, that’s – exactly, yes. Which is – by the way, the Great Lakes have more coastal – more coastline than all of the – or either coast combined. I learned that. It’s a fun fact.

QUESTION: Absolutely fascinating.

MR TONER: So I think I’ve answered all your questions with that. (Laughter).

QUESTION: I think it --

QUESTION: (Inaudible) Our Ocean (inaudible) summit.

QUESTION: It’s a very worthy --

MR TONER: You got me.

QUESTION: Very – a very worthy endeavor.

MR TONER: Thank you.

QUESTION: Just on your first one, what is the last letter in the word of the – in the name of the country where this English --

MR TONER: Laos.

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR TONER: Did I mispronounce that? I apologize.

QUESTION: You can say either, but --

MR TONER: Okay.

QUESTION: -- you didn’t need to correct yourself by dropping the “s.”

MR TONER: Oh, okay. I didn’t know. I learned the other day, again, that you’re – that you were supposed to drop the “s,” but --

QUESTION: It depends. You can.

MR TONER: Okay. Again, I --

QUESTION: All right. So can we move to matters of --

MR TONER: Yes.

QUESTION: -- perhaps more urgent substance?

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: Syria – what is going on? Apparently, Foreign Minister Lavrov has arrived in Geneva already.

MR TONER: Well, I can’t speak for the whereabouts of Foreign Minister Lavrov. All I can say is I don’t have anything to update you on with regard to possible meetings. We continue to – and indeed, the Secretary spoke earlier today with Foreign Minister Lavrov, and we’re continuing to work through some of the remaining issues that we have before we can reach an agreement on a way forward with regard to Syria. And those questions, those issues continue to be discussed. And until we get to a point where we can feel that we can reach a resolution of those issues, we’ll continue to work through them.

QUESTION: Well, does that mean that those issues have to be resolved before there would be a meeting?

MR TONER: No. But I would also – and certainly not. And we’ve seen, obviously --

QUESTION: Because --

MR TONER: -- indicative of the meeting he had last week in China, that certainly Secretary Kerry’s willing to meet with Foreign Minister Lavrov to discuss remaining issues. However, I think it’s our belief that – or our – yes, our belief that the remaining issues are at a technical level that need to be addressed within our interagency and also by some of the working groups who have been working on these issues for some time now.

So I guess to sum it up, I mean, we’re just not at a point where we believe it’s – we can confirm, A, a meeting and, B, that it’s worth his while to go have a meeting.

QUESTION: Wait, you just referred to interagency. So is some of the holdup here internal to the Administration, differences --

MR TONER: Well, I mean, look, I mean, any agreement that we reach would have to be reached though the interagency. I mean, that’s obvious in some sense.

QUESTION: Right. But in the past, people have spoken – or the reason that there wasn’t – the reason given by an official, perhaps more than one official, for there not being an agreement reached in China was that the Russians had walked back on some things that you all had thought had been previously agreed to. And now – maybe I’m just over-interpreting your comment.

MR TONER: Look, I don’t want to --

QUESTION: It seems as though not only is there a problem with the Russians, there’s also a problem in the interagency in the United States.

MR TONER: I just think, Matt, it’s – these are difficult processes. The Russians have conditions they want to see met and addressed; we have our own. And in reaching our own consensus with regard to a text or a way forward that we can agree on, we continue to have those conversations. We’re just not there yet. I don’t want to put the onus on any one – either side at this point. I just want to – I would just say that when we get there, when we have a reason that we believe a meeting would be – rather, when we’ve reached a point where we believe a meeting would be useful, then we’ll announce that.

QUESTION: Mark, this almost going to happen kind of meeting, I mean, this kind of feeling – does that indicate that you guys are getting closer or farther apart?

MR TONER: I just – I don’t --

QUESTION: Because the Secretary spoke to --

MR TONER: Yeah. I mean, it’s a fair question. I just – it indicates that these are complicated discussions --

QUESTION: Right, right.

MR TONER: -- and that – and they’re detailed discussions.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR TONER: And rather than rush to an agreement, we want to make sure that it meets and addresses all our concerns and all of our goals and objectives going into it. And so it’s painstaking to some degree, but it’s part of the process. I --

QUESTION: What --

MR TONER: So I don’t want to say we’re going back or we’re stepping away. I think that overall we wouldn’t still be in it if we didn’t believe that it was still possible.

QUESTION: I have a couple more.

MR TONER: Yeah, please.

QUESTION: What are some of these technical issues that the Russians may have walked away from or walked back from?

MR TONER: We’ve been fairly circumspect about talking about those in detail, partly to protect the confidential discussions that we’re having with Russia. Once we reach an agreement, we’ll talk about the – all the aspects of that agreement. But until we get there – we’ve been very broad, and that’s deliberate.

QUESTION: And two points if I could have your comment on. One, the Syrian army retook a neighborhood of Ramouseh in Aleppo earlier today. It gives them a broader sort of base from which to attack. And second, the Turks are saying that they veto basically any participation by Kurdish forces to liberate Raqqa. Your comment on those issues.

MR TONER: The second question again. I’m sorry.

QUESTION: The second question – the Turks --

MR TONER: About the Turks.

QUESTION: The Turks want to have some sort of a veto power over the participation of any Kurdish forces in the upcoming effort, whenever it happens, to liberate Raqqa.

MR TONER: Raqqa. Okay. First – and the first part of question. See, I’ve already forgotten what that is. (Laughter.) So sorry, Said. It’s been a long week.

QUESTION: The Syrian army retook the neighborhood of Ramouseh.

MR TONER: Oh, right. Exactly. Look, I mean, it’s not for me to really talk about, at a tactical level. We’ve seen those reports. I would just broadly state that we don’t see any kind of military solution to the situation in Syria. And that also pertains to the situation in Aleppo. It’s why we’re pushing so hard for a political resolution. And we’ve seen tactical shifts from day to day. We’ve seen these latest reports. It only raises our concern that the civilians within Aleppo continue to suffer.

QUESTION: But doesn’t that (inaudible) the agreement?

QUESTION: The reason I asked this was because they had --

MR TONER: I’ll let you and then I --

QUESTION: No, no, finish.

MR TONER: It’s okay.

QUESTION: They – it was the opposition that basically, through a sort of a blitz attack about a couple weeks, three weeks, four weeks ago, took this area, including --

MR TONER: Exactly.

QUESTION: --a military academy and so on.

MR TONER: And I think --

QUESTION: And at the time, you did not express a great deal of concern that there was an attack by the opposition.

MR TONER: Well, I just think there’s a – again, it’s just – it’s a complex battlespace. We’ve said that many times. And it’s also a very intense battlespace and there’s a give and take. And so I’m also not going to say that this is somehow some sea change tactically. I just don’t know, for one. And two, it just – we’ve seen these shifts take place over a period of months now.

Please, Barbara.

QUESTION: Yeah. Just because this whole area, Ramouseh area, is part of the ceasefire talks in terms of how you would get aid into Aleppo --

MR TONER: Right.

QUESTION: -- does this not affect the negotiations? It surely must have some ramifications there.

MR TONER: Without getting into specifics, not necessarily, because if we were to reach an agreement, there would obviously be – and we’ve talked about this in broad terms – certainly a pause in the conflict or in the fighting before a cessation could take place, and we’ve – so I mean, no in the sense that there – the fighting would cease, if that’s what you’re talking about. If your broader question or your question is whether this complicates that Syria or the regime, rather, would think that it can somehow take Aleppo, that’s really some – a question I can’t answer. We’ve seen the regime continue to press the fight to take Aleppo. What we would say to that is there is no military solution to the conflict in Syria, and it’s up to Russia to convince the regime that that’s the case.

QUESTION: Just a quick question on the --

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: -- interagency. Is that objections from the Pentagon with regards to --

MR TONER: I’m not going to characterize it.

QUESTION: -- joint operations with Russians given how --

MR TONER: All I’m trying to say is --

QUESTION: -- Carter talked to the Russians the other day?

MR TONER: And I also don’t want to say that there’s – sorry, I don’t mean to talk over you, Barbara. I don’t want to say that there’s some kind of interagency battle. All I’m saying is as we look at the remaining issues, that’s going to be a discussion that we have with the interagency. And that just makes sense because it touches on the equities of the interagency.

QUESTION: Mark, how much --

MR TONER: Please.

QUESTION: -- of a complicating factor is the comment today by the Turkish foreign minister that for a deal, Turkey will not accept under any conditions any transition deal that leaves Assad in power?

MR TONER: Well, again, I think we’ve – and our own position is that we don’t believe that Assad can be a legitimate leader in the long term for Syria. I think ultimately that – sorry – I think ultimately this is a question that Syrians needs to answer and – through the negotiation process that we want to see restarted in Geneva. And ultimately how that transition takes place, how long Assad steps in – stays in power before a government can – or a transitional government can take power – those are all questions that need to be answered.

Our own belief is that he doesn’t – he lacks all legitimacy to be the leader of Syria. But ultimately that’s a question that the Syrians themselves are going to have to address.

QUESTION: Could you --

QUESTION: I have a follow-up on Syria.

MR TONER: Please.

QUESTION: If the reports are true that Lavrov is in Geneva, is this in any case – does the U.S. feel that this could be a propaganda issue by the Russians to kind of have one up on what the U.S. – and show that the U.S. maybe is not trying to get a deal on this?

MR TONER: I just – again, I won’t speak to Foreign Minister Lavrov’s travel, his schedule, his itinerary. All I can say – speak for is our own goal and our – and that is to try to settle the remaining issues that we have in reaching an agreement. And once we feel like we’re closer to a settlement and a meeting would be valuable, then we’ll have that meeting.

QUESTION: And are there issues – John Kerry, when he was in China, spoke about a couple of tough issues. Are these the same issues that – that are preventing this deal right now? Or is it something else?

MR TONER: I think, broadly speaking, they’re the same issues.

QUESTION: Mark, can I ask you about the Turkish foreign defense minister? Fikri Isik said that --

MR TONER: Oh, about Raqqa?

QUESTION: Yeah, yeah.

MR TONER: I mean --

QUESTION: They want to work with you to liberate Raqqa, but they will not accept the popular defense committee, Kurdish committee. So do you have a position on that?

MR TONER: Yeah I haven’t seen those comments. We’ve been supportive of those Kurdish groups in northern Syria who have been really effective in taking the fight to Daesh. We’re going to continue that support. But I don’t – I haven’t seen his comments.

QUESTION: But in principle, you do reject any kind of veto by the Turks on the liberation of Raqqa?

MR TONER: Look, we continue to have discussions, a regular dialogue with Turkey. We are working closely with Turkey, and indeed we’re supporting its recent offensive around – to secure its own border with Syria. We’ll continue those discussions going forward.

QUESTION: Iraq?

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: The KRG prime minister led a delegation to Baghdad last week. And among the topics that he discussed with the Iraqi prime minister was the KRG’s intent to hold a referendum on independence, and reportedly the Iraqi prime minister didn’t object. So if the Iraqi Government accepts that the KRG will hold a referendum on independence, does the United States also concur in that view that that is acceptable?

MR TONER: I have not seen those remarks. I’m unaware of that meeting. Certainly these are discussions at the core that need to take place between the Kurdish regional authorities and the Government of Iraq, but our position hasn’t changed.

QUESTION: Is your position that if the Iraqi Government accepts a Kurdish – a referendum on Kurdish independence, that that’s also acceptable to the United States contingent on the approval of Baghdad?

MR TONER: Again, I think these are – what our emphasis is on is the sovereignty, territorial integrity of Iraq. These are discussions that are ongoing, but we don’t have any comment.

Please.

QUESTION: Afghanistan?

MR TONER: Yep.

QUESTION: Do you have any word on the fate of the American professor kidnapped near the American University in Kabul last month?

MR TONER: Unfortunately I don’t have a lot to say. You’re talking about the U.S. citizen who was kidnapped in Kabul? Yeah. We’re limited in what we can say because we don’t have a Privacy Act waiver in this case. Obviously the safety and protection of U.S. citizens overseas is our top priority and we’re going to continue to monitor this incident very closely, but I can’t really speak further to it.

QUESTION: Has next of kin been notified? Can you tell us that?

MR TONER: Again, speaking broadly, certainly – and I’m legally bound not to speak specifically to this case, but that would normally be – standard operating procedure is we would reach out to the family of missing Americans and work with them in – and provide any support we could and answer their questions, et cetera.

QUESTION: And then have any U.S. diplomats participated in any decision-making councils relating to a possible rescue attempt of the professor?

MR TONER: So there I would not speak to any possible efforts that might be taken to secure his release. That’s not something I would address.

Please, Michael. Hey.

QUESTION: One on Russia.

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: According to foreign ministry – Russian foreign ministry – Foreign Minister Lavrov in his phone call with Senator Kerry, or Secretary Kerry, the other day --

MR TONER: (Laughter.) Sure.

QUESTION: -- brought to Secretary Kerry’s attention an open letter from pilot Yaroshenko’s mother that she had sent to the – to President Obama, actually. But Lavrov said he brought this to Kerry’s attention during their talks and expressed hope that it would be resolved in a positive manner. Do you know – has Secretary Kerry read the letter?

MR TONER: One more time – the letter pertaining to --

QUESTION: Yaroshenko’s mother sent an email to President Obama expressing concerns about her child imprisoned. And then --

MR TONER: Right. I – I’d have to look into it.

QUESTION: -- Lavrov --

MR TONER: I wasn’t aware of the letter or that it was raised in the bilat, so I – I’ll have to take the question.

Please, in the back.

QUESTION: My name is Kausan Javid, Dunya News (inaudible) in Washington, Pakistan.

MR TONER: Okay. Welcome.

QUESTION: The relation of Pakistan and United States is at lowest level. What really are the challenges?

MR TONER: Well, I would refute the premise of the question. I don’t believe they’re at their lowest level. I would say that our relationship with Pakistan is strong and in our mutual interest, and also in the interest of the region. It’s not to say it’s not sometimes a challenging relationship, but we have a range of issues, including counterterrorism, that we work quite closely with Pakistan on. And we believe, again, our relationship is strong.

QUESTION: Sir, Secretary Kerry recently visited South Asia. He went to Bangladesh and India, but skipped Pakistan. It clearly indicates the interest of United States in that region. Sir, what really was the reason for skipping Pakistan in that important visit?

MR TONER: Look, I mean, it doesn’t clearly indicate any – anything about our relationship with Pakistan. The Secretary has, I think we would all agree in this room, a very intense travel schedule. He’s been to Pakistan recently; he speaks often to senior Pakistani leadership. Specifically, he was in India for the Strategic and Commercial Dialogue and took the opportunity to also visit Bangladesh – I think the first time he’s been there.

But as we’ve said many times, there’s no zero-sum game here. We need to have a very strong and robust relationship with India and we do – the world’s largest democracy. And we also want to have a strong relationship with Pakistan. It’s in the interests of the region to do so.

QUESTION: Sir, the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee today rejected the proposal of putting sanctions on Pakistan for not taking actions against Haqqani Network, Jaish-e-Mohammad, and Lashkar-e Tayyiba. Sir, what kind of discussions are being – are going on with Pakistan regarding these terror groups?

MR TONER: Well, our discussions continue to focus on the fact that we’re urging the Government of Pakistan to take concerted action against safe havens and terrorist groups that threaten other countries in the region and we’ve been very clear about that. And we have seen them attempt to address it. We want to see more action taken, but it continues to be a topic of conversation with them.

Please, sir.

QUESTION: I want to go back to --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- Russia – well, kind of Russia.

MR TONER: Kind of Russia.

QUESTION: You will have seen probably that the Russians say that both the Israelis and the Palestinians have agreed in principle to have a meeting to try to get things started again in Moscow.

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: What – what’s your take on this?

MR TONER: Well, my – our take, not my take – our take is --

QUESTION: Well, “your” meaning the royal you.

MR TONER: That’s right. That’s exactly right, thank you. Look, it’s obviously up to the parties to decide if – if they want to do a meeting and when and where that meeting takes place. So obviously, I’d refer you to them for comment. As we made clear in the Quartet report, we continue to call on both sides to demonstrate their commitment to a two-state solution and to lay the groundwork for a successful negotiation.

I think we’re concerned that things might be moving in the opposite direction given, on the one hand – and we’ve expressed our concern about this – ongoing Israeli settlement activity. But equally, we’ve been troubled by the fact that – or by the incitement to violence – I think most recently the Fatah Facebook post that glorified the terrorist attacks on the Munich Olympics where 11 innocent Israelis – athletes were killed.

So we are concerned and remain focused on encouraging all sides to take the necessary actions and steps that will allow for a meaningful progress toward a two-state solution. So, I mean, we welcome talks. It’s up for the – both sides to decide if those take place. But it’s also about laying the groundwork so that any talks would be successful and be able to lead to negotiations.

QUESTION: Yeah, but basically, since the Clinton Administration – Bill Clinton – the U.S. has had a monopoly on hosting, mediating, getting involved in the peace process. And you have successfully beaten back attempts by other countries, Russia included, to – and then France to have – to host their own meeting. So I’m just wondering if you’re – you don’t have the same opposition to this? You’re not concerned at all that you’re --

MR TONER: Look, I don’t --

QUESTION: -- that the U.S. might be losing its primacy and --

MR TONER: Not at all, and the Secretary remains fully engaged in this effort. He speaks to Prime Minister Netanyahu frequently. We speak to the Palestinian Authority frequently. He speaks to leadership in the region, which is also vital to any eventual peace effort. But I think it’s – again, it’s up to the parties to decide when and where they meet.

I just would reiterate that we think there needs to be groundwork laid before effective and fruitful negotiations can take place.

QUESTION: In other words, you think that this is not – this is going to go nowhere?

MR TONER: I’m not going to say that. I’m just saying what I said.

QUESTION: Well, it sounds like it because you say that --

MR TONER: Well, I said --

QUESTION: -- one, that you say that the groundwork needs to be laid before you can have a meeting that amounts to anything. And at the same time, you say that things are looking – moving in the opposite direction, which this all suggests to me – maybe I’m reading too much into it, but I don’t think I am – that you don’t think that this is – this Moscow meeting is necessarily a good idea.

MR TONER: I won’t --

QUESTION: It’s not ripe.

MR TONER: (Laughter.) I’ll leave it where I just left it.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: (Inaudible) as a Quartet member or – and when you say “we,” you’re referring to the United States in your previous answer.

MR TONER: Right, right.

QUESTION: So Russia is a Quartet member, but it’s hosting --

MR TONER: They are.

QUESTION: And it’s hosting this thing, but not in its role as a Quartet member.

MR TONER: Don’t believe so. If that’s wrong, I’ll correct it.

QUESTION: And would you be observers at this meeting?

MR TONER: I’m not sure what our level of participation would be. I’m – so I’ll hesitate – and again, it’s not set in stone yet, that I understand, but obviously we’ll be following it closely.

QUESTION: And does taking this decision to host the conference that wasn’t premised in the Quartet report in any way call into question Russia’s role within the Quartet, if it’s having an independent initiative on the same topic?

MR TONER: I wouldn’t say that, and I don’t want to cast too much aspersion on this effort, not at all. I just – all I was saying in my response to Matt was we need to make sure that any talks – face-to-face talks – have the right climate in which to succeed in.

QUESTION: So what are the – what is the groundwork that needs to be done? Like what?

MR TONER: Well, again, I mean, I gave two examples of actions that are having the opposite effect. So we want to see de-escalation by both sides in the process, and there’s any number of things that they can – steps they can take that would lead to that. I’m not going to give them a step-by-step roadmap to that. That’s up for them to decide to do and undertake. But it’s our belief that – and this speaks broadly to any peace negotiations, but certainly in this case – if you’re not – if you don’t have the right climate for them to be successful, then it’s not worth having them.

QUESTION: I have a couple more questions on the issue.

MR TONER: Please.

QUESTION: First of all, do you have any comment on the reports suggesting that the president of the Palestinian Authority may have been a KGB agent?

MR TONER: None whatsoever.

QUESTION: I mean --

MR TONER: I mean, we --

QUESTION: -- in all fairness, he was the head of the Palestinian-Soviet friendship for a long, long time.

MR TONER: I think those are questions you can ask him or the Palestinian Authority.

QUESTION: Okay. All right. Let me ask you a couple of other things. The Palestinian supreme court in Ramallah postponed a municipal election. Is that something that you encourage or frown upon? What is your position on this?

MR TONER: Our position – and you’re right; I mean, they froze preparatory work for the municipal elections. I think they have to – two or three election-related issues to decide on. Look, we’re monitoring it; we’re following it closely. It’s not for us to litigate this matter on behalf of the courts. In general, we support democratic process and we’ve been active in supporting the development of Palestinian democratic institutions, but this is a matter for them to resolve.

QUESTION: And finally, the IMF issued a very abysmal report on the situation of Palestinian development, saying that growth has been stalled because of settlement activities and closures and all these things, and Israeli practices in the West Bank. Do you have any – have you seen their report, first of all?

MR TONER: I have not read the report. I’m aware of it.

QUESTION: Okay. You’re aware of it.

MR TONER: But I mean, look, we highlighted our same concerns in the Quartet report, and those concerns specifically relate to constraints on Palestinian economic development and growth. And generally speaking, we remain committed to seeing strong economic development in the West Bank and Gaza.

QUESTION: And will these – these English schools will also cover places like Gaza and the West Bank and so on that you started --

MR TONER: Oh, that I started off – I would assume so, yeah.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: Mark, you just said --

MR TONER: Please. What did I say?

QUESTION: -- about the Russian initiative – you said you didn’t – excuse me – you said you didn’t want to cast too much aspersion on it. Does that mean that you only want – you want – only want to cast some aspersion on it?

MR TONER: I just – fair point.

QUESTION: I’m trying to figure out your level of unhappiness with what --

MR TONER: No, I’m not – aspersion, yes – no, I’m not trying to – I – look, I don’t want to – all I’m simply saying is that we want to see any negotiations, any talks going forward, begin on the right footing in the right climate. That’s all I’m saying.

QUESTION: Okay. And then --

QUESTION: And that footing does not yet exist.

MR TONER: We’ve seen --

QUESTION: So these talks are inopportune.

MR TONER: Again, I’ll stop where I said – stopped.

QUESTION: And then just the Israelis have started building this underground barrier to prevent tunneling from Gaza. Do you have anything to say about that?

MR TONER: I don’t. This is to stop what --

QUESTION: Tunnels.

MR TONER: What’s that? Tunnels, right. I mean, look – I mean, we’ve said before that obviously Israel has a right to take steps to protect its citizens, and we respect that right. And as long as these tunnels exist and are used to carry out attacks on innocent Israelis, we support efforts to address those concerns.

QUESTION: Yeah, but – I mean, on the same issue, Mark, the Israelis, in the last just few days, they killed an unarmed Palestinian who did not threaten them. In fact, they said they killed him by mistake. They shot today someone who was coming back from school in a refugee camp outside Ramallah. They shot someone in Gaza who was also walking – a teenager and so on. So it’s – Israel is taking some – almost on a daily basis an unprovoked attack, committing unprovoked attacks against the Palestinians and so on.

MR TONER: So Said, I don’t – yeah --

QUESTION: And I understood that you began by pointing to the Fatah post, for instance.

MR TONER: But I also spoke about ongoing settlement activity.

QUESTION: Right.

MR TONER: I think with respect to these incidents that you mention, I don’t know the particulars. We’ve always said that while we understand and respect the right of Israeli security forces to take action to protect Israeli citizens, we would always call on them to exercise restraint as they carry out their duties. That said, I think it also speaks to something I referred to as well, which is that we don’t want to see escalating tensions. And right now, I think we’ve got an atmosphere of tension, and that obviously exacerbates the situation.

Please, sir.

QUESTION: Yes. On North Korea.

MR TONER: Yes.

QUESTION: A quick one on Israel, please.

MR TONER: Oh, sure. Go ahead and then I’ll get to you. I promise.

QUESTION: Have you seen – sorry, have you seen --

MR TONER: It’s okay.

QUESTION: -- any change in – I mean, there have been a couple of major issues that have prevented Netanyahu and Abbas from meeting, and one of them is this issue of no preconditions and the stopping of settlement building. Have you seen any change in – I mean, you’re talking about other – I think slightly other issues in terms of laying the groundwork. But have you seen any change in their positions that would make it seem like this meeting would actually happen?

MR TONER: Certainly with regard to settlement activity, it’s been frankly to the contrary. In terms of no preconditions, I think – at least I’ve seen from the Israeli Government their continued commitment to that. So I would refer you to them to speak to whether there’s any change in that.

Please. Oh, North Korea, right.

QUESTION: Yes. Several Japanese lawmakers arrived in North Korea today under the premise of conducting sports exchanges. Given sort of the tensions in the region and with North Korea, do you think this is inappropriate?

MR TONER: They arrived where? I apologize.

QUESTION: In North Korea.

MR TONER: Japanese --

QUESTION: Japanese lawmakers.

MR TONER: Okay. And this is – these are sports exchanges?

QUESTION: So they arrived with the intent of conducting sports exchanges and – but they might be meeting with higher-level officials.

MR TONER: I’m not aware of these meetings. Certainly it’s up for the – up to the Japanese Government to decide its level of engagement with North Korea. Our only concern is that this is a pretty opaque regime that has showed no effort to address in any way, shape, or form the international community’s ongoing concerns about its nuclear program. And while we don’t discount the effect of people-to-people exchanges, which it sounds like this falls under that category, it certainly doesn’t address the broader concerns we continue to have about North Korea. And we continue to work closely with Japan, with other allies and partners in the region, to address those concerns.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR TONER: Yes, Tejinder.

QUESTION: Sir, at a press conference in Athens, Greece, the EU has announced that there’ll be an EU-Arab summit on November 3 and 4. They have already said 35 participants confirmed. Will there be a U.S. presence, and at what level?

MR TONER: Nothing to announce in terms of U.S. presence. And I’d have to refer you to the Greeks. I just don’t have any details or any reaction to it thus far. I’ll have to look into it.

QUESTION: Now, have you received the invitation to participate?

MR TONER: I’m not aware that we have.

QUESTION: Nothing? Okay. And the other on India?

MR TONER: Sure, of course.

QUESTION: Have you got any update on the trilateral summit that was announced soon – India, Afghanistan – during Secretary Kerry’s visit in India?

MR TONER: It’s tentatively scheduled, I think, for September 21st on the margins of the UN General Assembly. But I don’t have any further details.

Yes, sir. Oh, go ahead, Matt, and then I’ll get to you.

QUESTION: No, you can go first.

MR TONER: Oh.

QUESTION: All right.

MR TONER: He ceded to the floor to you, sir.

QUESTION: Thank you very much. Sir, I was talking about the Foreign Relations Committee meeting today chaired by the Senator Bob Corker. Sir, the committee observed that Pakistan is expanding its nuclear program just to deal with the Indian aggression and there’s a threat of nuclear war between two countries and U.S. Government should play its role of mediation to normalize the tensions between the two countries.

Sir, what really is troubling the United States to act as a mediator?

MR TONER: Well, again, I mean, I don't know what kind of formal – if he’s talking about some kind of formal mediation role. I mean, we act as --

QUESTION: Sir, the senators were observed in that meeting today. The U.S. senators --

MR TONER: Yeah. I mean --

QUESTION: -- said U.S. should play the role of mediator between the Pakistan and India.

MR TONER: I mean, we strongly encourage in all of our dealings with either India and/or Pakistan stronger relations between the two countries. It’s clearly in the security interests of the region that they work to de-escalate tensions and that they have dialogue. And that’s something we constantly encourage for just that – or out of just that concern, which is that we don’t want to see tensions escalate, spiral out of control, and lead to some kind of incident. Again, it’s important for the two countries, the two governments to maintain strong, cordial, and productive relations.

Yes, sir. You were --

QUESTION: Can we go to Iran?

MR TONER: Yes. I’m sorry. (Laughter.) Do I have to consent or --

QUESTION: Yeah, but --

MR TONER: What’s up?

QUESTION: The IAEA’s latest report on Iran is out today.

MR TONER: Its confidential report, you mean? Its --

QUESTION: Well, it’s not so confidential.

MR TONER: No, I --

QUESTION: I just read it, so it’s not particularly confidential.

MR TONER: Yes, but – go ahead.

QUESTION: And I’m sure that you have read it, or if you haven’t read it, the people in this building have read it and know what it says. And it basically says that, in general, they’re sticking to the terms of the agreement. But it also points out a potential problem, and that is that the Iranians have begun manufacturing rotors that can be used in centrifuges, which they are allowed to do, but within limits. And I’m just wondering if this – the report points this out as a area of potential concern. Is this a concern for the United States too?

MR TONER: So the report does remain confidential until the IAEA releases it.

QUESTION: Well, it can’t remain confidential if I’m --

MR TONER: Let me continue – which I think is – will be during the Board of Governors meeting September 19th to the 23rd. So I don’t want to get into the details. As you note, though, it accurately portrays the status of Iran’s nuclear program, we believe, and including the fact that, as you note, Iran continues to meet its commitments under the JCPOA.

As for the specific concern that you raise, I’ll try to speak to it in greater detail. At this point, we’re still looking at the report, assessing it. As you said, it’s not prohibited, so I can’t say to this point, without having looked at the report, whether we’re concerned about it and to what degree we’re concerned about it. So I will ask for your patience on that.

QUESTION: Okay. Yeah.

MR TONER: Is that it?

QUESTION: Could I – on Iran? Just a follow-up on Iran?

MR TONER: Yes, please.

QUESTION: Today in Cairo, the secretary-general of the Arab League, Ahmed Aboul Gheit, accused Iran of meddling in Arab affairs and destabilizing the region and so on. I wonder if you saw the comments and I wonder if you would comment on that. Do you think that Iran does play that kind of meddling role that destabilizes the region?

MR TONER: I mean, I haven’t seen the specific comments he made. I know there’s been a bit of a war of words between Saudi Arabia and Iran --

QUESTION: Right.

MR TONER: -- this past week regarding – well, stemming from concerns over the Hajj.

QUESTION: Yeah, the Hajj, yeah.

MR TONER: And we’ve spoken to that. I think broadly speaking – and we’ve been very clear about this in the wake of the JCPOA, the nuclear agreement – while that agreement addressed a very serious but specific concern about Iran’s behavior, one that would have caused, without doubt, greater tension in the region and posed a real risk to the region, we haven’t seen any kind of sea change in Iran’s broader behavior in the region. We would hope that it would play a more constructive role, but to this point, we haven’t seen any indication that it is pursuing that path.

That’s it? Thanks, guys.

QUESTION: Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:46 p.m.)

DPB # 156

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 - August 30, 2016

John Kirby

Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC

August 30, 2016









Index for Today's Briefing

SECRETARY'S TRAVEL



TURKEY/SYRIA



DEPARTMENT



KYRGYZSTAN



PAKISTAN/INDIA



INDIA



BANGLADESH



CHINA/INDIA



EUROPEAN UNION



AFGHANISTAN



VENEZUELA



EUROPEAN UNION



TURKEY



DEPARTMENT



SYRIA



CUBA



JAPAN/RUSSIA




TRANSCRIPT:

2:10 p.m. EDT

MR KIRBY: Good afternoon.

QUESTION: Good afternoon.

MR KIRBY: That’s a nice response. I like that. Okay, just a quick scheduling note. I think you know the Secretary arrived last night in New Delhi to participate in this year’s U.S.-India Strategic and Commercial Dialogue. This morning he met with Indian National Security Adviser Doval and the Minister of Power Goyal. He met later with the Minister of External Affairs Swaraj. And together with Secretary of Commerce Pritzker and her Indian counterpart, they chaired the second S&CD. The Secretary’s visit to India will continue tomorrow and will include meetings with senior officials and a speech at the Indian Institute of Technology on the U.S.-India relationship and its importance to global peace and prosperity.

With that, we’ll start. Go ahead, Arshad.

QUESTION: Can we start with Turkey and Syria? Both President Erdogan and the Turkish chief of general staff have basically signaled that they’re going to continue prosecuting their operations. What success, if any, have you had in persuading your YPG allies to vacate those areas and in persuading your Turkish allies from pursuing their operations against the YPG?

MR KIRBY: Well, the first thing I’d say is it still remains a pretty dynamic, fluid environment. That’s one. Two, we’ve seen largely, over the last 12 to 18 hours, that there has been calm. And of course, that’s welcome. As we said yesterday, we don’t – that we don’t believe tactical operations between members of the SDF and Turkish forces or Turkish – or forces supported by Turkey to be productive in terms of the fight against Daesh.

The third thing that I would say – and I think General Votel spoke to this over at the Pentagon this morning – that Kurdish forces have, in fact, moved to the east of the Euphrates. And so what I – again, I can’t speak for Turkish leaders and what they’ve said they’re going to do or not do, but certainly – and again, General Votel talked about this this morning – we see Turkish operations in that area. And to the degree that those operations are designed to secure that stretch of border, as was always the plan, well that’s helpful; that’s constructive.

QUESTION: Is it your understanding that all Kurdish forces have moved across the river?

MR KIRBY: I’m not an expert on the tactical laydown. I would point you to my colleagues at the Pentagon. All I can do is repeat what General Votel said today, which was that he – he said that Kurdish forces had met their obligation to move to the east of the Euphrates. I can’t count every nose and every pair of ears, but I would just point you back to what the Pentagon has said about it.

QUESTION: John, is there any ceasefire between Turkey and YPG? Because an American official has said there is a ceasefire now and there’s an agreement between the two parties. Turkey has denied and that YPG has confirmed.

MR KIRBY: I would point you to both sides to speak to where they are in terms of these clashes we’ve seen over the last couple of days. As I said in my first answer, we would note that over the last 12 to 18 hours or so, there’s been calm, that there have – there have been no clashes between those two sides. And that’s a welcome development. It’s one that we strongly encouraged even yesterday.

QUESTION: And are you mediating between the two parties to --

MR KIRBY: No.

QUESTION: Why not? Do you want them to fight?

MR KIRBY: Again, there’s been a period of calm here over the last 12 to 18 hours. That’s a welcome thing. We’ve made clear to both of them what our desires are in terms of the focus being on Daesh. But if you’re asking me are we in some sort of negotiating role or mediating role between them, the answer is no.

QUESTION: The YPG has said that they are working through the coalition in order to talk to the Turks. Are they wrong?

MR KIRBY: Again, I’m not – you’re asking me for details here on conversations that really are better placed over at the Defense Department. I can tell you that we – I’m not denying that we have communicated to both sides our desires to see the clashes between them stop, and we welcome the last 12 to 18 hours where that has appeared to be the case, and to refocus all of our efforts on Daesh. It wouldn’t surprise me if, because they’re all – because we’re all members of the coalition, because we all should be focused on going after Daesh, it wouldn’t surprise me that conversations were happening in the context of the coalition. I just can’t speak to the details of it.

QUESTION: Well, would you welcome a mediation role, or do you think the two sides should discuss their differences directly?

MR KIRBY: Well, again, so far the clashes have stopped, so that’s the outcome that we wanted to see. We want to see that continue. I’m not sure that there’s a role for the United States here in terms of mediation. We have made our position quite clear privately, and then again publicly yesterday and again today, so we’ll see where it goes.

QUESTION: But do you --

QUESTION: So you’re not calling that a ceasefire though, this – you’re just describing what happened. You’re not saying that there’s a ceasefire.

MR KIRBY: Well, it’s 12 to 18 hours and we’ve seen calm. We’ve seen the clashes stop between the two sides. And again, that’s the outcome that we want. We want – we don’t want to see them fighting each other. We want to see everybody in the coalition – and we all are – focus our efforts on Daesh. You can call it what you want, but what – I can tell you what we want to see is focused efforts against Daesh.

QUESTION: But you’re not aware of an agreement that there would be an end to the violence that would last sort of longer than what you’ve seen?

MR KIRBY: You’d have to talk to the sides on that. Again, we made clear what our hopes and expectations were. We welcome the fact that the clashes have stopped at least over the last day, day and a half, and we’d like to see that continue.

QUESTION: But first the news came from a U.S. official confirming that there is a ceasefire agreement between the two parties. Why don’t you want now to --

MR KIRBY: Who’s the U.S. official?

QUESTION: I don’t know.

MR KIRBY: Oh, you don’t know. So it’s an anonymous source.

QUESTION: That’s what I’m asking. I know. I didn’t ask it --

MR KIRBY: Yeah. Oh, so we should just – yeah, so we should just take that all to the bank. Look, I’m not going to speak for anonymous sources here. And you’re asking me why shouldn’t we mediate. And there’s – since the clashes have stopped – and that’s a good thing, and we want to see that continue – I’m not so sure that there’s a need for any kind of mediation by anybody. And that’s point one.

Point two, we, again, made clear privately to both sides our concerns about these clashes and about the need to refocus on Daesh, and we’re going to continue to do that. We’re going to continue to have those conversations as necessary. Hopefully, Michel, they won’t be necessary. Hopefully, this can be – this reduction in the tensions here can be more enduring and we can all do what we’re supposed to do inside the coalition, and that’s degrade and defeat Daesh.

QUESTION: One last question for me. Latest reports coming from Syria said that ISIS spokesman got killed in Aleppo. Do you have any confirmation?

MR KIRBY: I don’t.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: On the same subject.

MR KIRBY: I’ll come back to you.

QUESTION: Last couple hours, Turkish press reports that U.S. Ambassador Bass, John Bass, summoned to Turkish foreign ministry in Ankara for the statements coming out from U.S. officials regarding this truce or ceasefire. Do you have any comment or --

MR KIRBY: I haven’t seen reports that he got summoned, so I just – I have nothing to say on that. I haven’t seen that.

QUESTION: One more. Have you been informed or do you have any information regarding Turkey-backed FSA forces, next step for them? Do you know whether they are going to go to westward or – you’re not coordinated? You have not been informed about their coordinates?

MR KIRBY: I think General Votel spoke to the fact that Turkish operations along – just on the other side of that border have – are continuing, in terms of going west. And I think the general said that – and this was something that we’ve been long in discussions with the Turks about – that that’s a good thing, that the whole idea here is to secure that border to prevent the flow of foreign fighters across it. It’s a stretch of the border that the Turks have long been concerned about and that we’ve been in communication with them about those kinds of operations.

But if you’re asking me where they are today and how far they’re moving and where they’re going, you’d have to talk to Turkish officials about the movement of their troops. That wouldn’t be something that the State Department would speak to one way or the other. Again, I’d point you back to what General Votel said this morning at the Pentagon and the way he characterized it.

QUESTION: There are reports that the U.S. has not been informed or not coordinated regarding Turkish incursion into Syria. Would you be able to comment whether you are dissatisfied with --

MR KIRBY: Again, that’s a better question for the Defense Department to speak to. I think General Votel also talked about that a little bit today. They – I’ll just repeat what I said again yesterday. The operations by Turkish forces to secure that border, including some operations on the Syrian side, is something that we had been in discussion with them about and supportive of. Yesterday, we were talking specifically about the clashes between Turkish forces or Turkish-backed forces and members of the Syrian Democratic Forces, Kurdish fighters. And I said yesterday that those are uncoordinated, they weren’t being supported by the United States, and in terms of notification, there was very little at all. That’s different than the purpose of Turkish forces being in Syria at the outset, which was to help secure that border. Okay?

Barbara.

QUESTION: Just to follow up with Michel saying a U.S. official had talked about a ceasefire, the – Colonel John Thomas, Central Command spokesman, said there’s a loose agreement to stop fighting. Is that --

MR KIRBY: Is that a different official than his anonymous official?

QUESTION: I don’t know.

MR KIRBY: Is that the one you were quoting, Michel? Is that a different guy?

QUESTION: No.

MR KIRBY: Different guy?

QUESTION: No, but you said who said it. That’s what I’m saying, that that’s what – that’s a named person.

MR KIRBY: Well, again, I can’t – I – those are comments that are attributed to a military official, and the Pentagon should speak to that. Again, call it what you will. What we’re saying is we welcome the fact that there has been calm over the last 12 to 18 hours, that these clashes have ceased. We want to see that continue. We want to see that endure. And you can put whatever label you want on it. What we want is a focus on counter-Daesh operations by all members of the coalition. And when we had clashes of the sort that we had over the weekend, as I said yesterday, that they were not productive to that effort, they were not helpful, they were not moving us in the direction that we think all members of the coalition need to move, and that is to focus military activities against Daesh.

QUESTION: Where is Ambassador McGurk today?

MR KIRBY: Ambassador McGurk --

QUESTION: Yes.

MR KIRBY: -- is on travel in the region.

QUESTION: He’s in the region?

MR KIRBY: He’s on travel in the region. That’s as much detail as I have today.

Abbie.

QUESTION: Different subject. I wanted to ask you about some comments that Secretary Kerry made when he was in Bangladesh. He seemed to suggest that perhaps the media shouldn’t be covering terror attacks quite as much as they do. He said, “Perhaps the media would do us all a service if they didn’t cover it quite as much. People wouldn’t know what’s going on.” Can you offer any clarification on --

MR KIRBY: Well, I’d say a couple of things. I mean, first of all, the Secretary’s views about the media, press freedom, and certainly the strength and the power of independent press reporting of events around the world are well established and well known by all of you. I think you all know how much he appreciates the work that you do and the importance of the light that you can shed on so many issues. What he was referring to in that statement was simply that – an acknowledgment of the fact – and it’s a fact that all of you know – that often in acts of terrorism there’s more than one purpose. There’s the violence itself and the havoc that it can wreak and the fear that it can instill and the damage that it can cause. And there’s also the notoriety that comes with the press coverage from it, the glorification of that through amplification in the mass media. And I think he was just referring to that as a fact and something that we all have to be mindful of as these events happen.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Thank you, sir.

QUESTION: At the risk of amplifying an attack, do you know what’s happening in Bishkek?

MR KIRBY: Bishkek. I can tell you that we’re aware of a – of what appears to have been a vehicle-borne IED that exploded there. As I understand it, it was near the Chinese embassy. I don’t have all the particulars. I know it’s being investigated by officials there. I can tell you that we’ve been in touch with our embassy and all U.S. and embassy personnel have been accounted for. So we’re not aware of any injuries at this time. And the embassy will be closed tomorrow for independence day observances there, but it’s our expectation that they’ll be able to pick up right after that.

QUESTION: Sir, India and Pakistani media --

QUESTION: Sorry, there was --

QUESTION: -- is reporting --

QUESTION: -- there was a previously scheduled closure tomorrow?

MR KIRBY: Yes.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR KIRBY: For the independence day celebrations observance.

QUESTION: Thank you, sir. Sir, India and Pakistani media is reporting that Pakistani Ambassador Jalil Abbas Jilani has been reprimanded by White House due to his anti-Indian activities. Sir --

MR KIRBY: By his what activities?

QUESTION: Anti-Indian activities. Anti-Indian activities.

MR KIRBY: He’s – can – I’m sorry, you went really fast there. Can you just try that one again?

QUESTION: All right. All right. Sir, Indian and Pakistani media --

MR KIRBY: No, I – just – just let me try – let me just try it again.

QUESTION: Sir, Indian and Pakistani media is reporting that the White House – that the Pakistani ambassador, Jalil Abbas Jilani, reprimanded by White House due to his anti-Indian activities. Do you agree with these media reports?

MR KIRBY: I haven’t seen a report of that. I would refer you to the White House to speak to that. I’m not – I’m not aware of that.

QUESTION: Sir, I’ve just seen Secretary Kerry’s statement in India. He just said that Pakistan in recent months taken strong actions against Haqqani Network. But if we see Pentagon, they have different views about the Pakistani action against Haqqani Network. Why State Department, Pentagon are not on the same page?

MR KIRBY: Well, I – I’m not going to just presume that your implication is correct there, that we’re not. I don’t know what comments you’re talking about from the Pentagon that differ from what we’re saying here at the State Department. Look, I’d just say that we all recognize that the continued security threat that is posed by the Haqqani Network and by other terrorist groups that operate inside Pakistan and along that border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. And the Pentagon is obviously well aware of that, as we are here, and it’s a conversation that we continue to have and will continue to have with our partners in the region. I’m not aware that there’s any dissonance here in terms of the way we’re seeing it.

Is there a particular comment that you’re referring to?

QUESTION: Yes, sir --

MR KIRBY: What is it?

QUESTION: It’s a BBC report about – and said that John Kerry has said that --

MR KIRBY: No, I know what my Secretary said. You’re saying there – that’s a difference opinion that’s expressed at the Pentagon.

QUESTION: Pentagon – sir, Pentagon --

MR KIRBY: So what’s the Pentagon say?

QUESTION: The Pentagon withheld the – refused to issue the certificate for the military assistance to Pakistan, saying that Pakistan is not doing enough against Haqqani Network.

MR KIRBY: There is a constant conversation that we are having with our Pakistani partners about the threat posed by Haqqani and by other extremist groups there in the region and certainly operating inside Pakistan. And we make these decisions routinely and they’re based on active, fluid, dynamic conversations that we have with Pakistani leaders. I don’t know of any difference. I think the United States Government is viewing this very much all in the same – in the same light.

QUESTION: Stay on the region?

QUESTION: Can we continue in the region?

QUESTION: Continue in the region?

MR KIRBY: Yeah, sure. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Do you want to go first?

QUESTION: Go ahead.

QUESTION: Okay. In his press conference, Secretary also said they recently spoke to Prime Minister Sharif and General Raheel in Pakistan. Do you know when they talked last, what this was about?

MR KIRBY: I don’t know – let’s see if I have a recent call. I don’t have a recent call to read out, so I’d have to find out when the last discussion was.

QUESTION: Okay. And he also announced resumption of trilateral dialogue with India and Afghanistan. Why it was stopped in the first instance? He did explain why the reasons for resuming this dialogue. Why it was stopped in the first instance, and at what level this will be held next month?

MR KIRBY: I think the movement forward – I think we have to work through those details. And I think what matters is that, as the Secretary said, those discussions are important and they are going to continue. And he talked about the constructive role that India has played inside Afghanistan and wanting to see that – see that role continue. So we’re focused on the future here. I’m not going to get into a debate or a discussion about what happened in the past and the degree to which those talks didn’t continue. What matters is they are going to continue going forward, and that’s why – one of the reasons why the Secretary’s there in New Delhi today.

QUESTION: At what level this will be held?

MR KIRBY: As I said, I don’t have that kind of detail right now. I think that kind of stuff needs to be worked out.

QUESTION: Continue in the region – thank you, sir. As far as U.S.-India relations are concerned, a lot going on this week. Secretaries of State and Commerce, of course, are in Delhi, and defense minister of India is in Washington, where U.S. and India – they announced yesterday that India is a major defense partner of the United States. So out of these meetings in Delhi, what are we expecting this time more or any other major partnership between U.S. and India is expected --

MR KIRBY: I think there’s – there’s already a tremendous partnership between the United States and India, which cuts across quite a few sectors. And it’s not just security and defense related; it’s economic, trade, and information and technology sharing. I mean, there’s a – it’s a pretty full and complete, comprehensive relationship and it’s one that we are committed to deepening and strengthening, and I think that’s why the Secretary of Defense’s counterpart is here, it’s why the Secretary and the Secretary of Commerce Pritzker is there – are there in New Delhi, to continue this Strategic and Commercial Dialogue. I mean – so if you’re asking me are there major announcements to be had, I’m not aware of any. These kinds of discussions – and this is where we want to be, right? We want to be able to have these kinds of bilateral discussions that cut – that really do cut across all the sectors of a bilateral relationship to deepen it and grow it and to keep it going forward.

QUESTION: And is there major talks going on about threats in the South China Sea, and also any regional terrorism threats?

MR KIRBY: You mean in the discussions in New Delhi?

QUESTION: During this meeting, yeah.

MR KIRBY: Well, certainly as part of the S part of it, right – strategic. I mean, they talked about strategic regional issues. I don’t have a specific readout on each and every one of these, but discussing tensions in the Asia Pacific region is something that’s not uncommon when we’re meeting with our Indian counterparts, and there’s certainly a lot there because India is – India does have a purpose and a presence in the Pacific that’s important.

QUESTION: And finally, Secretary’s visit to Bangladesh – you have anything – any major things were discussed or announced between the two countries? Because Bangladesh still needs U.S. help in many areas, including fighting terrorism.

MR KIRBY: I would point you to – I mean, my deputy spokesman, Mark Toner, was on the trip and issued a series of readouts from each of the bilateral meetings, and the Secretary did a press conference. I’d point you to the transcripts of those readouts and that press conference for the kinds of things that the Secretary discussed and advanced while he was in Bangladesh.

But by and large, and if you look at – again, I don’t want to spoil the read for you, but I mean, they talked about counterterrorism, they talked about climate change, they talked about Bangladesh’s progress on democracy and human rights. And the Secretary certainly made clear our expectations that that kind of progress would continue and deepen and grow and be better than it is right now. So it was a wide-ranging set of discussions, but again, I encourage you to go look at our website and you can see all the things that were discussed in Bangladesh are there.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: I had a quick follow-up --

QUESTION: Thank you ,sir.

QUESTION: -- on this defense thing.

MR KIRBY: Whoa, whoa, whoa. One at a time. Go ahead.

QUESTION: I have a quick follow-up on defense. This – yesterday China – in fact, today China had expressed concern about India and U.S. signing a logistic agreement, and they have said it will not make India safe. What is your comment on that?

MR KIRBY: On the what? I’m sorry.

QUESTION: Yesterday India and U.S. signed a major logistic agreement which the two countries were working for last 10, 12 years. China has reacted strongly to it. They are saying that – they expressed concern and saying that this will not make India safe.

MR KIRBY: So a couple of things. I haven’t seen the details of this agreement and I haven’t seen a reaction to it by China, so I’m going – you’re going to have let me get back to you on the specifics about this. Broadly speaking, a deepening, stronger, more cooperative bilateral relationship with India is nothing that anybody should fear or worry about. We both are democracies; we both have incredible opportunities and influence on the global stage, and a better relationship between the United States and India is not just good for our two countries, not just good for the region, it’s good for the world.

QUESTION: John --

MR KIRBY: Barbara. You’ve been patient.

QUESTION: I just wondered if you had any comment on the EU decision for Apple to pay 13 billion euros in back taxes. I know the White House and Treasury have made some critical responses; does the State Department have anything to --

MR KIRBY: I don’t have anything to add to that today. You’ll have to let me take that question. I suspect that that’s really going to be something more for the Treasury Department to speak to than the State Department. I just don’t have anything on it.

QUESTION: The Afghan Taliban has released a video of a kidnapped North American couple – one American, one Canadian – Caitlan Coleman and Joshua Boyle. They are forced to appeal for an end to executions of Taliban prisoners by the Afghan Government. Do you have anything you can say on that publicly?

MR KIRBY: I do. We’re aware of recent reports that a video featuring U.S. hostage Caitlan Coleman and her husband Joshua Boyle has been released. I would tell you that the video is still being examined for its validity. We remain concerned, obviously, about the welfare of Caitlan and her family, and we continue to urge for their immediate release on humanitarian grounds. We are regularly engaged with the governments of both Afghanistan and Pakistan at the highest levels to emphasize our commitment to seeing our citizens returned safely to their families. And I think as you know, and I’ve said many times, the welfare of U.S. citizens overseas remains one of our highest priorities here at the State Department. We continue to work aggressively to bring all U.S. citizens held hostage overseas home to their families.

Okay. Abbie and then you.

QUESTION: Congressman Mia Love has sent, I believe, a letter to the State Department regarding Joshua Holt, who is being held in Venezuela.

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: The letter is asking that the State Department put more pressure for the Venezuelan Government to release Josh. Do you have any response to that or to some of the frustration that’s been expressed by the family?

MR KIRBY: Well I’m not – I won’t – as I don’t – we’re not going to respond to congressional inquiries or correspondence here from the podium. We’ll respond to the congresswoman in the appropriate way. What I can tell you is that – a couple of things, just broadly speaking. We can now confirm that a U.S. citizen, Joshua Holt, was arrested in Venezuela on June 30th of this year on weapons charges and that he’s currently being held in a prison in Caracas. Consular officers from the United States embassy in Caracas visited Mr. Holt most recently on the 16th of this month and are providing all possible consular assistance.

We call on the Venezuelan Government to respect due process and human rights and guarantee a fair trial. State Department officials have been in contact with Venezuelan Government officials regarding this case. The embassy and the department are following it closely. And again, the embassy has visited Mr. Holt on a regular basis and intends to continue to do so as he awaits trial.

QUESTION: I believe his trial is September 15th. Will the State Department have any representation there?

MR KIRBY: It’s typical for us to do that, and I can tell you that certainly would be our desire. I just don’t have anything specific to say to be able to confirm it, but obviously that’s – that is – it’s a very common practice for us to be there, to be represented there. Yeah.

Yeah.

QUESTION: This is just a quick follow on to the Apple question, because House Speaker Paul Ryan just added a statement saying that the decision is awful and it’s also in direct violation of many European countries’ treaty obligations. Is that anything that you’d be able to confirm?

MR KIRBY: Does that make it easier for me to then talk to? No. I just – look, I just don’t have anything --

QUESTION: But if you could look into it, that’d be --

MR KIRBY: As I said, I’ll have to look into it and see. I suspect this is something really for the Treasury Department to speak to. But you guys got me unawares here, so I’m just going to have to take the question, and we’ll get back to you.

QUESTION: And then just the only other thing I had is that the Islamic State’s Amaq News Agency has reported that IS spokesman and external operations manager, Abu Mohammed al-Adnani, has been killed. Any confirmation?

MR KIRBY: Nope. In the last ten minutes, I have no more confirmation than when I answered the question from Michel.

QUESTION: Oh okay. Got it.

MR KIRBY: Yeah. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Turkey. On Turkey.

MR KIRBY: Turkey.

QUESTION: Yes.

MR KIRBY: Shocker. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Today another 35 journalists – there is a new detainment list about another 35 journalists in Turkey.

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: It is now about 150 journalists, according to estimates, since we don’t know the exact numbers, but this should be around that number. This more than combined of China, Iran, and Egypt. I was wondering if you have any comment on this.

MR KIRBY: I mean, we’ve seen these reports, and as we’ve said before, we – and frankly, what I’ve said earlier in this briefing, we obviously continue to support independent, free media reporting and freedom of the press all over the world, including Turkey. And we’ve talked a lot over the last several months about our concerns, about a growing trend in the wrong direction with respect to press freedoms and freedom of speech and freedom of assembly in Turkey. Those concerns remain valid today.

Now, look, we understand, there was a very active and serious coup attempt in Turkey and that the Turkish Government has an obligation in looking after its own citizens to also fully investigate this coup attempt and to hold those responsible accountable. And so, as we’ve said before, we simply urge Turkish leaders, as they work through that process, they do it with all due respect for rule of law and for international obligations and human rights.

QUESTION: But you cannot imagine about 100 journalists will be involved in the coup. Is there a justification in your imagination that these (inaudible) journalist --

MR KIRBY: We’re not going to characterize the – every decision they make in the process of conducting this investigation, and you’re asking me to speculate about who was involved and at what level, and we simply don’t have the information to make that kind of an assessment, nor would it be appropriate from this podium.

QUESTION: Last week Vice President Biden, after he left Turkey – I think he was in Latvia – and he was asked about why he withheld criticism regarding crackdown in Turkey, and Mr. Vice President said that since nobody has been tried or executed, there is no need for speak up; when that happens, we can speak up.

MR KIRBY: I think --

QUESTION: Is this the policy, that you are waiting for someone to be executed, then the speak up more --

MR KIRBY: Our views, our perspective on these events in Turkey have not changed, not one bit. And I think I just articulated them in the answer to your last question. We understand they have an obligation to investigate. We have – we understand and we appreciate they also have an obligation to their own citizens to hold those accountable for this. This was a potentially – well, it wasn’t potentially. It was a violent and precarious, dangerous coup attempt, and real people suffered as a result of it. So they have an obligation to look into this and get to the bottom of it and to try to prevent that kind of thing from happening again. We understand that, and that hasn’t changed, and the Vice President wasn’t saying anything different than that.

We also, though, urge Turkey, as they work through that process, as I said before, to observe rule of law and due process in accordance with their own constitutional principles, and to observe international obligations and human rights as they work through that. And we’re in close touch with them and we will remain in close touch with them as they continue to work through that process. But there’s not – no change at all in terms of the approach that we’ve taken here. We condemned it that very evening – the coup attempt, that is. And again, we’ve – we were and we remain in close contact with Turkish authorities going forward.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) condemn these kind of a Turkish administration approach the freedom of press in Turkey and jail in these many --

MR KIRBY: I’m sorry?

QUESTION: Would you condemn also jailing this many journalists in Turkey?

MR KIRBY: As I said before, Michel – I’m sorry, Michele. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Ilhan.

MR KIRBY: Yeah. You guys look so much alike. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR KIRBY: I’m not going to get into the habit of characterizing each and every decision or each and every statement that comes out of Turkey.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) not about a statement.

MR KIRBY: No, it is.

QUESTION: This is being --

MR KIRBY: You’re asking me to --

QUESTION: -- happening for about two months.

MR KIRBY: You’re asking me to say whether I’m going to condemn the jailing of journalists.

QUESTION: Yes.

MR KIRBY: They are conducting an investigation. I can’t begin to speculate here who was or who wasn’t involved in this and it wouldn’t be appropriate for us to do that. They’re doing this investigation and we understand they have to do that. We simply have urged them, in terms of process, how to go about doing that in a way that is thorough and complete, but also transparent and fair. And so we’re going to stay in close touch with them as they go forward, but we haven’t yet, and I’m not going to begin to make a judgment here from the State Department podium in Washington about every single decision that they’re making as they conduct that investigation.

QUESTION: So this is not about single decision. This has been going on for almost two months --

MR KIRBY: And we have --

QUESTION: -- and jailing for hundreds of journalists.

MR KIRBY: We have talked about – I said it earlier – our concerns about a worrisome trend in Turkey, before the coup, about limiting press freedom and about shutting down media outlets or detaining reporters. We’ve been nothing but honest and open about that, and in fact, I said the same thing again today to your first question. But if you’re asking me to condemn this specific decision, what I’m saying is we’re not going to get into characterizing each and every move they make as they investigate this. We’ve talked to them about process and what our hopes and expectations are for that going forward. And we’re going to stay in close touch on this. We’re watching it as closely as possible.

Yeah, Janne.

QUESTION: Thank you, John. In the Clinton email documents, 2012 former President Clinton was planned to visit Kaesong Industrial in North Korea. That is the former Secretary Clinton asked him to visit that Kaesong Industrial. Do you have anything how that happened, who invited him? I mean, North side or South side?

MR KIRBY: I don’t, and I wouldn’t speak for invitations or decisions that were made by the previous secretary of state. I think you’d have to talk to her staff about that. I don’t have any information on that.

Yeah.

QUESTION: The organization Human Rights Watch is calling on the UN Security Council to impose further sanctions on the Government of Syria. Is this something that the State Department supports?

MR KIRBY: So I would just say that we’re aware of the reports of that and I’d have to refer you to the UN specifically.

QUESTION: And then a follow-up: How important is it to hold the Assad regime accountable for the use of chemical weapons in Syria?

MR KIRBY: I’m sorry?

QUESTION: A follow-up would be: How important is it for the international community to hold the Assad regime accountable for the use of chemical weapons in Syria?

MR KIRBY: Well, again, without speaking to this specific report --

QUESTION: Sure.

MR KIRBY: -- obviously, the international community did and I think remains committed to limiting or effectively trying to pressure the Assad regime to stop using chemical materials as weapons. Now, as we know, we got most of the material out, and we’re grateful for the international partnership, and it really was an international partnership that got that material out. But clearly, we know and we’ve seen in this most recent OPCW report that Assad continues to barrel bomb his people and use chlorine to do it.

So I think there’s a strong international community mandate to see that end, and that is why – again, not speaking to UN decisions. I think that – I’d refer you to them. But that is why the Secretary is working so hard inside multilateral fora, not just the United States unilaterally but inside a multilateral structure, to bring an end to this war so that – so that the regime can’t continue to use chemical materials against their own people. And one of the things that our two teams, the U.S. and Russian teams, are going to continue to try to work through after Geneva on Friday is the technical modalities to get a cessation of hostilities that is enduring across the nation that would effectively prevent the regime from being able to conduct those kinds of missions.

Okay?

QUESTION: Any update on the meetings between the Russians and the U.S.?

MR KIRBY: I don’t have any update today, no.

Barbara.

QUESTION: Cuba. Nine Latin American countries have sent a letter to the Administration saying that U.S. policy, its wet foot/dry foot policy which guarantees citizenship to Cubans who make it to U.S. soil, is creating an immigration crisis for those countries through which they pass, and asked the Administration to review that policy. Do you have a response to that, and is there any review likely to be made?

MR KIRBY: Well, I’ll tell you a couple things. So we did receive the letter that you’re referring to signed by nine foreign ministers from Latin America about what is known as the Cuban Adjustment Act. Obviously, we are concerned for the safety of all migrants throughout the region, including migrants seeking to journey northward through South and Central America and Mexico. Irregular migration often involves dangerous journeys that illustrate the inherent risks and uncertainties of involvement with organized crime, including human smugglers and trafficklers – traffickers, excuse me, in attempts to reach the United States.

We continue to encourage all countries to respect the human rights of migrants and asylum seekers, and to ensure that they are treated humanely. And we’re going to continue to, obviously, engage governments in the region on this issue going forward. So we did receive the letter. I’d refer you to the authors of the letter for any more specific information on its content. I have no meetings to announce at this time, and the Cuban Adjustment Act remains in place and wet foot/dry foot remains U.S. policy regarding Cuban migration.

I can take a couple more. I haven’t gotten to you yet.

QUESTION: Russia has announced that President Putin will visit Japan in December. Do you welcome this visit? Do you have any response?

MR KIRBY: I haven’t seen reports of that. I would let officials in Moscow and in Tokyo speak to official travel by themselves or by foreign leaders. Obviously, these are sovereign decisions that countries have to make in terms of their bilateral relations, but I – we don’t –

QUESTION: Can you --

MR KIRBY: We wouldn’t have a comment, one way or the other.

QUESTION: Can you speak a little bit more broadly then on whether you would welcome closening ties between Russia and Japan?

MR KIRBY: I mean, look, those are decisions for the people of Russia and the people of Japan to make, in terms of bilateral relations. We have bilateral relations with both Russia and obviously we have a very strong bilateral relationship and alliance with Japan that we take very, very seriously. But these are decisions that these governments have to make about their bilateral relations. Certainly, the United States is – we’re not concerned or worried about bilateral relations between Russia and Japan, and we leave it to them to define what that relationship is going to be.

QUESTION: Sir --

QUESTION: So in that context -- sorry, just one more follow-up on that.

QUESTION: Yeah. Oh, yeah. Sure, sure.

QUESTION: In the context of the Minsk agreement, U.S. has previously said that you don’t want to see a return to business as usual in engaging with Russia. In the context of that, do you have anything to add --

MR KIRBY: We still have concerns about, quote/unquote, “business as usual” with respect to Minsk implementation. Now, there’s been some progress towards implementation of Minsk, and that’s a good thing – progress by both sides. There needs to be more. The Secretary has spoken to that quite openly.

But again, you’d have to talk to officials in Moscow and Tokyo in terms of this visit. I can’t even confirm for you that it’s going to happen. I don’t have any information on it. They should speak to whether there’s going to be a visit and what the agenda is going to be and what they’re going to talk about. That’s for them to speak to. But nothing’s changed about our view that it’s still not – it’s still not time for, quote/unquote “business as usual” with Russia across a wide variety of sectors, given the concerns that we still have about their actions in Ukraine, the occupation of Crimea, and the tensions that still exist as we try to get Minsk implemented.

QUESTION: Sir, the Indian defense minister was here in United States. So did the U.S. side take up the situation of Kashmir with the Indian defense minister?

MR KIRBY: The defense minister’s meetings were at the Pentagon. You should talk to my colleagues at the Defense Department on that. He didn’t meet us with – here.

Thanks. Appreciate it.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:52 p.m.)

DPB # 151

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 - August 29, 2016

John Kirby

Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC

August 29, 2016









Index for Today's Briefing

YEMEN



RUSSIA/UKRAINE



SECRETARY'S TRAVEL



SYRIA/TURKEY/RUSSIA/REGION



IRAQ



SYRIA



RUSSIA/IRAN



SYRIA




TRANSCRIPT:

2:12 p.m. EDT

MR KIRBY: Hi, guys.

QUESTION: Hi.

MR KIRBY: You’re the only one that said hi. Thank you. Thank you. (Laughter.) Okay, a couple of things at the top and then we’ll get right at it. Happy Monday to everybody.

On Yemen, the United States condemns today’s suicide bombing claimed by Daesh in Yemen that left more than 50 people dead and scores more injured. Obviously, we express our condolences to all those affected, to the families of the victims, and everyone else affected. Today’s attack underscores the urgency of a full and comprehensive settlement that will shrink the political and security vacuum that’s been created by the ongoing civil war there. In the absence of a political solution, we remain concerned that Daesh and al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula will continue to take advantage of the instability, and innocent people will regrettably continue to suffer.

Last week in Jeddah, I think you all know, the Secretary laid out a path for a full and comprehensive settlement, and we urge parties to seize this opportunity and work constructively with the UN special envoy as he begins his consultations.

On Crimea, as we have said in the past since he was first taken into custody, we are extremely concerned by the detention of Crimean Tatar leader Ilmi Umerov. We understand that his health condition is now critical and that he remains in a forced psychiatric detention. This tactic of detaining dissidents in psychiatric wards is deeply troubling. We join the international community in calling on the Russian Government to release him now.

Then, on the Secretary’s schedule, I think you know he spent the day in Dhaka for his first official visit to Bangladesh. While there he met with the prime minister, expressing his condolences on recent terrible attacks there in Bangladesh and discussing our growing cooperation on a broad range of global and bilateral issues. He also met with the foreign minister to review our partnership on a broad range of issues, including democracy, development, security, and human rights.

Following their meeting, the foreign minister, Minister Ali, hosted a lunch with key government officials to focus on our growing partnership and regional security and in countering violent extremism. And he met with American and Bangladeshi embassy staff to thank them for their hard work and to express his condolences on the recent tragic loss of two of their colleagues.

The Secretary also met with Khaleda Zia, the leader of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party. Today, now – or I’m sorry, this evening, he has landed in New Delhi where he will participate in this year’s U.S.-India Strategic and Commercial Dialogue, and we look forward to providing more details on the dialogue in the next couple of days as events unfold. But it is evening there in New Delhi, so his day starts bright and early tomorrow in that dialogue.

So with that, I’ll take questions. Arshad.

QUESTION: Can we start with Syria? I have seen the tweets that Brett McGurk has put out. What I want to ask you about is the Turkish advance further into Syria and its operating – the Turkish military now operating in areas where Islamic State is not believed to be present. How concerned are you by the deepening operations, one? And two, why is it that the Assad government is not likely to ultimately be the beneficiary here if --

MR KIRBY: Why is Assad not the beneficiary?

QUESTION: Likely to be a beneficiary if the Turkish military is going after – potentially going after your allies, the YPG fighters who have been so effective against Assad’s forces.

MR KIRBY: Well, so the couple – there’s a lot there. Obviously, we’re closely monitoring these reports, the ones that you’ve suggested. And of course, you’ve seen Mr. McGurk’s Twitter activity which confirms all that. So we’re watching this area south of Jarabulus and north of Manbij where ISIL is no longer located, and the clashes yesterday and those today between Turkish armed forces and some opposition groups and Kurdish units that are affiliated with the Syrian Democratic Forces.

These actions were not coordinated with the United States and we are not providing any support to them. As I think the Pentagon noted yesterday, we’re going to remain closely engaged with Turkey and with the SDF, the Syrian Democratic Forces, and other coalition-supported actors on the ground in Syria to facilitate as best we can de-confliction. We call on all the armed actors on the ground to maintain a focus on Daesh, or ISIL as they’re otherwise known, which remains a lethal and common threat.

So we’re watching this closely. And as we said, as the Pentagon said yesterday, uncoordinated actions like this really aren’t getting us further along the path of defeating Daesh inside Syria.

Now, as for the benefit to the Assad regime, I mean, he has taken full advantage of the vacuum that his lack of leadership and governance has caused, particularly in the northern part of the country. Now, I don’t know if he has a reaction to these recent clashes or not, but we’ve long said that his lack of legitimacy to govern has allowed Daesh to grow and to fester inside Syria, that – and the Secretary has noted that there are if not deliberate, certainly consequential benefits that he has gained from what Daesh has been able to do.

So any effort that is taking away from our ability to defeat Daesh is certainly going – is certainly not helping the international community. It’s not helping the Syrian people. And it could be perceived by some as a potential benefit to Bashar al-Assad. But I mean, I think we’re two days into this. I think it’s a little too soon to sort of try to measure significant benefits to the regime at this point. But obviously, it’s not helping us as a coalition team and effort to do what we’re really designed to do militarily, what all of us are dedicated to doing militarily inside Syria, which is go after Daesh.

QUESTION: Do you have any influence, do you think, over Turkey and its military actions in Syria given that they didn’t even consult you most recently?

MR KIRBY: Well, Turkey is a NATO ally and Turkey is a member of the coalition to counter Daesh. And in the context of those two multilateral relationships as well as our bilateral relationship, we certainly routinely have discussions with Turkey about how efforts can be coordinated to go against Daesh inside Syria. I don’t know the degree to which there was prior consultation to these operations. As I understand it, there wasn’t much in the way of any advance notification, but I would refer you to the Pentagon.

QUESTION: I thought you said there was none. I thought you said these were un --

MR KIRBY: Uncoordinated.

QUESTION: Yes.

MR KIRBY: Right. But you’re asking about – coordination is different than consultation or information.

QUESTION: Yes.

MR KIRBY: As I understand it, and I would refer you to the Pentagon, but as I understand it, there was very little in the way of advanced notification. That’s a difference than saying coordination.

QUESTION: Right.

MR KIRBY: In any event, we are in – as you might expect, given the events of the last two days, we certainly have been in contact with Turkish officials about these actions and, quite frankly, about the concerns we have in regard to the diminishing of an effect on Daesh and efforts to try to refocus everybody’s activities in that regard.

QUESTION: Could I ask about another potential beneficiary of this? The situation where your one ally is fighting the other when they are both supposed to be fighting ISIL and other terrorists, do you think this helps terrorists?

MR KIRBY: Do I think it helps terrorists? As I said to Arshad, I mean, if the terrorists we’re talking about is Daesh, and that’s principally the terrorist group that military efforts by the coalition are aimed at, these clashes that we’ve seen over the last two days are not helping us degrade and destroy Daesh as an entity any faster.

QUESTION: But the U.S. – just a few more, actually, on this topic --

MR KIRBY: I figured there’d be a few more.

QUESTION: On this very topic, yes. But the U.S. supports Turkey’s operations in Syria, doesn’t it?

MR KIRBY: We have certainly supported their efforts to contribute to military activities against Daesh. And with respect to the activities on the Syrian side of the border with Turkey, along that 98-kilometer stretch that we’ve been talking about that we’re talking about here today, yes, with respect to their efforts to try to better secure that border from access to terrorist groups like Daesh. We’ve been supportive of that as the effort.

QUESTION: Of that just – some rebels threatened to advance to Manbij --

MR KIRBY: I would say, though --

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR KIRBY: But before I leave that, because I want to make it clear we also continue to support the Syrian Democratic Forces, who have been brave and courageous fighters. And again, I think the Pentagon spoke to this yesterday, but we continue to support their efforts as well to go after Daesh. And they have been effective against Daesh in that part of Syria.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Some rebels threatened to advance to Manbij. Does the U.S. support that kind of advancement of Turkish-slash-rebel forces?

MR KIRBY: What we support is an effort to go after Daesh inside Syria, and as part of the broader coalition, Turkey’s efforts have in the past and continue to be very productive. As well, we continue to support Syrian Democratic Forces, the SDF, as they put pressure on Daesh. So if we’re talking about efforts on that side of the border and in that area that are designed to better speed the defeat of Daesh, then obviously we’re supportive. These clashes that we’re talking about over the last couple of days weren’t coordinated with the United States. We are not providing support to them, and as I said, we’ve urged all parties in this regard to refrain from fighting each other and focus their efforts instead on Daesh. That’s what we want to see happen.

QUESTION: Yeah. Turkey says it seized 10 villages from Kurdish control in Syria. There are reports of multiple casualties. Are the Syrian Kurds on their own now?

MR KIRBY: As I said, we continue to support the SDF, and that support’s going to continue.

QUESTION: Yes, the U.S. had – as you’re saying, the U.S. had supported Kurdish fighters, fought with them, trained them. Is Washington now doing anything or going to do anything to protect them from Erdogan, who openly states that one of his objectives in going into Syria is to go after Kurdish fighters, whom he considers terrorists?

MR KIRBY: The support to the SDF is going to continue as they continue to press the fight against --

QUESTION: Even protection from Erdogan and Turkey?

MR KIRBY: -- as they continue to press the fight against Daesh. I’m not going to speak about military hypotheticals one way or another in terms of rules of engagement. What we want to see is that these clashes between the Turkish forces and SDF forces – we want to see that come to a close because that’s not advancing the overarching goal that everybody should be focused on, which is Daesh.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) to stop Turkey from going after --

MR KIRBY: Again, we’re engaging consistently and regularly with Turkish officials about this situation, as we are with our counterparts in the SDF.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Do you --

QUESTION: Just one --

MR KIRBY: No, I think I’ll go to him, and then to you, Dave.

QUESTION: The Turkish Government from the highest level, including President Erdogan – they have openly supported FSA’s attacks on the YPG. Erdogan has said the YPG should wait for the worst to happen to them, and the YPG and SDF in general are your effective partner. Do you at least condemn Erdogan’s remarks?

MR KIRBY: This – look, this isn’t about condemnation. This is about a genuine concern that we have that the effort against Daesh is not being assisted, not being helped, not being advanced by these clashes between Turkish forces on one hand and Syrian Democratic Forces on the other when all of us agree that Daesh is and needs to be the real enemy to be challenged and to be defeated. Everybody agrees that this is a group that needs to be stopped, including the Turks, and so we’re going to continue to consult with all sides to urge that the focus be put on Daesh and not one another.

QUESTION: So you’re not condemning what the Turks are saying, encouraging FSA to attack the Syrian Democratic Forces?

MR KIRBY: I’m not going to make a habit of getting up here and responding to every bit of rhetoric, as I said, that comes out of Ankara. I’m just not going to do it. We’ve made our position very clear. The United States has been nothing but consistent about the focus that we want, which is on Daesh in Iraq and in Syria. And as a member of the coalition and as a NATO ally, we obviously want to look for continued cooperation by Turkey toward – to that end. And as I said, we also will support – have supported, will continue to support the SDF in their efforts to go after Daesh. These clashes – and look, I’m not – I don’t want to get into the history of the animosity and why it’s there. I think that’s self-evident. But they’re not doing anything – this energy that’s being applied to one another isn’t doing anything to help us as a coalition team and effort go against Daesh.

QUESTION: While the United States is openly telling the Kurdish forces to go to the east of the Euphrates River, otherwise they will not receive U.S. support. That’s what Joe Biden said in Turkey. On the other hand, you’re not willing to even condemn what the Turks are doing or encouraging – the --

MR KIRBY: I appreciate the effort to rephrase the question in another way. I’m not going to answer it any differently than I have in the past.

QUESTION: Do you get a sense that a separate war is starting within the war in Syria, and that by supporting Turkey’s operations in Syria, the U.S. may be – perhaps unintentionally is supporting the beginning of that separate war within a war?

MR KIRBY: What we’re – okay, so there’s a lot there. What we’re supporting in terms of Turkey intervention in Syria is efforts to go after Daesh and to help preserve that section of the border – not preserve it, but to secure it, that section of the border up near Manbij, that 98 kilometers – against the flow of foreign fighters and terrorist activity, which has long been a problem. We’ve talked about this many, many times here in this room, and we’ve certainly talked about it with our Turkish counterparts, about the importance of securing that stretch of border, and their intervention in Syria was designed at the outset for that purpose.

And so yes, are we supportive of that purpose and that effort? Absolutely we are. As I said, these clashes over the last two days were not coordinated with us, and we aren’t supporting them in any way. And then – I’m sorry, you had another question there. Was – I missed it.

QUESTION: No, do you get a sense that a separate war is beginning within the bigger war in Syria?

MR KIRBY: Oh, thank you for – yeah. Look, I mean, the effort – there’s two primary efforts that everybody – we believe the international community needs to focus on in Syria. One is the fight against Daesh. We’ve talked about that now over the last 10, 15 minutes of the briefing. The other one is, of course, the diplomatic effort to end the civil war. And as the Secretary has said – we were just in Geneva having a day-long meeting with our Russian counterparts about how to advance towards that goal – but as the Secretary has said himself, there are many conflicts that are happening inside Syria. There is the international fight against Daesh. There has been tensions between Turkey and Russia. There have been – obviously, there’s tensions between Turkey and the Kurds. There’s Shia/Sunni tensions. Not every opposition group espouses all the same objectives. And then you have al-Qaida in Syria, represented by al-Nusrah, that continues to pose a significant challenge to our ability to advance a peaceful solution.

So there are many conflicts inside the broader war inside – in Syria. And we’re as focused as much as we can on working our way through that. And again, militarily, we believe the focus has got to be on Daesh. There’s not going to be a military solution to the civil conflict in Syria, but there can be military solutions applied to that terrorist group. And politically, diplomatically, we’re focused on ending the civil war by finding a political solution that advances a transitional government structure.

That unfortunately can’t be advanced until we can get a meaningful cessation of hostilities applied nationwide, we can get better humanitarian access to more Syrians who are in desperate need. That can’t happen until the siege of Aleppo has been lifted. And again, that’s where the Secretary’s focus has been over the last several days.

QUESTION: With the situation being already complicated, as you described, do you think Turkey’s operations are making it even more complicated?

MR KIRBY: As I said earlier, the – these clashes over the last couple of days are not helping us advance the efforts against Daesh. Okay?

QUESTION: But you continue to --

MR KIRBY: Michel.

QUESTION: -- support both sides.

MR KIRBY: Michel.

QUESTION: Is that correct?

QUESTION: Yeah. Most of the headlines in the last two days said that U.S.-backed force in north Syria are fighting each other. Where is the problem here? It looks like the U.S. is backing two parties fighting each other.

MR KIRBY: Michel, the support that we’ve been giving to fighters inside Syria has been in the realm of helping them as they fight Daesh. And so you’re talking about a dynamic here that’s just developed over the last several days. And – but prior to that, were we supporting groups of fighters that were going against Daesh in Syria? Absolutely we were. And we’ve talked about that many, many times. And as I – I think I answered quite a few times here, we were in support of efforts by Turkey to help secure that stretch of the border in Syria. But these clashes that we’ve seen are not helping us as a coalition advance the efforts against Daesh.

QUESTION: And my second question on Syria: After Secretary Kerry and Minister Lavrov meeting on Friday, is there any update on other meetings that happened during the last 48 or 72 hours between the two parties?

MR KIRBY: No, I don’t have any – I don’t have any additional updates for you. Those meetings occurred, as you know, all day Friday. I’m not aware that there was any follow-up meetings over the course of the weekend. Our two teams, technical experts are supposed to meet again very soon in Geneva, but I don’t have an update for you.

QUESTION: And on Daraya, the Syrians, or the people of this village have left on Friday. And they’re talking now about al-Waer in Homs, the same scenario will happen in this village. Are you doing anything to prevent the same – the same Daraya scenario?

MR KIRBY: We’re doing everything we can to try to find a political solution to this conflict so that the people of so many Syrians – Syrian towns and villages don’t have to leave their homes, don’t have to abandon their businesses, don’t have to disrupt their lives, and either become victims or refugees. So we’re working very hard on that. Again, the Secretary has been laser-focused on trying to find an end to this civil war to prevent those kinds of conditions for so many millions of Syrians. And look, a big part of that is, in fact, the discussions that we’ve been having with Russia, who is – has been supporting the regime. And that’s why the Secretary was so engaged in Geneva on Friday, and I fully expect you’ll see him continue to stay very, very engaged going forward. Yeah.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: In the discussions with Russia that have occurred --

MR KIRBY: Who are you?

QUESTION: Trey Yingst with One America News.

MR KIRBY: Okay.

QUESTION: Has there been --

MR KIRBY: Just wondering. I’ve never seen you before. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Yeah, yeah, sure. Yeah. Nice to meet --

MR KIRBY: I’m John Kirby, nice to meet you.

QUESTION: Nice to meet you as well. Have there been increased discussions about the use of chemical weapons in the civil war in Syria? We’ve seen reports this month of napalm-like substances and chlorine being used that have been --

MR KIRBY: Sure.

QUESTION: -- supported by the Assad regime and the Russians. What sort of conversations have taken place with --

MR KIRBY: We have raised our concerns about the use of chemical material as weapons with Russia routinely, even since we got the vast majority of chemical materials out of the country. We recognize and we know, and I think last week you probably saw OPCW issued a report that confirmed what we’ve been long saying – that we believe that, at least in the case of chlorine, an industrial agent that has peaceful purposes, the regime has used as a weapon of war, which is obviously a violation.

And we’ve been very clear in our conversations with our Russian counterparts about how unacceptable that is and have urged them to use the influence that we know they have on Assad to get those kinds of attacks to cease. Sadly, that hasn’t happened. Now why? I couldn’t tell you that, but we – nothing has changed about our deep concern about this and nothing is going to change about our deep concern or our efforts to try to get it to stop.

More critically – and I’m not saying – I’m not at all diminishing the terrible effect that these chemicals can have on people, obviously. But more critically, we’ve got to get a cessation of hostilities in place around the country so that the Assad regime can’t fly those kinds of missions against innocent civilians and drop barrels of chlorine on their own people, but it’s – it goes even beyond that. We want to see all attacks by the regime on the innocent people of Syria and, frankly, on groups that are party to the cessation of hostilities to stop. Okay.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: Iraq?

MR KIRBY: Iraq. Stunned. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Okay. Today a high-level KRG delegation, led by the Prime Minister Nechirvan Barzani, visited Baghdad and met with the Iraqi prime minister.

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: What is the U.S. view on this? And did the U.S. play any role in trying to solve the problems between Erbil and Baghdad?

MR KIRBY: Well, we’re in routine discussions, as you know, with the leaders from both Erbil and Baghdad. The Secretary was in Iraq not long ago. He met with leaders from both sides, as you have rightly asked me about in the past. Certainly, Brett McGurk, whenever he’s in the region, makes it a point to talk to both sides.

We strongly encourage dialogue between Erbil and Baghdad to try to work out these internal Iraqi issues, and so we’re aware of this particular meeting and we’re very supportive of them having that kind of a discussion and that kind of conversation to try to work this out between them. Did we set it up? No. Are we supportive of the fact that they did meet? Absolutely, we are.

QUESTION: Did you get any advance notice about it? Did they tell you they were going to have this meeting?

MR KIRBY: I’m not aware. We can take that question for you and see if our embassy had any advance knowledge of it. I’m not aware that we did. But look, I mean, frankly, I’m not so sure that that’s all that important anyway. This – these issues are Iraqi issues. And sometimes I think we forget, because American forces were in Iraq for so long, that Iraq is a sovereign country and they should be working these issues out between them, themselves. And so, again, we – we’re pleased that this discussion happened. We’d like to see more and more of these kinds of conversations happening to try to resolve some of these differences, and we’re supportive of that. Whether we knew about it or not, again, I don’t know. Again, I also – not really sure how critically important that is that we did.

QUESTION: The prime minister met the ambassador as well – U.S. ambassador. Do you have a readout of his meeting?

MR KIRBY: I don’t. I don’t.

QUESTION: On the Syrian refugees, the White House has announced today that he fulfilled his promise on bringing 10,000 Syrian refugees to the U.S. --

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- by this afternoon. Does that mean that in the months that it rests in the – before the end of the fiscal year, will you be able --

MR KIRBY: We got one month before the end of the fiscal year, my friend.

QUESTION: Yeah, I know.

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: That’s what I’m saying.

MR KIRBY: You said “the months.” I think there’s one.

QUESTION: One month.

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: Are you able to bring more Syrian refugees to --

MR KIRBY: I suspect you’ll see what we think will be a continuation of the pace that we have set thus far. So I would fully anticipate that we will exceed – I mean, you’re right. We met the – we will meet the 10,000 figure today, and I would fully expect that you’ll see additional Syrian refugees admitted into the United States between now and the end of the fiscal year. How many I couldn’t predict, but it will be roughly on the same pace that we have achieved over the course of the late spring and summer, which has been about 2,000 per month. But again, I couldn’t give you an exact figure.

QUESTION: And when is the decision made on whether to continue that pace until the end of the Administration? Is that like a new – does the same pace remain in place until there’s a presidential decree?

MR KIRBY: Well, the President has set – he’s already set a goal of 85,000 total by the end of this fiscal year. We believe that we’re going to be on track to meet that. He has set a goal for Fiscal Year ’17 of 100,000 total, but he has not set a specific goal for next fiscal year of Syrian-specific refugees, and I certainly wouldn’t get ahead of any decisions he may or may not be making. But we --

QUESTION: But does he have to make a decision on that, or is it – does the current pace stay if no other order is made?

MR KIRBY: Well, again, our – the charge has been to bring in 10,000 in this fiscal year. We’re going to do that. As part of the larger effort to bring in 100,000 – the goal of 100,000 in Fiscal Year ’17, I think you can reasonably assume that some Syrians will be part of that, but I’m not – actually, I’m not – it’s not that I’m not aware. I know the President hasn’t made a decision about exactly how many Syrians will make up that 100,000. But I think, if I understand your question correctly, post October 1st --

QUESTION: Well, because I know that he makes a ruling once a year --

MR KIRBY: -- do you – do we anticipate bringing in additional Syrians? I think yes, as a part of the 100,000 goal that the Secretary – I’m sorry, that the President set for Fiscal Year ’17. I just couldn’t tell you what – whether there’ll be a goal specifically set for that. That’s really a decision for the President to make, and I certainly wouldn’t get ahead of that.

QUESTION: Is the U.S. Government proud of its record in resettling Syrian refugees in the United States since the outbreak of the Syrian civil war in 2011?

MR KIRBY: I think the short answer to that question is yes, absolutely. But I’m not sure in what way you’re sort of referring to that effort.

QUESTION: Well, it’s – the numbers taken in, and I don’t remember them now – I know I had them at one point – but were quite low for a long time.

MR KIRBY: Right.

QUESTION: And the --

MR KIRBY: You mean in terms of getting to the 10,000.

QUESTION: In terms of – well, in terms of just bringing Syrian refugees in, period.

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: And I’m quite cognizant of the effort reached a month early now to bring in the 10,000, but there were a number of years where the U.S. was not resettling a whole lot of Syrian refugees despite the numbers of refugees that have gone to other countries. Obviously, neighboring countries is where they logically go.

MR KIRBY: It’s a little different situation there in Europe.

QUESTION: No, I know. I know. But – and I’m just wondering how, looking back over the last five years, the U.S. Government feels it’s done in terms of addressing this problem.

MR KIRBY: So it’s a great question, Arshad. I – absolutely, we’re proud of the efforts that we have – that we have expended towards the resettlement issue, particularly with Syrian refugees. And we’ve been able to do this while preserving a very stringent, strict vetting process. In fact, as I said before many times, the Syrian refugees are vetted more stringently than any other refugee to the United States.

Just as critically – and this is a really important point – resettlement is one option, but it is not the ideal option. It’s not the best option. And we focused our efforts on these 10,000 on the most vulnerable, the ones who are in most need of refuge. And again, the President set a pretty high bar with the 10,000, and again, we’re proud that we brought them in. But we’re equally as dedicated to our efforts to end the civil war in Syria so that people don’t have to flee, so that when this over they’ll have a home to go back to, whether it’s returning to Syria from the United States or from any other country that they’ve sought refuge in. That’s the goal here, because many of these people want to do that. They want to be able to pick up their lives. They just can’t right now.

Secondly, we remain the single largest donor to humanitarian assistance for refugees specifically in the region. And it wasn’t long ago that the Secretary announced even more funds for that effort. So we are – and part of the reason that’s important is because it’s designed to help care for them close to home so that, again, the expectation is that when you can find a peaceful end to the war in Syria, they can go home.

Okay. Thanks, everybody. Look, we’ve got one more. Go ahead.

QUESTION: All right, real quickly. On Russia and Iran, there are reports that Iran has deployed the S-300 advanced missile batteries outside the Fordow nuclear plant. I was just curious if you were aware of that and had any comment. And did the topic of these advanced weapons sales from Russia to Iran come up in the Secretary’s discussions with the foreign minister last week?

MR KIRBY: The focus on the meeting with Foreign Minister Lavrov and his team yesterday was obviously on Syria. They did discuss other issues in the Middle East – Libya, Yemen. They certainly --

QUESTION: Ukraine?

MR KIRBY: Yeah, I was going to get there. Thanks. (Laughter.) Obviously, they discussed Ukraine. I’m not aware that this particular issue came up on Friday. That said, it is an issue that the Secretary has been very clear with Foreign Minister Lavrov about in the past on numerous occasions that we’re concerned about the provision of sale to Iran of sophisticated defense capabilities such as this S-300.

Now, we’ve seen the reports of this deployment. Obviously, that’s of concern to us because we have long objected to the sale of Iran – of these kinds of capabilities. So as we get more information, obviously, we’re going to stay in close consultation with partners going forward.

Okay --

QUESTION: May I ask one refugee follow-up?

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: So I’ve just checked the statistics, and unless I’ve got them wrong, which maybe I do, in FY13 the U.S. Government admitted 36 Syrian refugees; in FY14 it admitted just over 100; and in FY15 it admitted 1,682. And then obviously for FY – for the current fiscal year it’s going to be a big jump. I just want to make sure that you’re proud of that record.

MR KIRBY: We’re proud of the efforts that we have undertaken to try to bring an end to the war in Syria so that there doesn’t have to be refugees. The President noted himself when he set the 10,000 goal that, obviously, we can’t slam the door in the face of these desperate people. I wasn’t suggesting that in any of the given years that we couldn’t do more; and, in fact, we realized we could do more, which is why the President set that goal and why we met it, as you noted yourself, a full month early. And I fully expect we’ll exceed that goal before October 1st.

But what we remain dedicated to, and I believe the Secretary is proud of, is the larger, more comprehensive effort that the American people and this government has expended on trying to end the war in Syria, trying to degrade and defeat ISIL in Syria, and trying to provide the kind of humanitarian assistance – more than any other country – that can provide for the basic needs of those refugees who are in the region, who are very vulnerable because they’re still in the region but also close to home in the hope that they’ll have a home to go back to where they can live safely and securely.

Okay? Thank you.

(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 - August 25, 2016

Elizabeth Trudeau

Director, Press Office
Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC

August 25, 2016









Index for Today's Briefing

SECRETARY TRAVEL/DEPARTMENT



AFGHANISTAN/ITALY/BURMA



BRAZIL/DEPARTMENT



IRAN/REGION



AFGHANISTAN/PAKISTAN/REGION



DEPARTMENT



TURKEY/REGION



SYRIA/REGION



SOUTH SUDAN



DEPARTMENT



PHILIPPINES



AFGHANISTAN/PAKISTAN/REGION




TRANSCRIPT:

2:02 p.m. EDT

MS TRUDEAU: Good afternoon everyone. Welcome to the last briefing of the week.

Secretary Kerry met with King Salman, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Nayef, Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the foreign ministers of the GCC, Minister Ellwood from the UK, and the UN Special Envoy for Yemen Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed in Jeddah to discuss a way forward to restart peace talks in Yemen with the goal of forming a unity government.

During his visit, Secretary Kerry announced nearly $189 million in additional humanitarian assistance in response to the crisis in Yemen, bringing the total U.S. humanitarian assistance for Yemen to more than $237 million in Fiscal Year 2016. This contribution will help meet urgent humanitarian needs of the most vulnerable people in one of the Middle East’s poorest and most food-insecure countries, as well as Yemeni refugees in neighboring countries.

As you’ve seen in the remarks that we just released on the transcript, Secretary Kerry emphasized that the bloodshed has gone on for far too long and needs to stop. We need to return as quickly as possible to a ceasefire that can lead to a permanent end of this conflict.

Next, I’d like to welcome a group of 15 Afghan diplomats who are joining us today in today’s daily press brief. We do extend our deepest condolences to them and the family and friends of those who were injured in yesterday’s attack on the American University of Afghanistan. I think you’ve seen the Secretary’s statement, which he also just released. We are committed to continuing our work to help the people of Afghanistan build a more peaceful, stable, and prosperous future, which our visitors today represent.

This program – for the room – provides entry-level Afghan diplomats with diplomatic statecraft training in the United States and in China. Yesterday, Under Secretary Shannon welcomed and congratulated these special guests on being selected for the program, which highlights the continued U.S. commitment to build a more peaceful and prosperous Afghanistan. We’d also like to thank and recognize the Chinese Government for its partnership in sponsoring this program. Welcome to the briefing.

And with that, Matt.

QUESTION: Really? The Chinese sponsored the program?

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah. It’s actually – it’s a partnership that we have had with the Chinese for quite some years working with the diplomatic corps of Afghanistan.

QUESTION: Okay. Well, sounds interesting. Can we just start with a brief update on American citizens in three places --

MS TRUDEAU: Yes.

QUESTION: -- Afghanistan in the wake of the attack, Italy, and Burma after the quakes? Can you give us a brief update on any of them?

MS TRUDEAU: Sure. I would say first for Italy as well as Burma, we continue to account for all U.S. citizens in those areas. We do ask U.S. citizens who may have been impacted to check in with family and friends on social media. We are pleased to say in Afghanistan that we have accounted for all U.S. citizens who are at the university, and we have no reports of any U.S. citizens killed or seriously injured in that attack.

QUESTION: Okay. And have either the Italians or the Burmese taken you up on your offer of assistance?

MS TRUDEAU: I have nothing to read out on that. We have extended our help. We stand ready to support.

QUESTION: Okay. All right. And then I was going to move on unless someone --

QUESTION: Well, let’s do one more on the American citizens.

MS TRUDEAU: Of course.

QUESTION: I think you will by now have seen the report that American Olympic swimmer Ryan Lochte is going to be summoned to return to Brazil to give testimony. This is different from an extradition request, but – and so I’m hoping you can actually perhaps comment on it, whether this has been raised to the State Department, whether there are any kind of diplomatic issues in the Brazilians seeking his return to offer testimony.

MS TRUDEAU: Okay. So we’ve seen those reports as well. Due to privacy considerations, I don’t have information to offer. I would say, speaking broadly, we do encourage U.S. citizens, as always, to cooperate with law enforcement.

QUESTION: Okay --

QUESTION: Do privacy considerations apply even for public figures, people who are clearly in the public domain already?

MS TRUDEAU: Privacy considerations apply to every U.S. citizen.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS TRUDEAU: Except me, because I’m standing up here right now. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Okay, Iran.

MS TRUDEAU: Yes, Matt.

QUESTION: A couple. One, in the Secretary’s comments in Jeddah that you just referred to, he said the following – it’s just two sentences, I’ll read: “We were deeply troubled by the photographs which were shown to me early on by His Royal Highness Mohammed bin Nayef showing missiles that had come from Iran that were positioned on the Saudi border.” This is obviously the Saudi border with Yemen.

How early on were you guys shown that the Iranians were supplying the Houthis with missiles?

MS TRUDEAU: So I don’t have a specific date to read out on that. What I would say is what we’ve said many times from this, which the Secretary points out, is we’re certainly not blind to Iran’s activities – destabilizing, unhelpful activities in the region. In terms of a specific date, let me see if I can get that for you.

QUESTION: Okay. But isn’t it the case that the supplying of missiles or any kind of weaponry, that what you just – that in your own words, destabilize the situation – doesn’t that draw U.S. sanctions?

MS TRUDEAU: So it’s something that we continue to look at. Obviously, the Secretary has spoken of – spoken to this. We are aware of this. We continue to look into it.

QUESTION: Well, no, he didn’t speak to whether it’s sanctionable or not. Is it your understanding that --

MS TRUDEAU: No, but he did speak to our awareness.

QUESTION: Yeah. But --

MS TRUDEAU: I would say I’m not going to get ahead of what would trigger a sanction on that, but I would say that we are looking into it.

QUESTION: Yeah. But if it was early on --

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah, I just don’t know the date on this, Matt.

QUESTION: Right. But I mean – okay, so this thing with the Houthis started, what, early last year.

MS TRUDEAU: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: And if you were shown photographs early on, presumably that means closer to when it started than now, and comments from U.S. officials between when it started and now have always been rather circumspect about the support that Iran was giving to the Houthis. This seems to indicate that you guys knew that the Iranians had supplied missiles to them early on, and I’m just wondering why a decision – or why there has been no – why there hasn’t – why there wasn’t then or still hasn’t been a decision on whether this violates U.S. sanctions or UN sanctions.

MS TRUDEAU: I would say we’re looking into it. As the Secretary noted, we’ve seen those photos and we’re very aware of Iran’s actions.

QUESTION: All right. And then the last one.

MS TRUDEAU: Sure.

QUESTION: On the incident or incidents with the U.S. ships and the Iranian navy. Do you know if the Secretary or anyone else, any other official, has raised this with your new – in your new channels of communication with the Iranians?

MS TRUDEAU: I don’t have any calls to read out today on that.

QUESTION: Okay. Do you know or can you say whether there is going to be a diplomatic response to this, either directly or through the Swiss?

MS TRUDEAU: What – I would actually back up a step and actually say that we are aware the four Iranian vessels approached the USS Nitze as it was transiting international waters in the Strait of Hormuz. We’ve also just now seen the reports of another incident that happened yesterday as well. The Department of Defense spoke to this some yesterday. We assess the actions were unsafe, they were unprofessional. We would note we don’t know what the intentions of the Iranian ships were, but that behavior is unacceptable, as our ships were in international waters.

We believe that these type of actions are of concern. They unnecessarily escalate tension. I would refer you to the Department of Defense as this is very much in their lane in terms of further engagement.

QUESTION: With the Iranians?

MS TRUDEAU: In terms of how they would raise these concerns.

QUESTION: Well, yeah. But wouldn’t --

MS TRUDEAU: I just press – I just don’t --

QUESTION: Isn’t it up to this building to --

MS TRUDEAU: As I was saying, I just don’t have any calls or engagements to read out as of right now.

QUESTION: Well, but do you know if there are plans to? Or is this something that you’re just going to kind of let slide?

MS TRUDEAU: I just – I have nothing to announce.

QUESTION: All right.

MS TRUDEAU: Arshad.

QUESTION: Is it – you said that the Department of Defense had spoken to this yesterday, but yesterday, if I’m not mistaken, were they not speaking to the prior incident?

MS TRUDEAU: I believe they were speaking to the Nitze incident, yes.

QUESTION: Yes. So to your knowledge, they have not yet spoken to --

MS TRUDEAU: Not to my knowledge. But I think we saw the same reports coming in. I know they’re aware of it, obviously.

QUESTION: And when you said that these actions, referring to the reports of the second incident plus the first one that DOD has confirmed --

MS TRUDEAU: Yes.

QUESTION: -- are a concern and unnecessarily raise tensions, you’re – therefore, you’re applying it to both the Nitze incident but also to this other incident, even though you haven’t confirmed it?

MS TRUDEAU: So it’s – the Department of Defense would speak to that. It’s my understanding that both are being characterized as unsafe, correct.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS TRUDEAU: Lalit.

QUESTION: I wanted to follow up on Afghanistan.

MS TRUDEAU: Of course.

MS TRUDEAU: President – Afghan President Ghani today issued a statement after his national security council meeting in Kabul. According to the statement, he says the attack on the American University in Kabul was organized and orchestrated from Pakistan. The statement also says he called General Sharif, the Pakistan army chief, and demanded that action be taken against those who were behind this. Do you know who were behind this? And what do you make of the statement?

MS TRUDEAU: So we can’t comment on the responsibility for the attack. As we have in the past, we encourage the governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan to work together, not only in the wake of this attack and to ensure that such attacks don’t happen again, but to increase their cooperation countering violent extremism writ large.

For your question, we have consistently raised our concerns to the highest level of the Government of Pakistan on the need to deny safe haven to extremists. We have pressed the Government of Pakistan to follow up on their expressed commitment, their stated commitment, to not discriminate among terror groups regardless of their agenda or affiliation.

QUESTION: So do you think Pakistan has taken – is not taking enough steps against these terrorist groups or --

MS TRUDEAU: I would, again – and we’ve spoken about it from this podium – call your attention to what General Sharif himself has said, saying that they would not discriminate. This attack against the best and brightest of Afghanistan is a sign that we can all do more.

Sir.

QUESTION: Hi. Disavow us, if you can, the idea that with the former secretary there was a pay-for-play arrangement with Laureate University.

MS TRUDEAU: Okay. So we’ve actually spoken about this quite a bit, and there’s been media reports and fact checks from a number of independent media outlets. As we previously explained, the State Department is not aware of any grants provided directly to Laureate Education since 2009, though we are aware of some grants to educational institutions within or affiliated with the Laureate Education network.

I think it’s also important to emphasize in recent weeks Laureate Education has been conflated with an entirely separate organization, the International Youth Foundation, which is a nonprofit that funds international development initiatives. The International Youth Foundation, the separate organization, has received federal grants from USAID and State going back many years, both under Democratic and Republican administrations. Information about grants and contracts awarded by federal agencies is publicly available online.

QUESTION: And what about the idea though that the former secretary had – wanted them invited to a dinner here? There must have been something that she thought was key about what they were doing, in spite of some of the external criticism about the type of debt that they pile on students and so on.

MS TRUDEAU: So --

QUESTION: What was the value that the former secretary saw?

MS TRUDEAU: So I can’t speak to the former secretary’s thoughts. I can’t speak to any specific invitation that was issued. But as we’ve said many times, the State Department regularly engages with a range of academics, NGOs, think tanks, business leaders, speakers, commentators on a range of issues. I’m just not familiar with this specific event that you’re speaking of.

QUESTION: But – so we don’t know, in your view, what the – what the value might have been to have them to that dinner because that’s from the former --

MS TRUDEAU: Well, I just don’t know the dinner you’re speaking of.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS TRUDEAU: Laurie.

QUESTION: Could you give us a readout of Secretary Kerry’s phone conversation with the Turkish foreign minister in which he informed him that the YPG was withdrawing east of the Euphrates River?

MS TRUDEAU: Okay. Well, I can confirm that he did speak to the foreign minister. I cannot confirm that detail. It’s my understanding they spoke broadly on the U.S. commitment to Turkey’s security and spoke about the fight against Daesh and spoke about our bilateral relations.

QUESTION: Well, the YPG initially protested that it wouldn’t withdraw; then the U.S. military spokesman for Inherent Resolve said that the YPG was withdrawing. And then there’ve been reports that the YPG is asking the U.S. for guarantees. Would you know what – kind of what the situation is? Are they withdrawing, not withdrawing?

MS TRUDEAU: Well, I’d point you, actually, to their own statement, which they did release. We support them moving forward on their commitment. Their statement was very clear. I would note that the SDF has proved to be a reliable partner and a highly effective and capable force, seen most recently, as we spoke about I think yesterday, in Manbij. It’s important to note that Kurdish forces are a critical component of the SDF. We’ll continue to support all components of the SDF – Arab, Kurd, Turkmen, all, as we look to pressure ISIL and ultimately liberate Raqqa.

QUESTION: Okay. And one final question.

MS TRUDEAU: Sure.

QUESTION: Could you provide more details about the agreement between the coalition and the SDF that they’re now being asked to implement about withdrawing once they’ve defeated ISIS in a certain area? Did Turkey – there is an agreement --

MS TRUDEAU: Well, I would – I would just point to you what the Kurdish commanders have said themselves --

QUESTION: I didn’t see that --

MS TRUDEAU: -- which – well, we spoke about this yesterday – that they’ve made the commitment, as these areas are liberated from Daesh, that it’ll be local leaders, local forces who will move in and stabilize.

QUESTION: And – did Turkey agree to that understanding?

MS TRUDEAU: I would – I would direct you to the Turks to speak to their commitments.

That was – sir, I’m happy to do this, you guys. (Laughter.) It’s last brief of the week, but --

QUESTION: Yeah. I’m Julian Borger from The Guardian. In the wake of the chemical weapons report yesterday, what does the U.S. want to get out of the UN Security Council meeting next Tuesday in terms of outcomes, in terms of enforcing the Chemical Weapons Convention?

MS TRUDEAU: Okay. Well, we would never preview our actions within the Security Council. What I would say is that the Administration will continue to pursue all appropriate legal and diplomatic options to hold accountable any individuals, entities, groups or governments responsible for the use of chemical weapons in Syria.

QUESTION: So on Syria --

MS TRUDEAU: Yep.

QUESTION: -- just in terms – and on meetings.

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah.

QUESTION: It looks like there might be or there has been some progress, at least on the Aleppo situation in terms of the 48-hour pause and getting humanitarian aid in with the Russians having agreed to this now. Are – is this something that you think is going to be finalized tomorrow in the meetings in Geneva? And whether it is or not, is – aren’t you looking for something more broad than just Aleppo?

MS TRUDEAU: We are. I would disconnect the conversations the UN is having about these 48-hour ceasefires from the talks tomorrow in Geneva, but you’re exactly right. We do support, however, the UN’s efforts to bring much-needed humanitarian aid to all parts of Aleppo city. It’s the UN, as we’ve said many times, who determines which areas need aid, how they get aid, how that access happens. Given the UN’s technical expertise and knowledge on the ground, it’s the UN and its partners, as I said, who need to determine who’s in need and how aid is delivered. It’s our understanding they’re still engaging with all partners and trying to determine the mechanics and the logistics on that. If the UN says they need 48 hours, of course we support the UN. But as you point out, our focus is on a nationwide, sustainable cessation of hostilities that will provide the access needed so the Syrian people can get the aid they so, so strongly deserve.

QUESTION: Okay. And so it’s the much broader proposal that is being – that will be– that is the top – the main topic of discussion tomorrow.

MS TRUDEAU: On Geneva we have a number of things, as we spoke about yesterday. We’re very focused, obviously, on the cessation of hostilities; yes, on wide humanitarian access, and yes, creating the grounds for a political transition.

QUESTION: Okay. Thanks.

MS TRUDEAU: Did you have another question, Matt? I feel like I – if it did, I’m forgetting it, but – hi.

QUESTION: I’m forgetting it too, then.

MS TRUDEAU: But that’s okay. I’m sure it was pithy.

QUESTION: Pithy.

QUESTION: Hi, Elizabeth. I’m (inaudible) --

MS TRUDEAU: Nice seeing you.

QUESTION: -- from (inaudible) News. Nice to speak to you. So I think in South Sudan there’s some need in the region for some clarification on a statement that John Kerry made a couple of days ago in Nairobi. I just wanted to focus on the bit of the statement that he made that will help us. He said, relating to Riek Machar, the exiled vice – former vice president, “legally, under the agreement, there is allowance for the replacement in a transition of personnel, and that has been effective with the appointment of a new vice president.” So in the previous phase of the South Sudanese crisis, there was a lot of emphasis on having Riek Machar come back into that job. Has that emphasis shifted in the eyes of the State Department?

MS TRUDEAU: So I’d reiterate what the Secretary said. It’s up to the South Sudanese to decide on their political leaders in compliance with the peace agreement. The peace agreement contains procedures and requirements that govern transitions and changes within the transitional government. Specifically, the agreement provides the – and I quote – “the top leadership of the armed opposition,” end quote, has the power to nominate a new first vice president if that position is vacant.

I’d speak more broadly: We do expect the transitional government and all parties, including all leaders of the opposition in South Sudan, to take every step possible to avoid fighting and to reach a peaceful resolution of their differences. The way forward is not through violence or military action but through implementation of the agreement and through peaceful resolution of differences. We’ll continue to engage with all parties in South Sudan as we have been, including the government and opposition leaders, to support peace and the implementation of the agreement.

Sir.

QUESTION: If I can ask on another --

MS TRUDEAU: Oh, of course.

QUESTION: -- another topic. And I should’ve identified myself – Chad Pergram with Fox. Nice to meet you.

MS TRUDEAU: Nice meeting you.

QUESTION: On another subject here, has there been any communication with Capitol Hill, with Congress coming back to session in the next week and a half, about the Secretary going to appear before the House Oversight Committee or other committees to talk about the Iran deal, the so-called “ransom,” quote-unquote, and also the email situation with former Secretary Clinton?

MS TRUDEAU: So yeah, I don’t have any appearances to announce at this point, but certainly as a former senator the Secretary takes very seriously our responsibilities to Congress. I just don’t have anything to read out.

QUESTION: There was some suggestion from some sources I had spoken with this week that there had been an effort – of course, Congress hasn’t been there in seven weeks, but they had tried to get him in before. I know he’s had some travel and things, but they --

MS TRUDEAU: Some travel. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: But there was some thought that there hadn’t been, at least from those sources, as much cooperation as they would like from --

MS TRUDEAU: I would dispute that. I think our colleagues, certainly here in the room and around the world, know that Secretary Kerry is very committed to engaging as appropriate and will continue to do that.

Arshad, you had more.

QUESTION: Yeah, on the Philippines.

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah.

QUESTION: I think you may have had a chance to see these comments by Philippine President Duterte regarding Philippine Senator Leila de Lima, who has criticized the increase in extrajudicial killings of alleged drug traffickers or people involved in the drug trade. And President Duterte on Thursday essentially verbally attacked the senator, saying you are finished, handing out a diagram purportedly showing links between officials and politicians and big drug dealers with the senator at the top of that list of alleged webs or alleged connections. Do you have any concerns that Duterte is not taking seriously the concerns you’ve expressed about all these killings, and that in fact he’s attacking legislator – a legislator who is also raising doubts about these killings.

MS TRUDEAU: There’s a lot there.

QUESTION: Yeah.

MS TRUDEAU: So I’d say a few things. As we’ve said both publicly and as we’ve engaged with our very good partners, the Philippines, we’ve spoken about these reports of extrajudicial killings. As we noted, I think just maybe earlier this week or last week, we’re very deeply concerned about these reports by – extrajudicial killings by or at the behest of government authorities of individuals who are suspected to have been in drug activity in the Philippines. We have also made our concerns known.

The United States believes in rule of law. We believe in due process; we believe in universal human rights. And we believe that these support long-term security, which is the goal not only for the United States, but also for the Philippines. We strongly urge the Philippines to ensure its law enforcement efforts comply with human rights obligations. In terms of the exact comments of the president, I’m going refer you back to the Government of the Philippines to better understand perhaps what President Duterte --

QUESTION: Look, but you have been very explicit about your concerns with this country –

MS TRUDEAU: We have.

QUESTION: -- which you describe as a very good partner. In fact, it’s a treaty ally. Just this week, you made clear those concerns yet again. And in the same week he, the president, is attacking a domestic legislator raising the same concerns. Are – do you think he’s taking your concerns seriously?

MS TRUDEAU: I would say that we continue to engage with the government of the Philippines on our concerns privately, as well as from the podium, and raise those. I understand your question. It’s hard for me to characterize how seriously they take that. We continue to raise it. We think that our relationship, which has spanned 70 years, is a frank and open enough relationship that we can have those conversations.

QUESTION: Longer than that, if you consider U.S. colonial rule. (Laughter.)

MS TRUDEAU: Yes, thank you. Well, yes. Thank you.

Lalit.

QUESTION: I had one quick one on Afghanistan--

MS TRUDEAU: Of course.

QUESTION: Has this special representative for Afghanistan/Pakistan reached out to his counterparts in Kabul after this attack?

MS TRUDEAU: I don’t have a call readout to do that. I would say that our Embassy in Kabul has been very close in touch with our colleagues in the Afghan Government. I just don’t have a readout from our special representative.

QUESTION: And when did he last travel to Afghanistan?

MS TRUDEAU: I actually don’t know, Lalit.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS TRUDEAU: Okay.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS TRUDEAU: Thank you, guys.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:28 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 - August 10, 2016

Elizabeth Trudeau

Director, Press Office
Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC

August 10, 2016









Index for Today's Briefing

SYRIA/REGION



LIBYA



UKRAINE



DEPARTMENT



NORTH KOREA



VIETNAM/REGION



BELIZE



JAPAN



TURKEY



DEPARTMENT



DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO



MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS




TRANSCRIPT:

2:03 p.m. EDT

MS TRUDEAU: Thanks, you guys. Sorry I’m late. Matt, I have nothing at the top.

QUESTION: Wow.

MS TRUDEAU: I know.

QUESTION: I don’t really have anything huge, but I guess let’s start with Syria. Have you – you’ve seen the reports out of – that the Russians have announced a daily three-hour ceasefire for aid to get to Aleppo?

MS TRUDEAU: In fact, why I was late, so thanks for the question. We’re just seeing this proposal. I don’t have a lot of details for you on it. We would welcome any pause that successfully facilitates delivery of vitally needed humanitarian supplies, but such a ceasefire must be observed by all parties. Our position has not changed. There are commitments that mandate free and open access for delivery of supplies requested by the UN, to include UNSCR 2254 and numerous other resolutions that Russia’s long agreed to. All parties must abide by those commitments. All supplies, including food and medical supplies as determined and requested solely by the UN, need to be delivered now.

QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.

QUESTION: Can I follow up on that?

MS TRUDEAU: But wait. We’ll go Arshad, and then we’ll go to you, Nick.

QUESTION: I mean, so you welcome any pause that would facilitate the delivery of humanitarian supplies, but the UN has said that it needs, at a minimum, a pause of 48 hours – not three hours daily – to actually make the deliveries. Are you not supporting the United Nations in their stated need for 48 hours?

MS TRUDEAU: We’re absolutely supporting the United Nations as they seek access to this. However, what I’d like to point out is any pause, any pause in the violence, is good for the people of Syria.

I’d also, though, point out what we’ve said all along, that we continue to call for a nationwide, permanent cessation of hostilities. So in terms of logistics and getting supplies in there, absolutely, we support the UN’s case.

QUESTION: So – and you don’t think that this might be yet another ruse where the Russians are willing to permit some kind of pause but not actually to allow the delivery of humanitarian supplies by the United Nations?

MS TRUDEAU: As we’re just seeing the proposal and I don’t have a lot of details on it, I’m not going to project out on that. Full and complete access is something we’re deeply committed to.

Nick.

QUESTION: Are you able to say, Elizabeth --

MS TRUDEAU: Hold on one second, Ros --

QUESTION: Sure.

MS TRUDEAU: -- and then I’ll come back to you.

Nick.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MS TRUDEAU: But there we are, so now we go to you.

QUESTION: Okay. Are you able to say who’s going to take a look at this proposal, who’s going to discuss it with the Russians? Is the Secretary read in on this? What happens now?

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah. At this stage, genuinely, we’ve just seen it. I don’t have a lot of details on terms of process and how it’s going to be reviewed here at State. I may have more for you later.

Anything more on Syria?

QUESTION: Yes. Given the situation on the ground, do you think there is still hope that Secretary Kerry and Russia would be able to make the announcement that Secretary Kerry said he would hope to make this month?

MS TRUDEAU: We spoke a little bit about this yesterday. Further cooperation with the Russians will require some bottom lines. That includes restraint on the part of the regime, which so far hasn’t been forthcoming. I’m not going to get ahead of any announcement. We believe that that space for a permanent ceasefire does permit the sort of political talks that need to happen for a transition. So I just don’t have anything more to add.

Nick.

QUESTION: Well, the Libya crisis --

MS TRUDEAU: Well, hold on. We’re going to stick on Syria, and then I’ll come to you next.

QUESTION: Very brief, I have a feeling. Just on the reports of the Americans killed fighting for the YPG --

MS TRUDEAU: I have no information.

QUESTION: Still nothing?

MS TRUDEAU: No. Thanks for the question, though.

Nick. Are we good on Syria? Okay. Let’s go.

QUESTION: Libyan forces say they are – have kicked ISIS out of Sirte today. Has the State Department heard these reports? I mean, was the U.S. apprised of what was going on or involved in any way?

MS TRUDEAU: I don’t have any sort of play-by-play on that in terms of operational details. I’m going to refer you to the Department of Defense. As we’ve said, we support the GNA as they continue to move against the threat of Daesh in their country.

Shortest briefing ever.

QUESTION: No, no, no, no.

MS TRUDEAU: I was going to say, “Guys -- ”

QUESTION: We’ve got --

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah, Arshad. Go ahead.

QUESTION: So can we go to Ukraine?

MS TRUDEAU: Of course.

QUESTION: So there are reports that – well, there was a whole bunch of stuff on Ukraine. First, the Russians state that Ukrainian – forgive me one second. So Russia’s federal security service says it thwarted an armed Ukrainian incursion into Crimea that was designed to target critical infrastructure, and they said that a Russian soldier and an FSB employee was killed in these clashes. They say this happened – the alleged attempted incursions took place over the weekend. Have there been such incursions, to the U.S. Government’s knowledge? I’ve got more, but --

MS TRUDEAU: Okay. Do you want to line them up --

QUESTION: No.

MS TRUDEAU: -- or you want me to do them one by one?

QUESTION: We’ll do them one by one.

MS TRUDEAU: Okay. So we’ve seen the reports. We’re going to refer you to the Government of Ukraine for further information. I would note that we’re also directly in touch with Ukrainians ourselves.

QUESTION: So Crimea, you do not recognize Russia’s annexation of Crimea. Correct?

MS TRUDEAU: No. And in fact, I welcome the question, because we don’t want to be distracted from the real issue here, which is not only Russia’s occupation and attempted annexation of Crimea, but their continued aggression in eastern Ukraine. Our view on Crimea is well known. Crimea is and will always be part of Ukraine. We condemn and call for an immediate end to the Russian occupation of Crimea, and our Crimea-related sanctions will remain in place until Russia returns the peninsula to Ukraine.

QUESTION: So if you don’t recognize the annexation of Crimea by Russia, doesn’t Ukraine have the right to send anybody it wants into what is, after all, Ukrainian territory?

MS TRUDEAU: What I would say is that we would refer you to the Government of Ukraine to speak to these reports of actions. As I said, I’m not in a position to confirm it, but we are directly in touch with Ukrainians as well.

QUESTION: Well, but surely you must have a view on – the Russians here are saying that two of their citizens have died, and they’re accusing the Ukrainians of incursions onto territory that’s Ukrainian territory. Surely you must have a view on whether incidents like this and the rhetoric accompanying it increases or decreases tensions in the region. Is it a good thing for Ukrainians to be sending people into Crimea, and is it a good thing for Russia to be repulsing that and then making harsh statements about it?

MS TRUDEAU: Okay. I think what I would do is just reiterate – reiterate our point. Crimea is Ukraine. In terms of conversations or questions on what happens in Crimea, we’re going to refer you to the Government of Ukraine.

QUESTION: Okay, then – well, last thing.

MS TRUDEAU: Sure.

QUESTION: Russian President Putin, speaking in Moscow, has described the alleged Ukrainian actions as, quote, “stupid,” and, quote, “criminal,” and said that he thought there was no point in holding planned talks on the peace process for eastern Ukraine as a result. What’s your view of that? Would you like them to be talking about how to calm things in eastern Ukraine, or do you agree with him that there’s no point in that?

MS TRUDEAU: Well, we always think there’s a point of conversation. We always think that dialogue is a process that should be explored. As you know, we’ve supported the Minsk process as we move forward. I haven’t seen President Putin’s remarks so I can’t comment directly on those, but what I will say is dialogue is really where we’d like to see this go. But in terms of the reports of incursion into Crimea, we’d refer you to Ukraine.

Anything more on Ukraine? Okay, Justin.

QUESTION: I don’t have a question on Ukraine. If somebody else does – I hear nothing, so I’m going to keep going.

MS TRUDEAU: It’s like an auction.

QUESTION: Yeah. And I get the sense that you want to keep this moving.

MS TRUDEAU: Thanks, Justin.

QUESTION: And I support you in that effort. The Clinton emails. (Laughter.) Does -

QUESTION: Just the subject she wanted to go to. (Laughter.)

MS TRUDEAU: Thank you, Matt. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Right. I think she was trying to skip out before this came up. (Laughter.) But all right, so I want to ask you about one of the emails, and I know you addressed this briefly yesterday. One came from – that the critics have seized on came from Doug Band of the Clinton Foundation, asking Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills in an email to, quote – it’s saying, “It’s important to take care of” – and then the name is redacted, and he is obviously pushing to get this person a job in the State Department. And then Huma replies, basically, they’re working on it.

Can you tell us why the State Department redacted that name, and whether or not this person wound up getting a job or not?

MS TRUDEAU: Okay. Well, I can’t speak to specific case – cases. I’m also not going to speak to specific redactions. I will note though, broadly, the department regularly hires political appointees with a range of skill sets for a broad variety of jobs. It’s not unusual for candidates to be recommended to the department through a variety of avenues.

QUESTION: The --

QUESTION: Hold on, because that answer --

QUESTION: Let me just follow up, Matt. Sorry.

QUESTION: All right.

MS TRUDEAU: Hold on one second, and then I’ll get there, Matt.

QUESTION: The Clinton campaign is on background saying today it’s a – it was a young advance staffer, not a donor or a foundation employee. I guess I just – I need a little help understanding why this person’s name cannot be shared.

MS TRUDEAU: I can’t speak to specific cases, and I certainly can’t speak to comments from the – from the campaign.

QUESTION: Would it be wrong to assume that, then, that this is a case simply of nepotism or something like that? I mean, what – how are we then supposed to interpret what --

MS TRUDEAU: You – I can’t speak to specific cases, Justin.

Matt, did --

QUESTION: But it’s the State Department’s decision to redact those names, and nobody else’s decision.

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah. And I’m not going to speak to specific redactions nor specific cases.

Matt.

QUESTION: Well, I’m just curious. Were you answering his question “was this person hired,” without getting into who it was?

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah, I can’t speak to specific cases or specific --

QUESTION: This is pretty – in fact, it’s pretty non-specific since we don’t know what the name is. It’s specific as to --

MS TRUDEAU: But you’re asking about a specific hiring action?

QUESTION: I’m asking if the person referred – if you know if the person referred to in this email whose name has been redacted ended up getting a job here.

MS TRUDEAU: I have no information to speak to specific cases.

QUESTION: But you just said --

QUESTION: But it’s --

QUESTION: In your answer to Justin, you said that the State Department hires from all sorts of places.

MS TRUDEAU: From all sorts of avenues. We receive recommendations from a variety --

QUESTION: But this person wasn’t hired, then?

MS TRUDEAU: I have no information --

QUESTION: Or was?

MS TRUDEAU: -- on that specific case or any specific case.

QUESTION: But if the person is not named, then it’s not specific.

MS TRUDEAU: I think we’re parsing.

QUESTION: I --

MS TRUDEAU: More on Clinton emails?

QUESTION: No, it’s not really parsing. It’s – I mean, it – it’s specific to people who are non-career State Department employees who were hired after this email. That’s the universe. And the question is: Is this person referred to one of them?

MS TRUDEAU: Again, I am unable to speak to specific cases.

QUESTION: Well, how then can you disabuse us of the notion that there’s any impropriety here?

MS TRUDEAU: Because the department regularly hires political appointees with a range of skill sets from a broad – for a broad variety of jobs.

QUESTION: But why should we trust that’s – that that’s – why should we believe that that statement exonerates any – her – the Clinton – of any impropriety? I mean, we don’t know who it is. How then can we read that as it’s all good?

MS TRUDEAU: I’m just not going to speak anymore to specifics on this.

Do we have more on Clinton emails?

QUESTION: Yes, we do.

MS TRUDEAU: Of course, we do. Do you mind if I go to Abigail first?

QUESTION: No.

MS TRUDEAU: Go ahead, Abigail.

QUESTION: Do you have any response to criticism by some that suggest there was a relationship between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department at the time? There was an email that came out in this recent set that is between the – an executive at the Clinton Foundation and Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills where he is requesting to set up a meeting between a billionaire donor and the U.S. ambassador to Lebanon. Do you have any response to --

MS TRUDEAU: So very similar to what I said before, I’m not going to speak to specific emails. However, I think you guys know State Department officials are regularly in touch with a wide variety of outside individuals and organizations, including businesses, nonprofits, NGOs, think tanks. The nearly 55,000 pages of former Secretary Clinton’s emails released by the department over the past year give a sense of the wide range of individuals both inside and outside of government that State Department officials are in contact with on a range of subjects.

QUESTION: So you don’t feel like this email or you don’t feel like there was impropriety in the relationship between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department at the time?

MS TRUDEAU: We talk to a wide range of people, at my level, at various levels in the department – NGOs, think tanks, business leaders, experts on a variety of subjects.

QUESTION: But that’s not her – that’s not her question.

QUESTION: Except in this – and importantly, in this case, Secretary Clinton made a pledge that she would not personally or substantially in any way involve herself with the Clinton Foundation. So it’s not just any outside organization. It’s the specific organization that she said ahead of time she wouldn’t have contact with. So doesn’t that – doesn’t this, then, seem to violate that pledge?

MS TRUDEAU: So again, to reiterate, department officials are in touch with a wide range of individuals. I’d note that former Secretary Clinton’s ethics agreement did not preclude other State Department officials from having contact with Clinton Foundation staff.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: Can you at least try to answer Abigail’s question, which was: Has the department looked into this and determined that there was no impropriety?

MS TRUDEAU: The department is regularly in touch with people across the whole spectrum, Matt.

QUESTION: That’s not the question. The question is whether or not you’ve looked into this – the building has looked into it and determined that everything was okay, that there was nothing wrong here.

MS TRUDEAU: We feel confident in our ability and our past practice of reaching out to a variety of sources and being responsive to requests.

QUESTION: I’m sorry, are you – am I not speaking English? Is this – I mean, is it coming across as a foreign – I’m not asking you if – no one is saying it’s not okay or it’s bad for the department to get a broad variety of input from different people. Asking – the question is whether or not you have determined that there was nothing improper here.

MS TRUDEAU: We feel confident that all the rules were followed.

QUESTION: That’s (inaudible).

MS TRUDEAU: Good.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS TRUDEAU: Are we – we’re still doing Clinton emails? I’ll come back to you, Abigail. Go ahead, Arshad.

QUESTION: So Judicial Watch released 10 additional pages of emails this morning.

MS TRUDEAU: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: In one of them, it documents that Secretary Clinton’s – former Secretary Clinton’s then-chief of staff Cheryl Mills was advised of a FOIA request in which the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington had sought, quote, “records sufficient to show the number of email accounts of or associated with Secretary Hillary Rodham Clinton and the extent to which those email accounts are identifiable … of or associated with Secretary Clinton.” That – the email that chief of staff – then-chief of staff Mills received was sent on December the 11th, 2012, and according to the emails released, I believe she acknowledged it and said thanks in response.

So if she was aware, as she was because she was notified of this FOIA request asking about the different email accounts that were associated with Secretary Clinton at the time, why did the department subsequently tell the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington that there were no responsive records?

MS TRUDEAU: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Because she knew, because she – we know for a fact – emailed with Secretary Clinton on her private account. So – and we also know that she, as a lawyer, is the person who helped make the determinations on which of the emails on the private server constituted federal records and should therefore be turned over to the archives, many of which have now been made public. So why, if she knew in December of 2012 that there were requests for clarity on how many accounts Secretary Clinton had, did the State Department not forthrightly and honestly answer that request rather than just saying there were no responsive records?

MS TRUDEAU: Okay. A lot there, so I’m going to give you a fulsome response on that. In 2012, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, known by the acronym CREW, sent FOIA requests to a number of agencies seeking information about email use by agency heads. This FOIA request, as it relates to the State Department, has been covered extensively in the press and reviewed previously by State’s inspector general. The documents released today show what the OIG already reported in January 2016, that former Secretary Clinton’s chief of staff Cheryl Mills was informed of the request at the time it was received and subsequently tasked staff to follow up. The OIG report also found no evidence that S/ES, L, and IPS staff involved in responding to requests for information, searching for records, or drafting the response had knowledge of the secretary’s email use. Ms. Mills has testified about this topic previously; that testimony is publicly available.

I can’t speculate what may or have – may not been known about that email use. What – but I would note that the January IG report found no evidence that any senior State Department officials who exchanged emails with the secretary reviewed the search results or approved the response to CREW. Nothing in these documents alters the facts as found by the IG. So it’s in the IG report.

QUESTION: I get that it was covered in the IG report. What I don’t understand, though – I mean, the IG report also concluded that the response that there were no responsive records was, quote, “inaccurate and incomplete.” And my question goes to why someone who was aware of that specific FOIA request, who was aware of the specific request for information regarding how many emails – email accounts the secretary had or were associated with her, would not have disclosed to S/ES, L, the FOIA people, or anybody else the fact of the private server so that federal records could in fact be made available in response to the FOIA request.

MS TRUDEAU: So I think what you’re asking about is why wasn’t that FOIA request amended.

QUESTION: No, I’m not asking that. I’m asking why the person – a person who was both in a position to know about the FOIA request and who was well aware and frequently corresponded with former Secretary Clinton on her private account did not make the existence of that account available and known to the people whose legal responsibility it was to respond honestly, accurately, and completely to a FOIA request. That’s my question, not why wasn’t it amended. Why wasn’t it correctly responded to in the first place?

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah. It’s a good question. I don’t have an answer for you. As I note, we – the IG found no evidence that any senior department official reviewed the search results or approved the response to CREW.

QUESTION: What about non-senior people?

MS TRUDEAU: I have no process chart, flow chart, on how that FOIA request was responded to, but it was taken a look at. The IG reported this in January 2016 and did note that result.

QUESTION: Can I also ask back on the hiring?

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah. I want to Abigail too unless we answered – okay.

QUESTION: I mean, essentially that.

QUESTION: Go ahead.

QUESTION: I was just going to say I guess it just stands out that it seems like a pretty broad request, so it seems like something you would flag if the response was no records in response to that. It seems like something that a FOIA person would note is unusual or that there might be an issue or a problem there.

MS TRUDEAU: Again, I can’t speak to process. I would note that this was extensively covered, though, in the January 2016 IG report.

Go ahead, Nick.

QUESTION: But that didn’t ultimately put any blame on Cheryl Mills, did it – that IG report?

MS TRUDEAU: I’d refer you to the IG report itself.

QUESTION: Because it really looks like she was not speaking up.

MS TRUDEAU: I’m – yeah, I’m not going got characterize the IG report. They would speak for themselves.

Go ahead, Nick.

QUESTION: You mentioned that State receives a lot of recommendations for candidates and things like that. I mean, what sort of guidelines do you have in place to make sure that when you act on those claims, the department or staff in the department are not drifting into nepotism or, I mean, a hiring decision --

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah. I think the department has public guidelines that are online in terms of appointments. I would direct you there. In terms of questions on screening for nepotism, which you raised, we follow federal law.

QUESTION: Or cronyism.

QUESTION: And have you been – have you been reviewing those guidelines in the wake of some of these email disclosures to make sure they’re adequate?

MS TRUDEAU: I’m aware of no review.

Was that a question, Arshad?

QUESTION: Well, I just wanted to make sure that your answer covered not merely nepotism, which refers to family members, but also cronyism, which refers to associates.

MS TRUDEAU: I would say that we live up to our federal obligations.

QUESTION: I looked up nepotism. It can be friends too --

MS TRUDEAU: Thanks, Justin.

QUESTION: -- in the broad sense of the definition.

QUESTION: So in other words, in – also in this hiring situation, you’re confident nothing was – that the department is – the department --

MS TRUDEAU: We feel confident that we followed State Department guidelines and federal law.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: Have you looked into it on that one instance? You can’t say that you --

MS TRUDEAU: I’m not aware of any review going on now.

QUESTION: Okay. So you’re confident you lived up to the guidelines even though you haven’t reviewed it?

MS TRUDEAU: I am not aware of any review, but I am confident that we followed the guidelines and the State Department’s internal procedures as well as lived up to federal law.

QUESTION: So you’re confident that you followed the guidelines even though you’re not aware of any review?

MS TRUDEAU: Correct.

QUESTION: Okay. Do you think that’s a high enough standard?

MS TRUDEAU: Federal law?

QUESTION: For confidence that you followed the law.

MS TRUDEAU: I’m very confident in the State Department’s own internal process and personnel system, absolutely.

QUESTION: No one is – no one – I don’t think anybody is suggesting that the building, the department, can’t hire whoever it wants to it thinks is qualified. It’s just this appearance that’s out there, and so that’s why I think the question’s being asked. If you’re confident the rules weren’t broken – I think that’s what you’re saying, right?

MS TRUDEAU: Yes, it is.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS TRUDEAU: Thanks, Matt.

Janne.

QUESTION: Thank you, Elizabeth.

MS TRUDEAU: Oh, wait, are we done with this? I don’t want to move off if we’re --

QUESTION: Yeah.

MS TRUDEAU: Go ahead.

QUESTION: On North Korea?

MS TRUDEAU: Of course.

QUESTION: And recently, United States have sanctioned against the North Korean human right abuse. Will these sanctions be included – the no religious freedom in North Korea? Or you have a separate --

MS TRUDEAU: So remember the International Religious Freedom Report that Deputy Secretary Blinken and Ambassador Saperstein released today? It’s from 2015. So it’s actually from last year. That’s how it’s mandated. So we would look to next year’s report if that would be included.

QUESTION: So this religious freedom – no religious freedom inside North Korea, it will be included – that human right abuse in North Korea?

MS TRUDEAU: Well, I would direct you both to our Human Rights Report as well as the IRF report, because it does cover countries around the world.

QUESTION: So what kind of sanctions to North Korea – do you have any – specifically what kind of sanctions to North Korea? Do you have anything on --

MS TRUDEAU: Anything new to read out --

QUESTION: Yes.

MS TRUDEAU: -- versus what we did in the rollout 10 or 15 days --

QUESTION: Yes.

MS TRUDEAU: I have nothing new to foreshadow on new sanctions.

QUESTION: All right.

MS TRUDEAU: Okay.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS TRUDEAU: Sir.

QUESTION: On Vietnam?

MS TRUDEAU: Vietnam.

QUESTION: There are reports that Vietnam has shipped several rocket launchers from its mainland to five of its Spratly Island bases in recent months. Are you aware of the reports and do you have any comments?

MS TRUDEAU: We are aware of the reports that Vietnam has deployed close-range missile systems on several of its outposts on the Spratly Islands. We continue to call on all South China Sea claimants to avoid actions that raise tensions, take practical steps to build confidence, and intensify efforts to find peaceful, diplomatic solutions to disputes.

QUESTION: And how would you like China to respond to this news?

MS TRUDEAU: I would just reiterate what we just said, which is we intensify the efforts to find peaceful, diplomatic solutions.

QUESTION: Would you call on Vietnam to halt or reverse these moves?

MS TRUDEAU: We’ve called on all claimants to avoid actions that raise tension, so yes.

QUESTION: Can we go to --

MS TRUDEAU: Wait.

QUESTION: -- the Middle East?

MS TRUDEAU: Let’s stay in Asia.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS TRUDEAU: Do we have more on Asia?

Sir.

QUESTION: I wanted to ask about – apparently, there are reports coming out about the UN Security Council and a statement on North Korean missile launches, and that apparently, there was a dispute over whether or not the language over THAAD missiles would be included in that. I was wondering if you had any comment on the reports about that.

MS TRUDEAU: I wouldn’t comment on internal UN Security Council deliberations.

Are we still on Asia? Okay. Sir.

QUESTION: The Belize high court just struck down the country’s sodomy law as we were literally sitting here. Do you have any initial reaction to that?

MS TRUDEAU: So I haven’t seen those reports, Michael.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS TRUDEAU: So we’ll get back to you if we have a comment on it.

QUESTION: Okay, thank you. Thanks.

MS TRUDEAU: Please.

QUESTION: Sorry, I didn’t want to go back to Asia. I wanted to clarify something that I asked yesterday, actually, about the Chinese naval vessels in the Senkaku Islands.

MS TRUDEAU: Sure.

QUESTION: You said that the department was closely monitoring the situation with the Japanese Government and that the U.S. doesn’t take a position on the Senkakus, but I just wanted to – I should have asked this yesterday, but do you take a position on China’s actions and whether the naval presence has sort of violated the spirit of the Hague arbitral ruling? And this has happened increasingly over the past couple of days and I just wanted to…

MS TRUDEAU: Oh, okay. So thanks for the question because I do have something to add on that. We continue to closely monitor the situation around the Senkaku Islands. We are in close communication with the Japanese as allies and are also concerned about the increase of Chinese coast guard vessels in the vicinity of the islands. As you noted, the U.S. position on the Senkaku Islands, as stated previously by the President, is clear and longstanding. The Senkaku Islands have been under Japanese administration since the reversion of Okinawa in 1972, such they fall within the scope of the article 5 of the 1960 U.S.-Japan Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security. We oppose any unilateral action that seeks to undermine Japan’s administration of the Senkaku islands.

QUESTION: What was added from yesterday’s response?

MS TRUDEAU: That last line.

QUESTION: We oppose any --

MS TRUDEAU: We oppose. Thank you.

Okay, guys. Thank you so much.

QUESTION: Wait, wait, wait.

MS TRUDEAU: Oh wait. It was so quiet.

QUESTION: All right.

MS TRUDEAU: Okay, I’ve got three I’m seeing. Matt, Arshad, and then Ros.

QUESTION: Go ahead, Ros.

QUESTION: Turkey.

MS TRUDEAU: Sure.

QUESTION: There are reports that a rear admiral from Turkey detailed to NATO offices down in Virginia Beach has asked the U.S. for asylum. Can you confirm those reports?

MS TRUDEAU: I’d refer you to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. The Department of State does not comment nor do we handle any asylum cases.

QUESTION: Is the U.S. aware of any move by Turkish nationals to try to find safe harbor here in the U.S. because of the crackdown by the Erdogan government in the wake of the coup last month?

MS TRUDEAU: Again, for situations where reports of asylum or alleged asylum claims, I’m going to refer you to USCIS.

QUESTION: And do you have any update on whether the Turkish Government has filed a formal extradition request for Fethullah Gulen?

MS TRUDEAU: We addressed this a little yesterday. As we’re in the position – we have documents, we continue to stay in close contact with Turkish authorities. This is a technical, legal process. I really don’t have an update on if a determination has been made.

QUESTION: Short of asylum, though, there are ways that Turkish citizens who are in the United States now may get some kind of relief from not having to leave when their visa expires. This has been done by executive order numerous times, especially with Latin America. Are you aware of any move to do that on the --

MS TRUDEAU: I have no information on that at all.

QUESTION: Is that being considered?

MS TRUDEAU: I have absolutely no information on that.

Arshad.

QUESTION: Sorry, just to follow up on that --

MS TRUDEAU: I’m – sure.

QUESTION: -- have the Turks expressed any concerns to the State Department about this rear admiral potentially staying here?

MS TRUDEAU: I have no conversations or information on that.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS TRUDEAU: Arshad.

QUESTION: Do you regard emails about the potential hiring of individuals at the State Department as sort of a part of legitimate government business?

MS TRUDEAU: I think personnel actions at some point do become legitimate government business. I wouldn’t be in a position to say when requests for information or recommendations become that. I think that’d be a technical question that --

QUESTION: So – well, I guess my question is why some of these emails that address these things that you say – you get information from lots of people about potentially hiring people for political jobs at the State Department – why those weren’t included in the emails that former Secretary Clinton’s office turned over to the State Department.

MS TRUDEAU: So as the department made clear in March 2015, the department also requested former aides to former Secretary Clinton, including Huma Abedin, that should any of them be aware or become aware of a federal record in is his or her possession, such as an email sent or received on a personal email account while serving in an official capacity at the department, such a record be made available to the department. The department has received records in response to those. I’d note I believe the record you’re speaking about was not to former Secretary Clinton.

QUESTION: Okay. Understood.

MS TRUDEAU: Okay. Thank you.

QUESTION: If that said person, redacted, had been hired, would said person still be covered under privacy considerations?

MS TRUDEAU: To be honest, I don’t know.

Okay.

QUESTION: All right, I have brief ones. One on Congo.

MS TRUDEAU: Yes.

QUESTION: Dr. Congo, as we like to call it. Are you aware of this Human Rights Watch researcher who has been expelled from the country? And if you are, what do you have to say about it?

MS TRUDEAU: We are. Thank you for the question. We’re very concerned by the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo’s decision not to renew the visa of Human Rights Watch senior researcher for the Congo. The forced departure of this researcher, together with the expulsion of Congo Research Group and Global Witness members earlier this year, is incompatible with efforts to support greater transparency, accountability, and democracy in the DRC. We urge Congolese – the Congolese Government to allow Human Rights Watch senior researcher to resume her important worker in the DRC without delay. We also call on all Congolese actors, both government and the opposition, to respect democratic norms and to refrain from violence.

QUESTION: Okay. Sorry, just – it’s incompatible with efforts to what?

MS TRUDEAU: Support greater transparency, accountability, and democracy in the DRC.

QUESTION: Gotcha. Okay, and then --

QUESTION: I got another one on that.

QUESTION: On Congo?

QUESTION: But besides making a public appeal, what else are you going to do to try to get the Democratic Republic of the Congo to actually allow this researcher to return?

MS TRUDEAU: We have regular conversations with the Government of the DRC. I’m not going to detail those conversations, but certainly the promotion of accountability, transparency, democracy are part of those dialogues.

QUESTION: So other than public and private pleas, do you plan to do anything else to try to get the government to let her back in?

MS TRUDEAU: I’m not quite sure what you’re asking.

QUESTION: Well, I’m asking whether essentially your response to this is both public suasion in the form of the statement that you made to us and presumed private suasion in the regular conversations that you have with them but you won’t discuss further. Are you doing anything else to try to make this happen?

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah, I have no actions to foreshadow on that.

One more.

QUESTION: And then the last one, yeah. I – just it was pointed out to me a little bit earlier that some staff from a consul – consulate general in Jerusalem went out to this village of Sussia today.

MS TRUDEAU: Sussia.

QUESTION: I’m just wondering – and then they posted photographs of them being there and on – I’m just wondering if this indicates some kind of greater level of concern on your part for what may or may not happen there.

MS TRUDEAU: Well, we spoke a little bit about this yesterday. Certainly our staff continue to engage broadly with members of the community there. I would reiterate, though, that if the Israeli Government proceeds with demolitions in Sussia, it would be very troubling and would have a very damaging impact on the lives of the Palestinians living there who have already been displaced on other occasions. We continue to be hopeful a positive resolution can be reached that reflects these concerns.

Great. Thanks, guys.

QUESTION: Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:40 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 - August 8, 2016

Elizabeth Trudeau

Director, Press Office
Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC

August 8, 2016









Index for Today's Briefing

PAKISTAN



MACEDONIA



IRAN



THAILAND



PHILIPPINES



TURKEY/REGION



SYRIA/REGION



AFGHANISTAN



PAKISTAN/ REGION



MIDDLE EAST PEACE



CHINA/TIBET/REGION



IRAN/DEPARTMENT



PAKISTAN



JAPAN



BAHRAIN




TRANSCRIPT:

2:01 p.m. EDT

MS TRUDEAU: Good afternoon, everyone. A few things at the top. I think you’ve seen our statement that just was released on Pakistan. The United States condemns in the strongest terms the terrorist attacks today in Quetta, including the murder of Bilal Anwar Kasi, president of the Baluchistan Bar Association, in the bombing at the Civil Hospital that killed dozens of Pakistanis and wounded many others. We send our deepest condolences to the loved ones of those killed and injured, and we offer our assistance to Prime Minister Sharif as his government investigates and works to bring these murderers to justice. These terrorists targeted a hospital, the judiciary, and the media, the most important pillars of democracy. These brutal and senseless attacks only deepen our shared resolve to defeat terrorism around the world. We’ll continue to work with our partners in Pakistan and across the region to combat this threat.

Next, on Macedonia, the United States expresses its condolences to all those in Macedonia who have suffered in the recent flooding. The people of Macedonia are in our thoughts and prayers as they mourn the dead, treat the injured, and address the extensive losses and damage caused.

With that, Matt.

QUESTION: Okay. I don’t have a lot today, but let’s start with seeing if I can get an answer to a question that I asked – that was asked twice last week, having to do with Iran and the $400 million shipment. And that question is: Are you now able to say whether or not the plane with the money landed before the plane with the prisoners took off from Tehran? Because as you may know, since the question was last asked on Thursday, one of the former prisoners said that they had to wait for this other plane, or at least another plane to arrive. Are you able to shed any more light on that?

MS TRUDEAU: So I’m not going to get into the tick-tock of specifics, but claims that our freed Americans were not allowed to depart Iran until a plane full of cash landed anywhere are false. As U.S. officials have previously publicly discussed, there was a delay in our citizens being released that day that had nothing to do with the Hague settlement and was related to resolving some last-minute issues solely related to the prisoners – most importantly, locating and ensuring all of the individuals who were involved with the prisoner swap were on the plane and ready to depart – Mr. Rezaian, Mr. Abedini, Mr. Hekmati. Suffice it to say getting all the pieces put into place, making sure our citizens were released, and with our reciprocal goodwill gesture of providing relief to certain Iranian citizens here in the United States, required delicate diplomacy up to the end. So I think that answers your question.

QUESTION: Okay. I missed the part where you said that – when the plane arrived.

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah. We – it was the question if there was a delay before the taking off until a plane coming down. It was false.

QUESTION: There was not. So in other words --

MS TRUDEAU: There was not a delay.

QUESTION: In other --

MS TRUDEAU: There was no timing that was associated between the two.

QUESTION: Okay. Well, whether or not you intended for there to be timing or not, is it correct that the plane with the money landed before the plane with the prisoners took off?

MS TRUDEAU: No. Claims that the freed Americans were not allowed to depart until a plane full of cash – and I’m doing that in air quotes – are just false.

QUESTION: Yeah, but still, in terms of the timing of it, did one arrive before the other left?

MS TRUDEAU: There was no delay in allowing the Americans to leave.

QUESTION: But you just said there was a delay and it was related to the --

MS TRUDEAU: Well, there was no delay waiting for a second plane full of cash.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah.

QUESTION: I understand that you don’t want to draw any connection between the two things. I just want – I just want to know whether or not the plane with the money landed before the plane with the prisoners took off.

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah, I’m not going to get into a tick-tock. What I do, though, want to disassociate the idea – that you haven’t said but has been in the public narrative – that there was some sort of tie between the two.

QUESTION: Yeah, I realize that you guys don’t think there was. But it seems a very simple question to ask whether or not the plane with the money landed before the plane with the prisoners took off. I mean, I don’t --

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah, I’ve – I have no exact tick-tock on that. What I do know is that the plane with the Americans was only delayed being – taking off because of logistics that were associated with the people on board.

QUESTION: All right. And then also on Iran --

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- you probably will have seen that the Iranians yesterday confirmed the execution of this nuclear scientist who had come to the U.S. and then left. Given the fact that he was here and that you all spoke about it at the time that he returned to Iran, I’m wondering if you have any thoughts about this, if you’re trying to track it any more closely than you would another case.

MS TRUDEAU: Well, what I’d say is, of course, we’ve seen those reports. We reaffirm our calls on Iran to respect and protect human rights, to ensure fair and transparent judicial proceedings in all cases. We have consistently and publicly expressed our concerns about Iran’s human rights record through a range of channels. As you know, we include a large number of Iranian cases in our annual Human Rights Report, in our International Religious Freedom Report. We also partner with other countries to discuss this in the UN General Assembly and the UN Human Rights Council.

QUESTION: So the way you’re – the way that the Administration is looking at it then is as – is as a case, just a human rights – potential human rights violation case, not anything special because of his --

MS TRUDEAU: Correct.

QUESTION: -- his past? Okay.

QUESTION: And do you believe that he did not receive due process?

MS TRUDEAU: What I would say is that we’ve raised our concerns on that. I’m not going to speak specifically about this case. As Matt indicated, we were very public about this case when he chose to return to Iran. I’m just going to let our comments --

QUESTION: But why – I mean, you’re talking generally about concerns about due process, but we’re asking about a specific individual. Do you think he got due process or not?

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah, I couldn’t speak to Iranian judicial procedures related to this specific case. When this individual chose to return to Iran, we obviously spoke about it then. As I said, we’ve made our concerns known writ large around Iranian due process, around Iranian respect for human rights.

QUESTION: Okay. Can we move to --

MS TRUDEAU: Sure. Matt, you’re good?

QUESTION: Yep.

QUESTION: -- East Asia?

MS TRUDEAU: Arshad.

QUESTION: Two topics.

MS TRUDEAU: Sure.

QUESTION: One, what is your assessment of the vote in Thailand about the referendum there? And in particular, do you believe (a) that the environment in the country prior to the vote was conducive to a free and fair vote without intimidation; and (b) do you believe that the approval of the new constitution, including the provisions reserving seats for the military or military-chosen lawmakers, is a good thing for democracy?

MS TRUDEAU: Okay, so I have quite a bit to say on this, so thank you for the question.

We do note that Thailand’s electoral commission has announced preliminary results that a majority of Thai citizens who voted in the national referendum on August 7th approved a proposed constitution. We do, in response to your second question, remain concerned that the drafting process for the constitution was not inclusive, that open debate was not permitted in the run-up to its adoption. Once the results are final – again, we understand these are preliminary results – we urge Thai authorities to proceed with next steps to return Thailand to elected, civilian-led government as soon as possible. As part of the process to return Thailand to democracy, we strongly urge the government to lift restrictions on civil liberties, including freedom of expression, the right to peaceful assembly, so the Thai people can engage in an open, unimpeded dialogue about the country’s political future.

QUESTION: And can you address specifically the question of your view of the draft constitution itself and the seats reserved for military-chosen lawmakers?

MS TRUDEAU: So we – I think I’ve raised our concerns on the process leading up to the draft constitution. We raised concerns about it not being inclusive, not being open. And in terms of the reservation for the military seats, as I said, we continue to urge Thai authorities to return Thailand to an elected, civilian-led government as soon as possible.

QUESTION: And then one other one on the Philippines.

MS TRUDEAU: Sure.

QUESTION: You’ll have seen that dozens of Philippine government and police officials turned them in – turned themselves in on Monday, a day after newly inaugurated President Duterte linked them to the drug trade. If I understand it correctly, he, the president, had ordered the police to hunt these people down if they failed to surrender within 24 hours, so a couple of questions here. One is: Is this a good, judicious use of the exercise of the rule of law to demand people surrender and threaten to hunt them down?

And second, what do you think about the hundreds of people who have been killed since Duterte came into office as president? These are – by some estimates it’s 400, by other estimates as many as 800 people have been killed as suspected drug dealers, including some by vigilante squads since he took office. What do you think about that?

MS TRUDEAU: So there’s a lot there. I guess I’d start sort of taking a back step and taking a look at our partnership, which is based on respect for rule of law. We’ll continue in our conversations with Filipino authorities to emphasize the importance of this fundamental democratic principle. We, as you know, and you’ve heard us say many times from this podium speaking broadly is we believe in rule of law. We believe in due process. We believe in respect for universal human rights. We believe fundamentally that those aspects ensure and promote long-term security. We are concerned by these detentions, as well as the extrajudicial killing of individuals suspected to be involved in drug activity in the Philippines. We strongly urge the Philippines to ensure its law enforcement efforts comply with its human rights obligations.

Okay, Barbara.

QUESTION: Change in topic?

QUESTION: No, can I stay --

MS TRUDEAU: Are you guys – I’m sorry, I’ve got one more on Philippines, then I’ll go to you.

QUESTION: If I may --

MS TRUDEAU: Of course.

QUESTION: Is that true the United States recently announced $32 million in assistance to Manila’s efforts to fight against drug trafficking?

MS TRUDEAU: Okay. So the 32 million is not new funding. So I actually need to correct you there. It’s rather cumulative funding previously appropriated that we’re currently implementing. Assistance provided to these funds, I’d like to emphasize, is subject to the same vetting that our other security assistance is. So all of our security assistance promotes human rights through training content and by promoting professionalism, due process, and rule of law.

QUESTION: I just want to clarify.

MS TRUDEAU: Of course.

QUESTION: So the 32 million should not be used in any activities involve actual judicial killings?

MS TRUDEAU: Extra – no, exactly.

QUESTION: And I don’t know if you saw the reports recently come out from Duterte have some very strong words she said about U.S. ambassador to Philippines, Ambassador Goldberg.

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah.

QUESTION: Given the remarks being so insulting to U.S. envoy, how do we – how should we expect a cordial cooperation between the two?

MS TRUDEAU: I would say two things on that. The first, specifically on the remarks, we’ve seen those inappropriate comments made about Ambassador Goldberg. He’s a multi-time ambassador, one of our most senior U.S. diplomats. We have asked the Philippines charge to come into the State Department to clarify those remarks.

QUESTION: When did you call the charge in?

MS TRUDEAU: I understand that that happened today.

QUESTION: And what did you – besides just asking for clarification, I mean, what did you --

MS TRUDEAU: I’m not going to read out that detailed conversation, but it was specifically on those remarks.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MS TRUDEAU: Hold on. Yeah.

QUESTION: What were – were there specific remarks that were raised with the charge?

MS TRUDEAU: Yes, specific remarks that were made about our ambassador to the Philippines.

QUESTION: I know, and I’m aware of what they were. But was there anything that was more egregious in what was said than --

MS TRUDEAU: No, I’m not going to detail that conversation. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Yeah, just two questions about Turkey.

MS TRUDEAU: Sure.

QUESTION: Turkish officials have said they’ve asked – they want a number of people associated with Gulen extradited as well. Can you tell us anything about that? Have they made any requests, who these people are and what association they have with him?

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah. As always, and I think we’ve spoken at this quite a bit about Mr. Gulen himself, the extradition process is a formal, legal, technical process. We’re not going to unpack that. In terms of other extradition requests coming in, I just have no information. I couldn't speak to that.

QUESTION: And they said today also in Turkey that 10 foreigners – foreign nationals have been arrested associated with him. Do you have any information about that? Were any of them Americans?

MS TRUDEAU: I have no information on that.

QUESTION: And just now a quick change of topics since I’m speaking.

MS TRUDEAU: Well, you know what, any more on Turkey? I’m sure we have more on Turkey. Barbara, let’s close this out and then we’ll go back.

QUESTION: Sure.

MS TRUDEAU: Go ahead.

QUESTION: I was wondering if you have any travel announcement for Secretary Kerry, because there are reports suggesting that Secretary will be in Turkey on August 24th.

MS TRUDEAU: I have no travel to announce. Anything more on Turkey?

QUESTION: Yeah. Do you have any comments on what Mr. Erdogan just said, that he’s going to – he wants to improve relations with Russia and work with Russia in the fight against ISIS and many other issues? Does that – first of all, does that concern you? Do you have any comment on that? Does that in any way puts the spotlight on sort of strained U.S.-Turkish relations?

MS TRUDEAU: I guess what I would do is emphasize where we’ve been since this failed coup. Turkey is a friend. It’s a NATO ally. It’s a partner. We stand with Turkey as they continue to work through this. This isn’t a zero-sum game, and certainly the fight against Daesh is something that concerns all of us regardless of where we are in the world – not just Daesh, but violent extremism writ large. So I’ve seen Mr. – President Erdogan’s comments. I wouldn’t have anything specific more than that to read out.

QUESTION: So why do you think – I mean, how do you explain this insistence right across the whole political, media, and so on – fabric of Turkey – that they insist that somehow the United States was involved with this coup in one way or another?

MS TRUDEAU: We’ve --

QUESTION: This just keeps on going. It has not --

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah. We’ve spoken about that, Said.

QUESTION: I understand, but --

MS TRUDEAU: We’ve dismissed it absolutely as absurd, as without fact. I’m not going to back every piece of rhetoric that we see in reporting. I can’t tell you if it’s accurate. But what I can tell you is accurate is that we stand with the democratically elected government of Turkey, as well as the Turkish people.

QUESTION: So do you --

MS TRUDEAU: Anything – wait. Are we staying on Turkey, Said?

QUESTION: I’m done.

MS TRUDEAU: Okay. More on Turkey?

QUESTION: Turkey?

MS TRUDEAU: Go ahead.

QUESTION: President Erdogan, as you know, has been pushing for Turkish national reconciliation in the wake of the attempted coup with all parties except the pro-Kurdish HDP, which is conspicuously left out of this national reconciliation. Do you have any comment on that? Do you think it is a prudent idea?

MS TRUDEAU: I wouldn’t speak to that at all. I think what President Erdogan does as he continues to build reconciliation and continue building Turkish democracy is for him to speak to.

QUESTION: You actually believe that he is building reconciliation?

MS TRUDEAU: I would say that --

QUESTION: They’ve arrested 60,000 people, right, since the coup.

MS TRUDEAU: And we’re aware of this.

QUESTION: Is that reconciliation?

MS TRUDEAU: What I would say is that we have spoken about this a lot. We’ve spoken about our concerns with Turkey both publicly and privately, and speaking specifically to comments on which party he’s talking to and the logistics and where and when, I’m just not going to speak to at all.

QUESTION: Okay. But do you believe that he is promoting reconciliation?

MS TRUDEAU: I think that --

QUESTION: Because there are a lot of people who believe that he’s going after anybody who he thinks is an opponent to his rule.

MS TRUDEAU: I think that – what are we? We’re 20 days away from what was a failed coup attempt. I think that this was a profoundly – it was a critical period for Turkey, and I think Turkey is still working through that. As we stand with Turkey, as they continue to investigate, as they continue to work through this, we have raised our views on – as they respect international norms and human rights within Turkey.

QUESTION: But usually if there is a minority, ethnic or religious, which is discriminated against in some country, the United States expresses – and rightly so – some objection. In the case of the Kurds of Turkey, they had nothing to do with the coup – even Erdogan isn’t claiming that – but still they are excluded from this national reconciliation that he’s promoting. That seems to be okay with you?

MS TRUDEAU: No, I think it’s a question, as I said, that you need to speak to Turkey about.

More on Turkey?

QUESTION: Syria.

MS TRUDEAU: Wait. Do we have one more? And then we’re going to go to Barbara, because I owe her one. Are we on Turkey?

QUESTION: Turkey.

MS TRUDEAU: Go ahead, Abbie.

QUESTION: Do you have any further information on the 10 foreigners who were arrested in the sense – are you actively trying to find out more about whether Americans were involved or --

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah, I just have no information on that at all. I’ve seen the same reports.

Okay, anything more on Turkey? Then we’re going to go to Barbara, then we’ll go over to Syria.

QUESTION: Syria as well --

MS TRUDEAU: Well, there we go.

QUESTION: So just your response on the opposition in Aleppo, opposition forces breaking through the siege. Do you welcome that? Because this should presumably bring in some humanitarian access to that part of the city.

MS TRUDEAU: So what I would say is, first, it’s an extremely fluid situation in Aleppo. We continue, as you can imagine, as the other members of the international community, to monitor this very closely. I believe you saw the UN met today on this; I think you saw Ambassador Power’s remarks on this. This is really where we’re focused: All parties must open for delivery of humanitarian supplies to all residents of Aleppo. We are very focused on the impact on civilians right now. As we’ve said, the style of starvation tactics, denial of humanitarian goods, targeting of civilians are never justified. In terms of sort of operations on the ground, who’s in control of what, it’s a very fluid situation now. We’re – we continue to get readouts and reports on that.

QUESTION: But we saw the footages that the opposition --

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- broke the siege on eastern Aleppo. In principle, do you support such a movement --

MS TRUDEAU: In principle, we support access for the civilians there to get the humanitarian support they need. We support an inflow of medical aid, food aid, water, potable water. That’s really our focus on that. In terms of how sustainable that is, in terms of where the fighting groups on the ground, I’m just – I just can’t speak to it because it is so fluid.

QUESTION: But do you see it as a positive development?

MS TRUDEAU: I think the positive development is seeing civilians get the humanitarian aid that they need.

QUESTION: So you’re not alarmed that there is an assault by opposition groups on Aleppo? I mean, you expressed a great deal of alarm when the situation was reversed, when government forces, so --

MS TRUDEAU: What we are alarmed about is any party targeting civilians, any civilian being impacted by this sort of fighting. And as we said today at the UN, as we’ve said repeatedly, our priority right now is that humanitarian access.

QUESTION: Are you concerned that the opposition groups are using American arms, such as antitank missiles and so on, and how they – how did they get their hands on it? Was it --

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah, yeah --

QUESTION: -- through the CIA or --

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah, I’m not – I can’t speak to sort of equipment.

QUESTION: -- or some of your allies?

MS TRUDEAU: And again, I’m not going to speak to operations on the ground. As I said, humanitarian access right now today is number one for us.

QUESTION: Would you be concerned if, let’s say, some of your allies, like the Saudis or the Qataris, were providing the opposition with American-made weapons without clearing it with you first, such as the TOW missiles?

MS TRUDEAU: I mean, certainly, our end-use agreement with weapons is something that we track very closely, Said.

QUESTION: Afghanistan.

MS TRUDEAU: Are we – wait. Hold on one second. Let’s finish up Syria.

Go ahead, Michel.

QUESTION: Any talks with the Russians about the situation in Aleppo in the last --

MS TRUDEAU: So as you know, we continue to have those conversations at Geneva. We continue to have discussions on this. In terms of what the situation is on the ground on Aleppo, of course we continue to see the same information.

QUESTION: But any breakthrough? Any --

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah, I have no update on that from where we were last week.

Are we done with Syria? Let’s go to Afghanistan.

QUESTION: Afghan officials are worried that the Taliban may be forging an informal alliance with ISIL in eastern Afghanistan. Just today Afghan General Mohammad Zaman Waziri was quoted as saying, “They fought deadly battles with the Taliban before. But over the past two months, there has been no fighting among them.” Is the U.S. concerned about a possible alliance between ISIL and the Taliban?

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah. So we are – thank you for the question. We’re aware of the reports. We’re obviously monitoring for the presence of Daesh-affiliated individuals and groups in Afghanistan. We remain actively engaged with the Government of Afghanistan, as well as our partners in the region, to deny terrorist organizations such as Daesh or their branches safe haven and material support.

In terms of the confirmation, if they are working together, I just don’t have any confirmation I can provide at that time. We’ve seen the same reports.

QUESTION: All right. Is it still U.S. policy to reconcile with the Taliban?

MS TRUDEAU: We believe the Taliban have a choice. Rather than continuing to fight their fellow Afghans and destabilizing their country, we believe they should engage in a peace process and ultimately become a legitimate part of the political system of a sovereign, united Afghanistan supported by the international community.

QUESTION: The Taliban now seem all but willing to engage in a reconciliation process. Are you worried that they may reconcile with ISIL instead?

MS TRUDEAU: I think I’ll leave my comments where I said. The Taliban have a choice; we’ve made that choice clear. I think the Afghan Government has also made that choice clear.

QUESTION: Another on Afghanistan?

MS TRUDEAU: Of course.

QUESTION: Do you have anything on – apparently, there was an American along with an Australian abducted in Kabul on Sunday night. Do you have anything on that – near the American university of Afghanistan?

MS TRUDEAU: So you’ve all seen those reports. Due to privacy considerations, I have nothing further to add at this time.

QUESTION: Okay. Can you tell us – I believe earlier in the year, you guys put out a warning. What’s the overall – your current assessment of just the security threat to American citizens in Kabul and Afghanistan right now?

MS TRUDEAU: So I would direct you – and thank you for that, because that was a great lead-in – travel.state.gov. Travel to all areas of Afghanistan remains unsafe. We do note that the U.S. embassy’s ability to provide emergency consular assistance to U.S. citizens in Afghanistan is severely limited. For the latest on that though, check out travel.state.gov. There is a Travel Warning in place.

Do we have more on Afghanistan? I’m sorry, Said.

QUESTION: Can we stay in the region – Pakistan?

MS TRUDEAU: Are you okay? Let’s do Pakistan.

QUESTION: I saw your statement, opening statement on Quetta --

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- and Pakistani Taliban has claimed credit for it. Do you believe that Pakistani Taliban --

MS TRUDEAU: I’ve seen a number of claims of responsibility for that. I’m not in a position to confirm any of that. I’d refer you to the Government of Pakistan on that. Regardless of who’s responsible for this act of terror, we condemn it.

QUESTION: Have they sought any assistance from you in investigating --

MS TRUDEAU: We’ve offered assistance. I don’t have any feedback if they’ve accepted.

QUESTION: Have SRAP or the Secretary been able to contact, talk to their counterparts?

MS TRUDEAU: I don’t have calls to read out now, but you know, I think, that our ambassador remains in close touch with Pakistani authorities.

QUESTION: This also did a question on – there was a press conference in Karachi today by Syed Salahuddin in which he said that – he basically sort of threatened of nuclear warfare between India and Pakistan. How do you see such statements coming from terrorist leaders inside Pakistan?

MS TRUDEAU: Okay, and the name again?

QUESTION: Syed Salahuddin.

MS TRUDEAU: I – what I would say is I’ve seen those comments. We believe that regional safety and security actually is the responsibility not only of the two countries to speak directly to each other but also to have that support within the broader international community. I’m not going to respond to every piece of rhetoric that I’ve seen coming out of that. Of course violence is a concern to us, but what I would say is that issues like this are best resolved through dialogue between those countries.

QUESTION: Do you consider --

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MS TRUDEAU: I’m sorry, are – one more second. Last one.

QUESTION: Yeah. Do you consider this as a rhetoric or are you --

MS TRUDEAU: I think --

QUESTION: -- worried about such statements coming out from leaders who have close contacts with some people in the establishment?

MS TRUDEAU: I wouldn’t characterize something out of hand as rhetoric. What I would say is I’ve seen reports, and anything that doesn’t lead to a calm and peaceful and moderate resolution of differences then is not helpful.

Said.

QUESTION: Can we go to the Palestinian-Israeli issue?

MS TRUDEAU: Of course we can.

QUESTION: First of all, let me ask you about the Palestinian Authority. The police of the Palestinian Authority last week severely beat Palestinian children and, in fact, broke their arms, their legs in some instances. They were demonstrating against power cut. Now, this police is trained and financed by the United States of America. Do you have a position on this?

MS TRUDEAU: Well, we obviously condemn violence against innocent civilians. I haven’t seen these particular reports, but I would say that is our broad position on that.

QUESTION: Well, the – we often talk about Israel and the Palestinians in prison, but also in PA prisons, there seems to be a great deal of abuses – human rights and otherwise – for Palestinian prisoners. How do you keep or how do you maintain – how do you ensure that they continue to adhere to international standards – the Palestinian Authority – considering that it is not really a state but you do maintain some sort of a close observation of what they do, correct?

MS TRUDEAU: I would say a few things on that. Certainly I think the conversation with Palestinian leaders is important. I’d also say that the international community plays a very important role in this. I would think that as we take a look at our annual reports, we certainly cite this. Again, speaking specifically to the reports that you indicated, I don’t have a lot of details on that. But violence in prisons is not isolated to any one country; it’s something that I think concerns many countries around the world, and it’s often a system – a question of judicial reform, prison reform, training, transparency.

QUESTION: And I have one last question.

MS TRUDEAU: Sure.

QUESTION: I wanted to ask you about the village of Sussia – the Palestinian village of Sussia – which is about to be demolished, and the inhabitants – 350 inhabitants are about to be removed by the Israeli defense forces or occupation forces. Do you have any comment on that?

MS TRUDEAU: So is this a new settlement or --

QUESTION: This is – it’s been decided sometime back, but now they are going to implement it. They say that these structures were illegally built, and of course this is an old Palestinian village, so --

MS TRUDEAU: So this is a question of demolitions you’re asking?

QUESTION: The question is – yes, right. I mean, in spite of your call --

MS TRUDEAU: We’ve spoken – of course.

QUESTION: I understand.

MS TRUDEAU: I’m sorry, go ahead.

QUESTION: No, I mean, you’re constantly calling from this podium to – urging the Israelis not to demolish, not to – but obviously they’re not listening to you, I mean, so --

MS TRUDEAU: This is a conversation we’ve had a lot, and as we’ve said, we are concerned by the accelerated rate of demolitions undertaken by Israeli authorities that continue in the West Bank as well as East Jerusalem. We’ve discussed this before.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS TRUDEAU: Go ahead.

QUESTION: Yeah, if we can just stay there.

MS TRUDEAU: Of course.

QUESTION: Are you guys watching this world – this case against World Vision?

MS TRUDEAU: We are, Matt.

QUESTION: Do you have anything to say about that?

MS TRUDEAU: So we are aware of the reports an employee at the Gaza branch of World Vision has been charged with redirecting humanitarian assistance funds on behalf of Hamas. We’ve seen the World Vision statement on this as well. We’re very concerned with the allegations. We’re following the Israeli investigation closely. If confirmed, Hamas’ embezzlement of humanitarian assistance funds reaching some of the most vulnerable people would be reprehensible.

QUESTION: Are you concerned that this actually may open – I mean, it would bode very ill for Palestinians that are most in need for this humanitarian aid, because Israel will use this as a pretext to either prevent humanitarian groups from functioning there or restricting them and so on.

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah, that’s a hypothetical. I’m not going to get ahead of the Israeli investigation on this. We’ve made our position clear. We’re in touch with Israeli authorities on this. I don’t think anyone disputes the need where this humanitarian assistance was targeted.

Anything more on this issue? Okay, then let’s move on. Nike.

QUESTION: Right. Another demolition-related question, but this time it’s on Tibet. I wonder if you have anything to say about reports that Chinese has launched demolition against a Tibetan Buddhist institute without their consent.

MS TRUDEAU: Yes, we have seen those reports and we are concerned that Chinese authorities initiated the demolition of residences at Larung Gar Tibetan Buddhist Institute without the consent of the institute’s leaders. We urge authorities to cease actions that may escalate tensions and to pursue forthright consultations with the institute’s leaders to address any safety concerns in a way that does not infringe on the right of Tibetans to practice their religion freely.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Iran?

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah.

QUESTION: So just following up on the Dr. Amiri case.

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah.

QUESTION: As it’s been widely reported and it’s become talked about a lot in recent days that Dr. Amiri was referenced in the emails of former Secretary of State Clinton.

MS TRUDEAU: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Does the department think that – and some have even charged that there’s a link between that appearance in unclassified emails and the prosecution and execution of Dr. Amiri. Does the department see any linkage between the two?

MS TRUDEAU: So we’re not going to comment on what may have led to this event. But as we spoke about with Matt, there was public reporting on this topic back in 2010. Former Secretary Clinton discussed this issue in public at that time, so this is not something that became public when the State Department released those emails. The press conference that she did was actually July 13th, 2010 where she specifically referenced this issue.

QUESTION: So there’s no – I guess there’s no – not the redactions weren’t looked at or – and anything like that. I mean, is it not policy to re-review the redactions in a case like this or what the policy was on this?

MS TRUDEAU: So I’d say none of the emails that have been raised by the media on this topic were upgraded to classified when they were released to the public through FOIA by the department.

Okay.

QUESTION: Wait, can I --

MS TRUDEAU: Yes, sir.

QUESTION: I just have to go back to the plane --

MS TRUDEAU: Of course.

QUESTION: The issue of the planes.

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah.

QUESTION: And the prisoners. What was the logistical problem that kept them on the ground in Tehran?

MS TRUDEAU: It was locating and ensuring that all of the individuals who were involved with the prisoner swap were on the plane and were --

QUESTION: And how do you know that that wasn’t related to a plane with cash arriving?

MS TRUDEAU: So we feel confident that that was a logistical issue that was solely related to the individuals on the plane.

QUESTION: Right. But how do you know that? Because the Iranians told you or the Iranians couldn’t find someone?

MS TRUDEAU: It was our assessment based on the information we had.

QUESTION: Yeah, yeah. But I mean, there are ways to – there are many countries in the world where you can go through immigration and you’re hit up for a bribe. And they might say that it’s a logistical issue that’s delaying you getting in, but in fact they want some cash. So I’m just curious as to how you’re – why it is that you’re confident that it was an unrelated logistical issue in this case.

MS TRUDEAU: So based on the information that we knew and what was happening on the ground, we’re confident that it was related solely to those individuals.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MS TRUDEAU: Yes, sir.

QUESTION: Thank you. Jahanzaib Ali from ARY News TV. You just condemned the killing of 93 people in the Quetta bomb blast. I’ve just seen your comments. But at one side U.S. condemned the killing of innocent Pakistanis, and on the other side blocking the military assistance. You know about the Pentagon decision last week. Despite knowing the sacrifices Pakistan made in this war against terrorism, you still have the doubts about the sincerity of Pakistani Security Forces in their military operations? I mean, do you really believe that Pakistan is providing shelter to some of the terrorist groups?

MS TRUDEAU: Okay. So when you’re asking specifically about the Department of Defense’s certification of the funding, I’m going to refer you to the Department of Defense. What I will say is that Pakistan has said that they will go after all terrorists regardless of affiliation. I don’t want to politicize this terror attack. This is reprehensible. What I will say is that we stand with Pakistan as they move forward on this fight against terror.

QUESTION: An American citizen, Matthew Barrett, was previously deported from Pakistan on spy charges in 2011; was again arrested for re-entering in the country. Is there any contact with the Pakistani authorities on this?

MS TRUDEAU: So I’ve seen those reports. Due to privacy considerations, I have no information to offer you.

QUESTION: But he was arrested in 2011. Was there any kind of investigation at that time that was he really involved in spying?

MS TRUDEAU: As I said, due to privacy considerations, I have no information to offer.

Sir.

QUESTION: Japan’s emperor had delivered a video message that implies wishes on his abdication. Does U.S. State Department has any view or reaction to this?

MS TRUDEAU: So we greatly appreciate the emperor’s continuing contributions to the strong and enduring relationship between the United States and Japan. For further details on the emperor’s statement, I’d refer you to the Government of Japan.

And that’s it.

QUESTION: No, no --

MS TRUDEAU: No. One more.

QUESTION: No, no, it is very brief, very brief.

MS TRUDEAU: Sure.

QUESTION: It’s Bahrain.

MS TRUDEAU: Of course.

QUESTION: And I’m – you guys have talked about the case of Nabeel Rajab --

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- numerous times. His trial has now been delayed again. I’m just wondering if you have any thoughts about that, and also reports that he is being denied medical attention.

MS TRUDEAU: So you’re correct. We understand that the – that his next court date has now been scheduled for September 5th. We call on the Government of Bahrain to release Nabeel Rajab, full stop.

QUESTION: Do you have anything about his treatment or do you have concerns about --

MS TRUDEAU: It’s – I would say that representatives of the U.S. embassy in Bahrain attended his last hearing. We’ll continue to stay engaged on this.

QUESTION: No, I know, but I’m wondering if you have any concerns about how he is being treated in custody.

MS TRUDEAU: We’ve raised concerns with the Government of Bahrain, particularly on this case. In terms of his treatment in prison, I have nothing to read out.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS TRUDEAU: Great. Thanks, guys.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:39 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 - August 2, 2016

John Kirby

Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC

August 2, 2016









Index for Today's Briefing

SINGAPORE



C5+1 MINISTERIAL



SECRETARY'S TRAVEL



IRAN



SYRIA



IRAQ



LIBYA



TURKEY



BRAZIL




TRANSCRIPT:

12:22 p.m. EDT

MR KIRBY: Matthew.

QUESTION: Hello.

MR KIRBY: Welcome back.

QUESTION: Thank you. Same to you.

MR KIRBY: Thank you. Guys, I’m going to have to be a little quick today because we have, I think you know, the State lunch here with Prime Minister Lee, so we’re going to try to get done here by about 1:00 if possible.

On that topic, I think you probably saw events at the White House, but today the President is hosting Prime Minister Lee of Singapore for an official visit and State dinner. They will celebrate, of course, the close and longstanding relationship between Singapore and the United States that has served as an anchor for the U.S. rebalance to Asia, marking the 50th anniversary of diplomatic relations. The President and the prime minister will highlight the enduring principles that have inspired the tremendous growth in our cooperation. And of course, as partners in the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the counter-ISIL coalition and the Paris climate agreement, the two leaders will discuss how our relationship can continue to address international challenges and advance a rules-based order in the Asia Pacific region. And I think you know we’re hosting – co-hosting a State lunch here at the State Department in just less than an hour from now.

For tomorrow, the Secretary, Secretary Kerry, will host the foreign ministers from Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan for the second C5+1 ministerial meeting. And we welcome the Central Asian delegations to Washington and congratulate the five states as they approach their 25th anniversaries of independence. The group will be continuing the talks they began in Samarkand last November during Secretary Kerry’s historic trip to Central Asia, and they will focus on issues of economic connectivity, regional security, environmental – I’m sorry, environment and climate change, and of course, humanitarian issues.

Finally, just a programming note. The Secretary will be traveling to Buenos Aires, Argentina beginning tomorrow and through Thursday. In Argentina he will meet with Argentine President Mauricio Macri to discuss cooperation on regional and global issues. He and the foreign minister, Foreign Minister Malcorra, will launch the U.S.-Argentina High-Level Dialogue to address pressing global challenges, including bilateral, regional, multilateral, and economic issues. While there he’s also going to meet with the Argentine-American Chamber of Commerce to discuss U.S.-Argentine commercial engagement and trade. There may be another stop on this trip, but I suspect we won’t have more on that until a little bit later today.

With that, Matt.

QUESTION: Right. I don’t have anything huge, but I just wanted to run – have you seen – are you aware of the latest comments that the supreme leader of Iran has made about the nuclear deal and the fact that the United States has not lived up to its end of it – end of its – end of its – to its end of the deal? Which is not a new complaint, but --

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- what he said that is new is basically that you guys can’t be trusted on anything now. What do you – do you make anything of that?

MR KIRBY: I’ve seen the comments. And as we’ve said before, I’m not – we’re not going to respond to every bit of rhetoric out of Iran on the JCPOA. That said, we still assess that they’re meeting their obligations under the JCPOA, and we’re meeting ours. And it’s our intention to continue to meet our obligations and our commitments under the JCPOA because we believe it’s that important, because we believe it can have a stabilizing influence on the region and indeed on the world. And so where the Secretary’s focus is is on doing just that – making sure that we stay in compliance, and, of course, to watch as Iran continues to meet its commitments.

QUESTION: Okay. And then specifically on --

MR KIRBY: And by the way, I think you said something about not trusting us, right?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR KIRBY: Yeah. Again, this has never been about trust; it’s been about verification and a very strict regimen of being able to verify their compliance. So with all due respect to the supreme leader’s comments, nothing about the deal has ever been based just on trust.

QUESTION: With all due respect toward the supreme leader’s comments?

MR KIRBY: To his comments.

QUESTION: Not to him?

MR KIRBY: To his comments.

QUESTION: To his comments only? But just then on that point though, I think what – from his perspective, or from the Iranian perspective, they’re saying that we only negotiated on the nuclear deal and we’re not going to be involved in anything else, because you can’t be trusted, as you’ve proven, allegedly, on the nuclear deal. And yet you continue to, the Secretary continues to, try to bring Iran into the Syria conversation, or have brought them in and continue to. So that will continue? You don’t see any reason to stop?

MR KIRBY: Well, I know of no changes in Iranian plans with respect to the International Syria Support Group. They are a member; it’s our expectation that they’ll remain a member and remain part of that conversation on Syria. But obviously, that’s a sovereign decision that they would have to make. I’m not aware of any changes to it.

QUESTION: Okay. And then my last one is – this is more specifically toward the Iran deal itself: Have you seen the new calculations from the good ISIS, as it is known?

MR KIRBY: What?

QUESTION: David Albright’s group, ISIS?

MR KIRBY: Oh, no.

QUESTION: That based on the – Iran’s long-term R&D, the document that they submitted to the IAEA, they have calculated that, unlike a calculation that the AP made, that the breakout time after year 13 would not be six months but would rather be four months. Have you seen that? And if you have, do you have any comment on what you think about it?

MR KIRBY: I’ve not seen it, Matt. And as far as I know, nothing has changed about our own assessments and the assessments made by the P5+1 in the negotiations about breakout time. I just don’t have anything more on that.

QUESTION: Thanks.

QUESTION: Can we go to Syria?

MR KIRBY: Sure.

QUESTION: There is a report quoting a Syrian rescue service that operates in rebel-held territory in Syria that a helicopter dropped containers of a toxic gas on a town close to where the Russian helicopter went down yesterday. Do you have any clarity on what may have happened there, whether a toxic chemical was used, and if so, whether it might be a substance banned under the Chemical Weapons Convention?

MR KIRBY: We’ve seen reports as well, Arshad, and I’m not in a position to confirm the veracity of them. Obviously, we’re looking into it as best we can with partners in the region. And certainly, if it’s true – and again, I’m not saying it is – but if it’s true, it would be extremely serious. We’ve long expressed our strong condemnation of the use of chemical weapons on civilians, which, of course, violates not only the cessation of hostilities but international standards and norms, including the Chemical Weapons Convention, to which the Government of Syria is a member and two – as well as two UN Security Council resolutions, 2118 and 2209. So again, I’m not in a position to confirm. We’re taking it seriously. We’re looking into it and we’ll see.

Now, as you also, I think, know from prior reports of the potential use of – and I know you’re not saying this was chlorine; neither am I, but the alleged use of chlorine – the OPCW has the monitoring – the responsibility for that, and those investigations can take quite some time to try to actually determine what happened. But obviously, it’s a serious report and we’re certainly concerned about it.

QUESTION: Chlorine, of course, is not a banned substance.

MR KIRBY: It’s not. But if it – as a substance it’s not because it has industrial purposes. But if it’s used as a weapon, it still is considered a violation.

QUESTION: John, could I just follow up on this? Now, you’re saying “if true.” Those – the civil defense forces or the white helmets, as they are known, and first of all, is the United States in any way involved in training them, financing them, funding them, or anything like this?

MR KIRBY: Funding who?

QUESTION: These groups. This group. The civil defense forces providing --

MR KIRBY: I’m not aware of any --

QUESTION: You’re not aware.

MR KIRBY: I’m not aware of any connection.

QUESTION: How do you – how do you – how will you know whether it is true or not? I mean, do you ask the --

MR KIRBY: Well, again, it’s the --

QUESTION: -- these groups to submit evidence?

QUESTION: It’s – as I said before, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, OPCW, has a fact-finding mission, and it’s their job to investigate all credible allegations of the use of chemical weapons in Syria. If the mission determines that a specific incident in Syria involved or likely involved the use of chemicals as weapons, then the incident will be – I’m sorry, I’m trying to go too fast. The incident will be referred to the OPCW-UN Joint Investigative Mechanism which is established under Security Council Resolution 2235 to identify those that were involved for further investigation.

So there’s a process here. OPCW owns that process.

QUESTION: In the Secretary’s statement yesterday when he called on the Russians and the Syrians to stop their offensive or bombardments and so on, and in turn the United States will also lean or call on the opposition groups to stop whatever activity they do – how will you influence these opposition groups? They keep morphing into something else every other day, and they are – they take on different identities. How are you going to basically influence them?

MR KIRBY: We have been in touch with opposition groups from the onset, and what the Secretary was referring to yesterday was his intention to make sure that we maintain that contact going forward. I mean, he was referring simply to the fact that we know we have a responsibility on groups we influence. We want other nations who have influence on other opposition groups to use that appropriately as well to try to get the cessation of hostilities to actually be stable and to be enforced. But the Russians too have an obligation, and he’s been very clear about their obligations here, not just as co-chairs of the task force, not just as co-leads of the ISSG, but because they have a unique relationship with the regime in Syria.

QUESTION: And finally, do you think that it is doable by the end of August for the talks to start, as Mr. de Mistura --

MR KIRBY: Well, we certainly hope so, Said. I mean, that’s really not – I don’t think anybody can predict it, but the special envoy did suggest that he was going to try to get the next round started before the end of August. The Secretary supports that goal and that effort. And that’s why I think, back to what he said yesterday, we’re – we have teams that are working so hard, a U.S. team and a Russia team working so hard right now to try to get the technicalities worked out of these proposals to better enforce the cessation of hostilities. Because we both know that that was a big reason why the previous three rounds didn’t work, because the cessation was not being observed.

Okay.

QUESTION: John, Turkey?

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: Can we just stay on this?

MR KIRBY: Sure.

QUESTION: So really after the – everyone was under the impression that after the August 1st, if there wasn’t a transition process in place or at least talks going on, that there was going to be some kind of a change in how you approach this. Clearly that doesn’t seem to be the case. Is that right?

MR KIRBY: I don’t know – I think some people – I’ve seen some reporting on this that would suggest that there was some sort of gauntlet thrown down about August 1st, and that’s just not the case. It was not a deadline. It was a target date. It wasn’t just the United States. The Russians also – when that date was rolled out as a target date, it was in Moscow, and the Secretary was standing next to Foreign Minister Lavrov, who also agreed that the 1st of August was a good date to be looking at, not just – and they didn’t just pull it out of thin air. It was – if you look at the timeline or the process that was codified in the UN Security Council resolution, it would lead you to say that August was the timeframe when a framework for a transitioning governing body was to be established.

QUESTION: Yes, but --

MR KIRBY: Now, wait now. I’m getting there. Hang on a second. This is all important pretext. But --

QUESTION: Okay. I thought you said you wanted to be done by 1:00.

MR KIRBY: Well, I do. I do. I can get this --

QUESTION: We can go back through all four years of this.

MR KIRBY: I can get this answer done by 1:00, I promise you.

QUESTION: But my question is very, very simple, though. You said that it – you said it – that the August 1 date didn’t appear out of – just didn’t come out of thin air. But it appears to have gone into thin air now.

MR KIRBY: No, not at all.

QUESTION: Yeah, it certainly does, John.

MR KIRBY: Not at all, Matt. I mean, look, we got --

QUESTION: We only have 24 --

QUESTION: Right. Okay.

QUESTION: 1:00 p.m. (Laughter.)

MR KIRBY: We have – I mean, we have the potential of a resumption of political talks here in August. We have two teams that are working very, very hard, between the United States and Russia, to try to get some of these technicalities worked out. What the Secretary said then and what he said again yesterday was, in essence, our patience is not infinite. And we have, in the past, thought through alternatives to this preferred diplomatic approach, and we will continue, as a government, to continue to look at alternatives and options. But if you’re asking has, as of today, August 2nd, the strategy changed, the answer is no. And the Secretary still believes that the efforts that we’ve got these teams working on are worthwhile and that, as he said in Moscow a week or so ago, if fully implemented and in good faith, they have a real possibility of getting the cessation of hostilities to be enforceable nationwide.

QUESTION: What’s the new date now?

MR KIRBY: Hmm?

QUESTION: What’s the new date? Any other date?

MR KIRBY: I don’t have a new date for you. And again, August 1st was a target; it wasn’t a deadline.

QUESTION: What’s the new target? (Laughter.)

MR KIRBY: I’m not going to throw out a new target. The Secretary said yesterday we’re working hard on this with the Russians. We’re mindful of the failures of the past to see the cessation of hostilities be enforced. And we’re certainly mindful, as we work on this, of special de Mistura – Special Envoy de Mistura’s goal of trying to get the talks resumed in the end of August. So we’re going to keep working at it, and we’ll see where it goes.

QUESTION: Kirby, the Secretary yesterday said that if – he said we’re trying to arrive at that – that being disrupting the cycle of violence and getting the Russians to refrain from their own attacks and to restrain the Syrian Government from offensive actions. And he said, quote, “If we can’t, nobody’s going to sit around and allow this pretense to continue,” closed quote. What did he mean by that?

MR KIRBY: I think he was referring to the fact that we have seen the regime, time and time again in the past, say they were going to do something and not do it. We have seen, time and time again in the past, the Russians claim that they were going to use their influence on the Assad regime to bring about a certain outcome – humanitarian access, cessation violations, support to a political process. And there have been times where they have not made – met their own commitments in that regard. So that’s what he referring to. I mean --

QUESTION: Is he going to drop the diplomatic pretense at some point?

MR KIRBY: I’m not – again, I’m not going to engage in hypotheticals here. I think the Secretary was very clear. Again, the point he was trying to make is that our patience isn’t infinite here for this approach that we’ve been trying to pursue.

QUESTION: In a sense, it doesn’t have to be infinite though. I mean, your patience can just extend for six months till the end of this Administration.

MR KIRBY: I couldn’t – I’m not going to predict that, Arshad. And I rather take issue with the notion – and I’m not saying you’re suggesting this, but just let me put it out there – that the work the Secretary’s doing to try to bring peace about in Syria is driven by the electoral calendar here in the United States. He’s mindful, of course, that we have an election coming and he’s mindful that the Administration has roughly six more months in office, and he knows that. But that’s not what’s driving his sense of urgency to try to get something done, to try to make progress in Syria. What’s driving his sense of urgency, quite frankly, are reports such as what you cited today, which, again, we can’t confirm, but if true are very, very troubling. It’s more and more Syrians are being killed, maimed, injured, forced to flee by their own government, and that’s simply unacceptable.

QUESTION: Is it conceivable to you that U.S. patience or that this Administration’s patience will run out before it leaves office?

MR KIRBY: I don’t honestly know the answer to that, and I don’t think the Secretary knows the answer to that. I have said before, and I think you could hear it in his voice yesterday, that he is increasingly frustrated by the situation on the ground.

QUESTION: Can you comment on the humanitarian corridors that – the UN’s saying that they ought to be under the auspices of the UN. The Russians are saying we can make – facilitate those human – in Aleppo.

MR KIRBY: The UN.

QUESTION: Yeah, UN. Yeah. You think – do you have --

MR KIRBY: Well, I don’t have anything additional to say. We talked about this last week. Our point is --

QUESTION: But now it seems to be people and fighters and so on that are actually taking advantage and leaving the city.

MR KIRBY: Well, those are tough decisions that those individuals have to make in terms of whether they’re going to use those humanitarian corridors to leave. We’re concerned that when they do that there’s not a sufficient infrastructure to support them out there as displaced persons internally in Syria.

But the point, Said, is – and this hasn’t changed – that they shouldn’t have to flee. They shouldn’t have to make that choice, because there’s already requirements – international requirements for the Syrian Government to provide humanitarian access and support to their own people, and that’s – that hasn’t been happening in a sustained, unimpeded way as the assault on Aleppo continues. And if the cessation of hostilities was being observed by the regime, then there would be no need for a humanitarian corridor in the first place.

QUESTION: And just so you know, you can announce the other stop on the trip.

MR KIRBY: Well, let me wait for Elizabeth to get back, but thank you.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR KIRBY: Let me go to you and then we’ll go to you.

QUESTION: Turkey.

MR KIRBY: Okay. I can’t keep track of so – just one at a time, guys. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Okay. At the Aspen meetings last week or over the weekend, the CIA Director John Brennan said, quote, “We’re still a long way from a situation in which,” quote, “the bulk of the people” – and he’s referring to Iraq and Syria – “view their country as representative.” Would you agree or disagree with that statement, that characterization? If you disagree, why would – why do you disagree with the CIA view?

MR KIRBY: That sounds like a question from my history exam in college. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Well, how – is it --

MR KIRBY: If not, why not. Listen, I’m going to let the – I’m going to let the director speak for his knowledge of views. I’m not a pollster. I don’t – I couldn’t possibly speak with any expertise about the opinions of the majority of Iraqi citizens.

This is what I can speak to, and this is what I do know, that we continue to support Prime Minister Abadi as he continues to work through political reforms and to try to form a more inclusive, more effective, more efficient government in Iraq – oh, by the way, fighting a major presence inside his own borders of a terrorist group, Daesh. So there’s an awful lot on his plate. There’s an awful lot on the plate of the Iraqi Government. We’re going to continue to support them as they continue to work through these issues.

And he has made progress. There is no question, when you look at Iraqi Security Forces, that they are more inclusive, that their battlefield competence is rising, in many ways because we’re helping with that mission on the ground, and that they have been effective on the ground against Daesh in many places throughout Iraq: Fallujah, Tikrit – I mean, you could go on and on – Baiji.

So we’re committed to this effort, alongside our Iraqi partners, and we’re going to do everything that we do in Iraq with their consultation, with their permission, with their support going forward.

QUESTION: Does the U.S. view the legacy of sectarianism from the Maliki government something that it has to help the Abadi government deal with, to encourage them and help them – help Abadi deal with that legacy of sectarianism?

MR KIRBY: Look, certainly we’ve talked about this, that one of the reasons that we believe Daesh was able to be so effective two years ago going through Mosul was they went up against Iraqi Security Forces that had not been properly maintained in leadership, in resources, in training and equipment, and an Iraqi Security Force that Prime Minister Maliki paid little heed to when it came to making it more pluralistic and non-sectarian and inclusive. And so when Prime Minister Abadi came into office, I mean, he knew that that was a problem he was inheriting, and he has made strides to try to improve that. And we’ve seen it on the ground; we’ve seen it in Baghdad. We’re going to continue to support him as he works through that.

But look, nobody also ever expected the challenges facing him to be solved overnight. Again, he’s trying to do – anything that – take Daesh out of the picture and the tasks before him are still daunting. They’re – I mean, given what he inherited and the turmoil that Iraq has gone through for so long, then you add Daesh into the picture and you can see that there is an awful lot of work that still needs to be done. And we’re mindful of that. We’re committed to standing with him as he does that, as he works through that.

QUESTION: Libya?

MR KIRBY: Yeah, sure.

QUESTION: Not so long ago, commander of U.S. forces in Africa at his confirmation hearing – Thomas Waldhauser – said that he did not know what the overall strategy in Libya was. What is the overall strategy in Libya? It appears that with the Libyan Government not being able to fight terrorists on its own, the U.S. will be there for a long time. What is the U.S. doing not to be there for a long time?

MR KIRBY: Well, let me challenge a couple of the notions in your question, but I’ll do it this way: The strategy in Libya continues to be to support the Government of National Accord and a – and the political process that Prime Minister al-Sarraj is trying to put in place to, again, form an effective unity government. And we continue to believe that the best path forward for the Libyan people is a political path and political solutions, and our support to the prime minister remains steadfast and sure.

The strikes that you’re talking about in the last couple of days – and they were airstrikes; there was no U.S. footprint on the ground here – they were airstrikes and they were done at the specific request of the prime minister and the Government of National Accord to go after Daesh targets inside Libya.

QUESTION: The overall strategy is to support the GNA, the GNA moving forward?

MR KIRBY: Correct.

QUESTION: Well, the GNA has been having a very difficult time unifying the country. There is this parallel government in Tobruk, and just a few days ago the parliament in Tobruk refused to vote – refused to hold a vote of confidence in the GNA. So at a time when the GNA is having a difficult time unifying the country, do you think UN backing and now U.S. military support could give a green light to give a sort of a signal to the GNA to crack down on parts of the country that won’t go along with it?

MR KIRBY: Well, we’re not interested in seeing a crackdown, to use your phrase. We’re interested in seeing the GNA succeed, and we’re going to support the prime minister in his efforts to do just that. And to the other parties --

QUESTION: But it may happen.

MR KIRBY: To the other parties that you’re talking about, we continue to call on them to support the GNA. The responsibility is on them to support the GNA as the international community is supporting the GNA. That’s the path forward here; that’s the best thing for all Libyans. And so to the degree that they want to obstruct, delay, obfuscate, and make more difficult the work of the GNA, then we’re just – we’re going to continue to call on them to cease those activities and support the GNA. That’s the way forward.

And as – and this is a political solution that we’re seeking, not a military one. But the President has been clear – President Obama has been clear – that where and when we’re able to degrade and defeat Daesh, we’re going to do it. Now, these strikes were done at the specific request of the GNA, and I suspect you’ll see that kind of communication and consultation going forward. It wasn’t the first time that we did strikes against Daesh targets in Libya and it may not be the last.

QUESTION: Is the U.S. arming or planning to arm forces under the control of the GNA?

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

QUESTION: What about U.S. ground troops? Are there plans to deploy troops in Libya to fight against ISIL?

MR KIRBY: You’d have to talk to the Defense Department, but I am aware of no such plans. Again, we’re seeking political solutions in Libya. This is a – the strikes you saw yesterday were very much in keeping with the same approach that we’ve taken in Iraq and that we have tried to take in Syria, which is supporting ground forces – indigenous ground forces to fight against Daesh. So I’m not aware of any change in those plans at all from a military perspective and no – not aware of any effort or desire or intent to put U.S. forces in a combat role on the ground in Libya. This is about supporting indigenous ground forces, as we’ve done elsewhere.

QUESTION: A quick follow-up? A quick follow --

QUESTION: Do you reject the Russians’ claims that you are acting illegally? They claim that you are acting illegally.

MR KIRBY: The --

QUESTION: The Russians.

MR KIRBY: Well, I’ve seen the claims. It’s just false. There was a legal authority to do this in terms of our counterterrorism role. And again, I would remind you, Said, it was a specific request by the GNA and Prime Minister al-Sarraj to conduct these strikes.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Turkey President Erdogan is now saying that Turkey’s friends are standing with terrorists and coup plotters. His government has now, it says, submitted a second document to the United States explaining why Gulen needs to be immediately arrested. And there’s a delegation of Turkish lawmakers in town visiting Justice, DHS, and over here. I’m wondering if you’ve got anything to respond to these comments, especially about that – if – essentially, they’re saying if the United States doesn’t hand over Gulen, then the United States is supporting terrorists and coup plotters and it could endanger the strategic alliance.

MR KIRBY: Well, look, I think, again, we very strongly condemn the failed coup. We’ve strongly rejected any attempt to overthrow democracy in Turkey. And we support, as we’ve said from the very beginning, the democratically elected government there. Turkey remains a NATO ally. They remain a key partner in the coalition to defeat Daesh. I think you saw that General Dunford, the Joint Chiefs chairman, was just recently there and had good, constructive meetings and came out of those meetings and publicly commented about the positive tone of those discussions. Incirlik remains open to U.S. aircraft to conduct strikes against Daesh in Syria and we look for that cooperation to continue.

We’re mindful that this was a serious coup attempt and that Turkey has put in place measures to investigate and to try to bring those responsible to account. All along, from the very beginning, we’ve also urged and encouraged our friend Turkey, as they do this, to observe rule of law and to preserve confidence in their own democratic institutions. And we’re going to stay committed to that partnership going forward.

So I’ve seen lots of comments out there, and again, just like before, I’m not going to respond to every bit of rhetoric. But again, I can assure you that Turkey has no better friend than the United States. We want to see Turkey emerge from this strong and democratic and surefooted.

QUESTION: But you mentioned General Dunford’s visit and his comments and his message to the Turkish officials that he spoke with.

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: And you talked about how he spoke of a positive tone of these discussions, and yet less than a day afterwards, the president of the country – not the joint – not the Turkish joint chiefs chairman, not the Turkish prime minister, but the president of the country, the commander-in-chief makes these comments. Does that not dishearten you at all? I mean, is this message – this message that you guys are trying to send doesn’t seem to be getting through. Isn’t that --

MR KIRBY: Well, again, I can’t --

QUESTION: Isn’t that a problem?

MR KIRBY: I can’t speak for President Erdogan or his comments. I can only speak for us and --

QUESTION: I know. Aren’t you – and my – so my question is: What – are you not – does this not dishearten you? Does it not make you – annoy you or bother you that your good friend, ally, democratically elected President Erdogan that your – send your Joint Chiefs of – chairman of your Joint Chiefs of Staff over there to make nice with his people and to explain your position, and yet the next day, he comes out and trashes you again?

MR KIRBY: Well, look --

QUESTION: That’s not a problem?

MR KIRBY: Matt, what matters is the partnership that we have with Turkey going forward, and certainly in the practical, tangible ways that partnership can be realized such as going after Daesh in Syria and the support that we continue to get from Turkey in that regard.

President Erdogan, as the sovereign head of state of the Government of Turkey, is certainly free to express his views and his frustrations as he sees fit. We respect his right to do that. We’ve also been open and honest that even before the coup, we didn’t agree with Turkey on everything. So we’re going to stay committed to having the dialogue going forward, and that dialogue is happening. I mean, our ambassador, John Bass, is still working hard every day in Ankara to reach out to his counterparts and to talk about these developments as they go forward.

QUESTION: Do you know anything about the second document that was mentioned that the Turks have talked --

MR KIRBY: No, I have not heard about a second document. And again, I’d refer you to Justice Department on all questions about extradition.

QUESTION: But President Erdogan is going to Moscow in one week. Do you read anything in this visit?

MR KIRBY: You’d have to talk to President Erdogan about his travel habits and his plans. I don’t know. I mean, again, sovereign heads of state are – have every right and responsibility to conduct bilateral relations as they see fit.

QUESTION: One more on this, if I may.

MR KIRBY: Sure.

QUESTION: President Erdogan is quoted, at least in our story, as saying, “I’m calling on the United States: what kind of strategic partners are we that you can still host someone whose extradition I have asked for?” Do you regard the – what you are aware of as so far having been transmitted by the Turks – I’m not asking about the second batch, if there was a second document. Do you regard that as an extradition request?

MR KIRBY: As I understand it – and now I’m getting into an area really that it’s not for the State Department to comment on. So I’m going to obviously refer you to Justice. But as I understand it, they are in receipt of documents. I do not know how many; I do not know in what number of batches they’ve come in, nor do I know the content. And as I understand it, they are still analyzing those documents, and I don’t believe that a judgment is made one way or the other yet in terms of whether it’s formal extradition.

I do want to make two points --

QUESTION: Formal extradition request.

MR KIRBY: Right.

QUESTION: Yep.

MR KIRBY: Yes. A couple of points. It can be, as I said before, a lengthy legal process, the task of extradition. And as you know, we don’t typically make it a habit of speaking to specific cases. Now, this one was obviously unique, given the circumstances. It was unavoidable that we would have to address it, given the very public calls for it by the Government of Turkey. So we have had to do that. But I don’t want to set an expectation up that we’re going to be able to give you a blow-by-blow of the process as it works its way through.

QUESTION: Well, except that they keep yelling about it and talking about it in public, and if that forced you to talk about it the first time, I think it – you’re going to have to – you’re going to keep getting the question, whether you’re prepared to answer it or not.

MR KIRBY: No, I’m --

QUESTION: Anyone else has --

MR KIRBY: -- fully prepared – look, I know I’m going to get – continue to get the question. But again, it’s a process, and we’re going to try to preserve the sanctity of it. And while I understand that it’s going to keep coming up here, I just want to set the expectations as low as possible that I’m going to be able to provide a very detailed rundown every single day of the progress of it.

QUESTION: You succeeded.

QUESTION: Two very quick questions.

MR KIRBY: Yeah, you’re going to have to be real quick, because I got to get going.

QUESTION: Very quick. Today also President Erdogan said there has not been a single Western officials visited me after General Dunford. I was wondering if you have any visitors going to Turkey from U.S. Government any time soon.

MR KIRBY: I don’t have any other travel to speak to, other than the chairman’s trip --

QUESTION: And second very quick question is that it has almost been three weeks since the coup attempt, and you said that you want Turkey to observe the rule of law. Do you think so far Turkey’s action not --

MR KIRBY: I’ve also said I’m not going to characterize every action that they take. I’m not going to start doing that today. We – our ambassador, John Bass, is working very closely with his counterparts in Ankara, talking through what the developments are and the decisions that the government is making. And I’m going to leave it there for today.

I do have – Matt was right, and I can now --

QUESTION: Oh.

MR KIRBY: I know --

QUESTION: I’m going to put that on a loop --

MR KIRBY: Absolutely. I think --

QUESTION: -- and have it play continually. (Laughter.)

MR KIRBY: I’m going to have a cake tonight in your honor, because I – for you to be right. But the President did announce today that the designation of a presidential delegation to attend the opening ceremony of the 2016 Olympic Summer Games in Rio, the – that the opening ceremonies would be held on the 5th of August; the delegation will attend athletic events, meet with U.S. athletes, and attend the opening ceremony. The Secretary will be leading that delegation. And then the White House put out a list of the rest of the delegation members. I’ll refer you to their press release on that.

And with that, have a great afternoon. Thank you.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Bon appetit.

(The briefing was concluded at 12:59 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.