U.S. Department of State's Blog, page 12

Daily Press Briefings : Daily Press Briefing - July 29, 2016

John Kirby

Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC

July 29, 2016









Index for Today's Briefing

CUBA



YEMEN/REGION



AFGHANISTAN



SYRIA/REGION



UAE/REGION



TURKEY



IRAQ/REGION



TURKEY



INDIA/REGION



PAKISTAN/AFGHANISTAN




TRANSCRIPT:

1:36 p.m. EDT

MR KIRBY: Good afternoon, everybody. Happy Friday to you. A couple things at the top.

On Cuba, we are concerned about the physical well-being of Guillermo Farinas, Carlos Amel, and other activists that are engaged in a hunger strike. We are monitoring their situation closely. We stand in solidarity with those who advocate for human rights and fundamental freedoms, including freedom of expression and the right to peaceful assembly. We have raised our concerns directly with the Cuban Government both in Washington and Havana.

On Yemen, we note with grave concern yesterday’s announcement issued by some elements within the Houthi General People’s Congress to form a governing council. Such actions are out of step with the spirit of the negotiations and do not constructively move the talks forward. We maintain that the UN-led negotiations are the single best chance for stability, and we call upon parties to show good faith and flexibility to make progress that will directly improve the lives of millions of Yemenis. The people of Yemen have suffered for far too long and they are counting on their representatives in Kuwait to restore peace. We reiterate our strong support for UN Special Envoy Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed and his efforts over the course of these talks. We also express our deep appreciation to the Government of Kuwait for their support in hosting the negotiations and the role that they are playing to bring stability to the region.

Finally, on Afghanistan, we welcome Afghanistan today as the 164th member of the World Trade Organization, or WTO. Afghanistan will enjoy new opportunities now for multilateral trade and expand its potential for future development and prosperity. We applaud Afghanistan for the years of effort required to meet this milestone achievement and we look forward to working together with that country as a full member of the WTO going forward.

Arshad.

QUESTION: Can we start with Syria?

MR KIRBY: Sure.

QUESTION: The conversations that Secretary Kerry said are now ongoing in which you’re trying to figure out whether or not the Russian humanitarian operation is a ruse, where are they taking place, who’s involved in them, and what have you learned so far?

MR KIRBY: I think there’s a little confusion there in the question. He was referring – there’s sort of two things here. There are discussions going on between U.S. and Russia teams in Geneva – I talked about this a little bit yesterday – to work through the technicalities and the modalities of the proposals that Foreign Minister Lavrov and Secretary Kerry agreed to back in Moscow a couple of weeks ago. These are designed to get the cessation of hostilities in a better place, to get it more enforceable, and to create the space that Special Envoy de Mistura needs to resume the political talks.

And I think you heard the Secretary today talk about conversations he’s been having with Russian officials to better understand the announcement yesterday of humanitarian corridors and what that – and what that means, and also to express quite frankly our concerns about these corridors. There should be no need for them if the cessation of hostilities is being enforced and observed in and around Aleppo. People should not have to be told to leave or given the impression that there is some sort of forced evacuation. They should be able to stay in their homes peacefully because they’re not at risk by regime forces.

QUESTION: Well, here’s – I’m looking at what he said, and he suggested that there are – so are the conversations that he’s talking about with regard to Aleppo, those are the conversations that he’s having with the Russians?

MR KIRBY: Those were the – that was the question you asked him today, was about – was about Aleppo and the humanitarian corridor, and he referred to discussions he’s been having with Russian officials about that. But there are – and look, in addition to discussions in Geneva, of course, the Secretary has maintained a healthy dialogue with Foreign Minister Lavrov about the proposals.

QUESTION: But that’s not what he said. I mean, I asked him about it and he said, “We’re deeply concerned about the definition, and I have talked to Moscow twice in the last 24 hours. I met with Foreign Minister Lavrov in Laos three days ago. This is very much potentially a challenge, but we have a team that is meeting today working on this and we’ll find out whether or not it’s real or not.”

MR KIRBY: He’s referring to the same U.S.-Russia teams that I was talking about in Geneva. They are there primarily to work through the technicalities and modalities of these proposals, but it – I think it stands within reason that they would also be discussing with Russia and Russian authorities that are part of their delegation about these humanitarian corridors.

QUESTION: Okay, so they are --

MR KIRBY: But that’s not the function. That’s not the purpose.

QUESTION: I get it, but they are talking about that. I mean, that’s what he said.

MR KIRBY: Well, that’s what he said. Yeah.

QUESTION: Okay. So --

MR KIRBY: I can’t dispute that.

QUESTION: So do you have any – I mean, it’s fairly late now in Geneva. Do you have any greater understanding as to whether this is or isn’t a ruse?

MR KIRBY: Well, I’m not quite sure when you say “ruse” what you mean. Can you explain to me what you mean by a ruse?

QUESTION: Well, yesterday you yourself from the podium raised questions about the plan, and you said, if I remember correctly, that it – without further clarification, it appeared to be an effort to get militants to surrender and to get civilians to leave.

MR KIRBY: And to force an evacuation.

QUESTION: Yeah, exactly.

MR KIRBY: Yeah. So we are – so --

QUESTION: So rather than being a humanitarian operation where you’re trying to protect everybody, you yourself were suggesting that what they’re really trying to do is get the militants to just lay down their arms and get everybody else to leave.

MR KIRBY: I was saying that without further clarification --

QUESTION: Right.

MR KIRBY: -- that’s what it appears to be. But I don’t think I used the word “ruse.” In any event --

QUESTION: No, but he did.

MR KIRBY: In any event --

QUESTION: But he did.

MR KIRBY: Well, he did because it was raised in the question that you asked him today.

QUESTION: I don’t decide what comes out of his mouth. He didn’t have to use that word.

MR KIRBY: In any event – in any event, we could argue all day about the word “ruse.” In any event, we still don’t have additional clarification enough to be able to fully know, and that is what the Secretary was alluding to today.

QUESTION: One other thing: Why would you need to evacuate civilians if the purpose of your actions is to provide them with humanitarian relief? Why not just give them humanitarian supplies?

MR KIRBY: Excellent question, and probably one of the questions that our team is trying to explore with Russian officials. I couldn’t possibly answer that. Only they can answer that.

QUESTION: And what do you think about Special Envoy de Mistura’s statement today that perhaps what they should do is take these corridors, if they are opening them, and simply hand them over to the UN so that the UN can then take responsibility for the delivery of humanitarian assistance to the people in the city, as you’ve been – or in those parts of the city, as you’ve been demanding for many, many months now?

MR KIRBY: Well, again, I’d say, first of all, there should be no need for humanitarian corridors because there should be no need for the people of Aleppo to feel besieged – and they do, and they are. Point one.

Point two, we’ve seen the comments that the special envoy made about the potential role here for the UN, and we’re trying to get a little bit more clarity on exactly what he meant by that. I don’t have an update for you and I don’t have a position by the United States on that suggestion. But as with all manners of proposals and options and alternatives proposed by the special envoy, obviously we take those seriously; we want to learn more about it.

QUESTION: One more thing. Why – is fundamentally your fear that what the Russians and the Syrian Government are trying to do, if indeed they are trying to get the opposition fighters to lay down their arms and get the civilians to evacuate – is your fundamental concern that they’re essentially laying the ground for Syrian Government or allied forces to retake and bring all of Aleppo under government control? Is that what you think may be the objective of this?

MR KIRBY: Again, we’re not – we don’t have perfect clarity on what they’re trying to do, which is why our teams are going to be discussing and why the Secretary also is personally trying to get better clarity on what this means. But as I said yesterday, that if that is the – if it – if it, as it appears to be – if it is as it appears to be, which is a forced evacuation and an attempt to basically purge Aleppo of opposition groups, in other words force a surrender, then it would be absolutely in violation of UN Security Council Resolution 2254, which, by the way, the Russians voted for and signed up to – as a matter of fact, as part of the ISSG, helped create. And that would be obviously of deep concern to us. But we need to know more.

QUESTION: Last one. The Secretary said he spoke to Moscow twice in the last 24 hours, and I asked him if it was Lavrov and I didn’t quite understand his – whether he responded to that. Has he spoken to Foreign Minister Lavrov twice in the last 24 hours or to somebody else?

MR KIRBY: I do not have any recent conversations with Foreign Minister Lavrov to read out to you.

QUESTION: Does that mean he’s talking to somebody else?

MR KIRBY: I don’t have any conversations with Foreign Minister Lavrov to read out with you over the last 24, 36 hours.

QUESTION: Does the Secretary ever speak directly to President Putin?

MR KIRBY: Of course he speaks directly to President Putin.

QUESTION: On the phone?

MR KIRBY: I’m not aware of phone calls with President Putin. He’s obviously met with President Putin. I can assure you that he was not referring to President Putin in this regard.

QUESTION: Then who’s he talking to?

MR KIRBY: I just don’t have further details to read out to you in terms of his conversations. He said he has talked to Moscow – to Russian officials – twice in the last 24 hours, and I think I’m just going to leave it at that.

Abbie.

QUESTION: The Russians are reporting that the U.S. ambassador requested a meeting with the deputy foreign minister, which occurred today. Do you have any further readout of that meeting? They said that Syria was discussed. Was that an attempt to get clarity through discussions with the U.S. ambassador?

MR KIRBY: With the – I’m sorry, the --

QUESTION: The U.S. ambassador to Russia met with the deputy foreign minister today in Russia.

MR KIRBY: Oh, our ambassador in Moscow.

QUESTION: Yes. My apologies. Yes.

MR KIRBY: I’m sorry – no, no, no, I just – I was having trouble. I don’t have a readout of that meeting or discussion, so we’ll – I’ll have to take the question and see if we can get more clarity for you on that. So I just don’t know. I don’t know what the character of that conversation was.

QUESTION: Turkey?

QUESTION: When you – sorry, when you say “talked to Russia” --

QUESTION: Syria and Iraq?

QUESTION: When you say “talked to Moscow,” he definitely meant, as you just said, talking to Russian officials, not talking to the U.S. embassy in Moscow to try to get them to figure this out?

MR KIRBY: I’m – again, I’ve got no more clarity – no more detail to provide with respect to those conversations.

QUESTION: But what you just said was “talking to Moscow, to Russian officials.” So you – he did talk to Russian officials, correct?

MR KIRBY: He – yes, he spoke to Russian officials.

QUESTION: Fine. Thanks.

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: There was this meeting in the building today with about 20 countries on aiding ethnic and religious minorities that have been targeted by ISIS in Syria and Iraq, and I’m just wondering if you have any actionable takeaway to report from this conference today.

MR KIRBY: Well, the conference just ended, and I’m certain that we will be providing more detail about that. It was over the last two days. I think we’re going to let the organizers gather and collect takeaways from that, and I’m sure that we’ll have more information to provide as a result of it. So I don’t want to get ahead of the findings, recommendations, or ways ahead that they might have taken away from it, but it was an important two days and an important discussion to have. It’s something that the Secretary remains focused on and I can assure you will for the entire time that he’s in office.

QUESTION: Will what?

MR KIRBY: And will remain focused on.

Samir.

QUESTION: Can you give us a readout about the Secretary’s meeting with the United Arab Emirates foreign minister today?

MR KIRBY: It was a good meeting. I think you saw that he spoke a little bit to media beforehand. Obviously, lots to discuss with the foreign minister, not least of which, of course, is what’s going on in Syria, but also the issue of violent extremism throughout the region.

QUESTION: How about Libya?

MR KIRBY: They – obviously, you can expect that topics like Libya, topics like Yemen, and the broader challenges in the Middle East obviously came up, yes.

QUESTION: How about Iraq?

MR KIRBY: They talked about the counter-Daesh efforts, which obviously includes what’s going on in Iraq.

Yes.

QUESTION: Turkey?

MR KIRBY: Go ahead.

QUESTION: A Turkish prosecutor prepared an indictment regarding the failed coup, and it says that – the indictment says that the CIA and the FBI trained Gulen followers. This is not the first time Turkish officials are trying to tie the U.S. to the coup attempt. I know that you said that the accusations are ludicrous, but they are constant. I wonder, how does this constant flow of accusations affect cooperation between the U.S. and Turkey?

MR KIRBY: There’s no change in the cooperation with Turkey, particularly when it comes to their support for the counter-Daesh operations. As I think our military has spoken to, the operations at Incirlik have resumed to a normal level. So I’m not aware of any practical, tangible impact on our bilateral cooperation with respect to Daesh, but again, I would just say what I said yesterday: Any accusation, claim, allegation, or suspicion that the United States was in any way involved in this coup attempt is utterly false and inaccurate.

QUESTION: Sir, James Clapper said – seemed to have said the opposite of what you just said. He said that the purge in the military is harming cooperation with Turkey, especially regarding operations against ISIL. He said many of our interlocutors have been purged or arrested, there’s no question this is going to set back and make more difficult cooperation with Turkey. Now, how serious is that? What you’re saying seems to be conflicting what he said.

MR KIRBY: Well, your question was has there been any impact, and my answer to that is no. To date, there’s been no impact on Turkey’s cooperation and membership and participation as a member of the coalition against Daesh. And I would also point you to what Turkish officials have said themselves to us bilaterally, but even publicly, that there’s not going to be any negative developments as a result of their efforts to investigate and get to the bottom of this coup on their willingness and ability to continue to support coalition operations. And again, thus far, there haven’t been.

I’m not in the predicting business and so I’m not going to engage in hypotheticals or speculation about where this goes forward. But thus far, as you and I are sitting here talking, there’s been no practical impact.

QUESTION: Turkey – in response to General Votel’s expressing concerns about the purge in the military, President Erdogan has just accused him of siding with coup plotters and said, quote/unquote, “Know your place.” Do you think Turkey has crossed the line in the friendship that you often talk about? And is there a line that Turkey can cross?

MR KIRBY: Well, again, I’ve seen those comments. I think you saw that General Votel himself put out a statement just not long ago making it clear that he wasn’t at all siding with coup plotters. As a matter of fact, as you know, our government has condemned that coup attempt very clearly and very consistently. And I’m also not going to react to every bit of rhetoric out there that seems to come every day. Turkey is a NATO ally, they are a friend, and they are a partner – an important partner, especially in the efforts to counter Daesh in Syria. And that partnership continues. And they themselves have committed to continuing that partnership and that’s where our focus is going to be going forward.

QUESTION: That rhetoric seems to be having an impact on the ground in Turkey. Just earlier this week, thousands of people marched onto the Incirlik Air Base chanting anti-American slogans. Are you concerned about the safety of U.S. personnel in Turkey and the safety of nuclear weapons at the Incirlik Air Base?

MR KIRBY: I’m not going to speak to the latter one way or the other. As to the former, we are always concerned about the safety and security of U.S. personnel, be they military or civilian, certainly those that work inside our embassies and facilities. I mean, that’s something we’re always concerned about, and not long ago, a couple weeks ago, you and I, we were all talking about steps that we were taking to try to help better ensure that safety and security right inside Turkey because of the terrorist threat. Now, I’ve seen the reports of the protest activity. We – above so many others, we value freedom of expression and peaceful assembly, and the Turkish people have that right. That’s a democratic principle that’s enshrined in their own constitution. They have that right. And they have – and they certainly have the right to express their views one way or another.

If you’re asking me, as a result of that protest, did that elevate our concerns, I’m not aware that it did. As far as I have seen, it was a peaceful assembly of people expressing their views and did not pose a threat to American personnel or our equipment or facilities.

QUESTION: But are you worried that the accusations and the rhetoric that Turkish officials are putting out there may incite violence against U.S. personnel in Turkey?

MR KIRBY: Well, I mean, we certainly don’t want to see any rhetoric enflame tensions or lead to or encourage violence. And I can assure you that we are in constant communication with Turkish authorities and have been since the coup attempt to talk to them about what they’re doing and how it’s going. Our ambassador remains engaged every day, but obviously, it’s not – we certainly wouldn’t want to see anything, be it through words or actions, that could put any innocent people in harm’s way – not just Americans, but any innocent individuals in Turkey in harm’s way.

Yeah.

QUESTION: As we’ve discussed here, the State Department did a fantastic job with the pledging conference in support of Iraq, raising $1.2 billion. It’s a lot of money. That was great.

MR KIRBY: Thank you.

QUESTION: (Laughter.) But as was said here as well, the money’s going through Baghdad. The Kurdistan Regional Government – the KRG – has said they don’t expect to see any of it. That’s what the head of their foreign relations department said earlier this week. And that’s – they’re not going to get any of it as far as I understand, because – even though they host two-thirds of the 3 million refugees and IDPs in Iraq, and another 1 million are expected to come in in the context of the Mosul offensive. So first, is that a reasonable assessment? And if it is, are you prepared to use your influence with Baghdad to ensure that some significant part of that money goes to the Kurdistan region? And if not, is there some other way to address this problem?

MR KIRBY: I think there’s a fundamental misunderstanding in the statement itself. The money is not going to Baghdad. The money is going to the UN and to agencies – UN agencies that distribute, based on need, the amount – the proper amounts of humanitarian assistance. So those donations, and our contribution is among them, will go to the UN to distribute. And they do a remarkable job figuring out who needs to get it, where they are, and how much they need to get. And we have complete trust and confidence in their ability to keep doing that.

QUESTION: Thank you for that clarification. It’s an important distinction, so thank you.

MR KIRBY: You’re welcome.

QUESTION: On Turkey, Turkish justice minister and foreign minister said that they have credible information that Gulen, who lives in Pennsylvania, may run away from U.S. I was wondering if you shared a similar concern.

MR KIRBY: I have no information one way or the other about that, and I’d – and that’s really not a matter for the State Department to speak to.

QUESTION: And I was also wondering if U.S. taking any security measures to make sure such thing will not happen.

MR KIRBY: Again, that is not a matter for the State Department to discuss. That’s really a matter for the Justice Department to speak to, and I won’t comment further on that.

QUESTION: Yeah, but in the extradition treaty – and I think it’s in Article 10 – it says in cases of urgency, if – in this case, if Turkey gets suspected of such thing, U.S. needs to arrest the person for 90 days before the extradition. So it involves the State Department and the Justice Department, so I was wondering if any steps on the security of Gulen to make sure that he won’t run away is taken on --

MR KIRBY: I don’t have anything further to add to that. Those are questions that really should be directed to the Justice Department and law enforcement authorities. As I said, we are in receipt of some material. The Justice Department is still analyzing that material, and that – and again, the whole process of extradition can be a fairly lengthy legal process, and we’re going to respect that process. Beyond that, I just don’t have anything more to say.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Turkey?

QUESTION: Just one question on Turkey, to follow-up --

MR KIRBY: I knew we were going to stay on Turkey anyway, so --

QUESTION: Follow-up from yesterday, I think. You were asked about 130 media organizations being shut down in Turkey, and you said that you are seeking to get more information about those shutdown media groups – organizations. And today 20 of 21 journalists detained in recent days sent – the prosecutor ask them to be arrested just today. So it seems like the journalist, most of them, will be arrested, it looks like. I was wondering if you have any comment on that.

MR KIRBY: We still are deeply concerned by these reports and we’re still trying to gather more information. As I said in my previous answer, our ambassador remains daily engaged with his counterparts, as you might think he would.

And again, let me just reiterate again that the United States supports freedom of expression around the world, and we have talked many, many times here in this room about our concerns over freedom of expression and of free press in Turkey. Those concerns remain today. And when any country makes a move to close down media outlets and restrict this universal value, it is of concern to us. And again, we continue to express that.

Okay.

QUESTION: Turkey.

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: I don’t know if you had a chance to look at the story about the so-called Traitors’ Cemetery outside Istanbul. According to our story, which is based – which includes reference to local media reports as well, at least one Turkish military officer who is accused of involvement in the coup was buried in this cemetery, which, as I understand it, is marked Traitors’ Cemetery and – by the government. And he was denied or was not given the normal religious rites that would accompany such a burial. Do you regard that as a violation of his or his family’s rights or religious freedom?

MR KIRBY: Well, look, obviously – and we had a conference here in just the last couple of days about the importance of human rights, religious minorities – and that was obviously for religious minorities. But I mean, freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of worship remains a universal value that we obviously hold in very high regard. So broadly speaking, we always want to be able to see particularly in democracies – we want to be able to see that those rights, that those freedoms are respected.

Now, I’ve seen a press report same as you, Arshad, and I’ve only seen a press report, and nothing beyond this article which I was able to read before coming down here. As I understand it in these very early minutes here after seeing this story that this was a municipal decision, and I think best right now to refer you to the Government of Turkey for more information about this particular decision – which is, again, we understand at this early hour, was made at the municipal level. We are, like you, trying to gain a little bit better clarity about this and what it actually means.

QUESTION: Can I – just one follow-up. When following the killing of Usama bin Ladin, the U.S. Government made very clear that it had chosen to conduct his burial at sea in accordance with Muslim traditions. That was clearly a very deliberate decision even towards someone that the United States held responsible for the killing of 3,000 people on 9/11. Do you think that, as a general principle, people should be – if it is their or their family’s wish, should be – or even in this case if it’s not – I mean, I doubt you consulted the bin Ladin family, although maybe you did – do you think that people should be accorded the normal religious rituals?

MR KIRBY: To be laid to rest in accordance with their religious practices?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR KIRBY: Absolutely we do, sure. Sure we do. And you were right; that was a very sharp example but obviously a famous example of how we observe that ourselves. And of course, as a general principle, as I said, in keeping with our belief in the freedom of worship, we believe that individuals should be accorded those customs, those traditions, those rites, to be laid to rest in keeping with the same practices by which they worshiped when they were alive.

QUESTION: And then last one from me on Turkey. Turkish officials today, I believe, said that something like 50,000 people have been – Turkish citizens have been deprived of their passports following the coup attempt. This is a broader question, but it goes to the fundamental question of – and I know you guys have said, look, they deserve to be able to get to the bottom of this.

On the other hand, when thousands and thousands, or in this case, tens of thousands of people are being affected, for example, by losing their ability to travel outside the country, does that not raise concerns in the United States about Turkey’s ability over the long term to maintain a democratically run and cohesive society? Or do you see any risk that the elimination of or the dismissal of the academics and the incarceration of journalists and the dismissals of civil servants and judges and so on is going to rend the sort of fabric of the society and just make its divisions even deeper over time?

MR KIRBY: Well, we certainly don’t want to see that. As we’ve said many times, Turkey matters to us as a friend and an ally; their democracy matters to us. That is why we’ve been so forthright in recent weeks about press freedoms, for instance. So that is absolutely not an outcome that we would like to see.

But again, we note that this was a serious coup attempt that, though failed, was – had a measure of organization to it and execution to it that would alarm any government so threatened. And we understand their need to try to get to the bottom of this and to try to figure out what happened and to be able to put in place measures so that it can’t happen again. I think any government would be in their rights to do that.

We’re watching this very closely, as we’ve said. We’ve also been very honest with our friends in Turkey about our concerns, about the importance of rule of law and due process, as they go about this investigation. I think we’re loathe to make a judgment or a characterization on each and every decision that’s being made, but I can assure you that we remain in close touch with our counterparts in Turkey as they are being made and as this process moves forward, and we’re going to stay committed to doing just that.

QUESTION: So it’s conceivable to you – I mean, I understand you don’t want to make judgment on each and every thing, but the way you’re talking, it sounds like it’s conceivable to you that it’s perfectly reasonable to pull 50,000 people – I mean, 50,000, that’s like a small city, certainly a very big town – that it’s conceivable, that it’s entirely within – reasonable to pull that many people’s passports as they’re investigating this.

MR KIRBY: That’s not what I said and I’m not making – again, I’m not going to make judgments or characterizations on each and every decision that they’re making. We have been very honest and candid about our concerns with respect to rule of law and due process. Those concerns remain as valid today as they did when we first expressed them, and we will continue to monitor events closely and to stay in close touch with Turkish counterparts. But I’m – as I have before, I’m going to avoid making either lump-sum characterizations or individual characterizations of each and every decision.

QUESTION: Just one question, a follow-up, if I may. You have been talking about these rights – universal rights, fundamental rights – but Turkey suspended European Convention of Human Rights. And so far, these days, the official authorities don’t need to even bring charges to detain anyone, which, right now, what’s going on, journalists are being detained without giving any reason or any evidence, and they stay at least 30 days because of state of emergency. So your citation or reference doesn’t really matter for Turkey, looks like.

MR KIRBY: Well, I think you’d have to ask Turkish officials that question. Nothing’s changed about our views. I don’t – but the decisions they’re making, they should speak to.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Thank you, sir. Jahanzaib Ali from ARY News TV. First, about the situation in Indian-held Kashmir – we spoke about it last time. So more than 50 persons have been killed by the Indian security forces and more than 2,000 are injured. So the latest situation is that the Indian security forces have start using pellet guns on the protesters, which have inflicted horrific injuries on protesters. More than two dozen young kids lost their eyesight. So, sir, the question is here not about the Kashmir problem – I know what you’re going to say about it. The question is about the human rights violations in Kashmir. Do you in touch with the Indian authorities of what really happening in Kashmir?

MR KIRBY: Well, let me say this. I mean, we’ve obviously seen reports of the clashes between protesters and Indian forces in Kashmir. And we’re, of course, concerned by the violence, as you might expect we would be. We encourage all sides to make efforts to find a peaceful solution to this, and I can tell you we are, as you would expect we would be, in close touch with our Indian counterparts there in New Delhi as this goes forward. But we’re obviously concerned by the violence and we want to see the tensions de-escalated.

QUESTION: Sir, human rights violations are not only happening in Kashmir. It’s happening in – over all India. I mean, we have, like, dozens of report of killing people for eating beef. I mean, can you imagine you cannot have beefsteak in India? If you have it, you’re going to be killed. I mean, the – recently – yesterday, the two Muslims women were openly beat up by the Hindu extremist on the road for buying a beef from a shop. I mean, do you have anything to say about that?

MR KIRBY: We stand in solidarity with the people and Government of India in supporting exercise of freedom of religion and expression and in confronting all forms of intolerance. We look forward to continuing to work with the Indian people to realize their tolerant-inclusive vision, which is so deeply in the interests of both India and the United States. And we’re obviously concerned by reports of rising intolerance and violence. We just talked about violence a few seconds ago against minorities. As we do in countries facing such problems around the world, we urge the government to do everything in its power to protect citizens and to hold the perpetrators accountable.

QUESTION: Sir, here’s another question about the Afghan refugees in Pakistan. Sir, they have been asked to leave the – leave Pakistan as soon as possible. As you know, that there are more than 3 million Afghan refugees are living in Pakistan and most of them are living there for the last 30 years. They have kids there, they have grandkids there, but now they are – forcibly, they are facing a deportation. UN also has expressed concerns on that. But are you in touch with the Pakistani authorities --

MR KIRBY: We are in close contact --

QUESTION: -- on the Afghan refugees?

MR KIRBY: We’re in close contact with the Government of Pakistan as it manages what is obviously a complex issue. We along with the UN Refugee Agency UNHCR continue to monitor that situation and to advocate for the humanitarian treatment of all Afghan refugees. We’ve encouraged and we will continue to strongly encourage the Government of Pakistan to treat migrants in accordance with international humanitarian principles. We also recognize Pakistan’s genuine concerns and its right to undertaken appropriate measures to enforce its immigration laws.

Okay, looks like that’s about it. Thanks, everybody. Have a great weekend.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:14 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 - July 28, 2016

John Kirby

Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC

July 28, 2016









Index for Today's Briefing

SECRETARY'S TRAVEL/MIDDLE EAST PEACE



RUSSIA



SYRIA



TURKEY



IRAQ



TURKEY



SYRIA



VENEZUELA



NORTH KOREA



DEPARTMENT



BANGLADESH



CHINA/REGION




TRANSCRIPT:

1:47 p.m. EDT

MR KIRBY: Hey, everybody. I don’t really have much at the top, except to announce that the Secretary will be traveling to Paris, France, tomorrow evening. While in Paris, he will be meeting with President Abbas to obviously talk about prospects towards helping us create conditions for a two-state solution. It – there is a possibility that there could be additional bilateral meetings while we’re in Paris, of course. And as we have more information about his schedule, we will be certain to provide it to you. But the primary purpose is a meeting with President Abbas. The Secretary will return to Washington, D.C., on Sunday.

And with that.

QUESTION: Is that – just a quick thing. You said he’s going to travel tomorrow evening. Will the meetings be on Saturday then?

MR KIRBY: Yes.

QUESTION: Okay. And when you say additional bilats, is it the French or is there any possibility of him meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu?

MR KIRBY: Again, I can only tell you there’s a possibility for additional bilateral meetings, and I don’t have details on those to read out to you today. As soon as we have better clarity on the schedule, we’ll give you that information.

QUESTION: And just simply stated, can you give us a sense of what is the purpose of meeting with President Abbas?

MR KIRBY: Well, I think I sort of addressed it in my opening statement. It’s to continue discussions that we have had with President Abbas about prospects for a two-state solution and trying to make meaningful progress to create the conditions where that solution can be more successfully pursued.

QUESTION: And you think there’s – that’s actually – sorry. You think that’s actually possible between now and the end of the year, to create the conditions where that solution can be more meaningfully pursued?

MR KIRBY: The Secretary’s not looking at trying to make progress based on a fixed date on the calendar. I mean, this is something he’s been focused on since he’s been the Secretary of State and will remain so for, I can assure you, the entire time that he’s in office. And he – you’ve heard him speak to this many times yourself here recently, and of course, you’ve seen the travel that he’s made to the region. This remains an area of prime focus for him, and he’s going to pursue it with the same alacrity and the same energy that he has.

QUESTION: Right. But there’s – I’m – you say he’s not focused on a particular date, but he is surely focused on the date of January 20th, 2017, when he will cease to be Secretary of State. He has less than six months left to try to advance this. And I’m asking if you think – if he thinks that meaningful progress can be made to create the conditions so that this can be fruitfully pursued in those six months. Or is – he really doesn’t – not think that’s possible?

MR KIRBY: No, of course, he believes that there’s – the possibility exists. He wouldn’t be having these discussions, he wouldn’t think it was important enough to go and have this meeting if he didn’t believe that there was still a chance to make meaningful progress.

QUESTION: May I? I think just to put a finer point on what Arshad is saying is, is he trying to just continue to move this along, as you’re saying, until the day he leaves with just the desire to leave it in the best possible shape for his successor? Or is this part of a effort to try and get something meaningful in terms of negotiations or some kind of understandings before he leaves office?

MR KIRBY: I think it’s a genuine, concerted effort, as it has been since he’s been the Secretary of State, to move the process forward, to make progress on creating those conditions where a two-state solution can be realized.

QUESTION: But I mean, again, I’m just going to repeat where – I think you know where I’m coming here. Is he trying to just continue to improve the situation so that his successor can pick it up? Or does he honestly think that between now and then there’s an opening for something tangible, other than just improving the climate for the next administration?

MR KIRBY: Well, look, ultimately, the really decision-makers here are there in the region: President Abbas, Prime Minister Netanyahu. They’re really the ones that can make or break any movement towards a two-state solution.

QUESTION: Is he trying to get negotiations together that could have some kind of – obviously there won’t be a complete and final peace deal before he leaves. There’s just – doesn’t seem to be that kind of space or climate. But is he trying to get some kind of process restarted under his watch?

MR KIRBY: He would like to get us to a position where you can actually make meaningful progress towards a two-state solution, and he’s not going to give up on that goal. I’m not in a position, nor would he, to predict exactly on what timeframe that could happen. But if you’re asking is he just trying to hold down the fort here until he’s done or --

QUESTION: I didn’t say hold down the fort. I did not say hold down the fort. I said continue to – hold down the fort would be to just manage it. I understand and am acknowledging that you’re saying that he’s trying to continue to improve the climate. But is that just – is that trying to lead to something where he would restart what he was doing earlier in the term?

MR KIRBY: I’m not going to predict specific outcomes, Elise. He’s committed to this. He believes that there is still meaningful progress that can be made. And he’s not putting a deadline or a timeline on it. It is an issue of great importance to him. He still has the same sense of urgency about it. And it’s with that same sense of urgency that he is – that’s he’s going to continue to pursue these discussions.

QUESTION: Can I change the subject?

MR KIRBY: Sure.

QUESTION: Last night, Vice President Biden called Vladimir Putin a dictator. Now, that is a very specific word used for the roguest of rogue states. In the past, it’s been used for President Assad, Muammar Qadhafi, North Korea, Saddam Hussein. Is it an official position of this Administration that Vladimir Putin is a dictator?

MR KIRBY: I’m not in a position to characterize – or further characterize the Vice President’s statements. I think they speak for themselves.

QUESTION: Well, was he speaking on his own behalf or was he speaking --

MR KIRBY: He’s the Vice President of the United States, so I mean, as – he’s speaking as the Vice President of the United States. What I can tell is our focus here is --

QUESTION: Would you --

MR KIRBY: -- much less on a title, one way or the other, and more on working with Russia to try to achieve progress on very difficult issues like Syria.

QUESTION: I understand that. And I mean, you’ve worked with dictators in that regard anyway. So it doesn’t – I’m not saying that would preclude you working with Vladimir Putin on Syria or not. Would – from this podium, are you prepared to call Vladimir Putin a dictator?

MR KIRBY: I’m not going to – I’m going to let the Vice President’s comments speak for themselves. And I’m not going to qualify them one way or another going forward.

QUESTION: So are you saying that he’s speaking on behalf of the Administration when he calls Vladimir Putin a dictator?

MR KIRBY: He’s the Vice President of the United States, Elise.

QUESTION: A yes or no answer would be great.

MR KIRBY: You would have to talk to his staff in terms of further clarification or qualification of his comments.

QUESTION: Because the Russians are very – because obviously, there’s a lot of barbs being traded back and forth between the U.S. and Russia, but Russia is taking particular umbrage with --

MR KIRBY: I would point you to the Vice President’s staff for comments about his speech. All I can tell you is that the Secretary remains focused on trying to work with Russia on issues where we think we can work with them on. And that obviously includes Syria and it obviously includes getting more progress on the Minsk agreements. That’s where the Secretary’s head is. That’s where his head is.

QUESTION: Can we --

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

QUESTION: Turkey --

QUESTION: Can we stay with Syria?

MR KIRBY: I think let’s stay with Syria and then we’ll --

QUESTION: Yeah.

QUESTION: So --

QUESTION: Syria, yeah.

MR KIRBY: You were on Syria too?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR KIRBY: All right. Well, let me go to Arshad, then to you, and --

QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.

QUESTION: Syria – the leader of Syria’s Nusrah Front says that it is breaking ties with al-Qaida. Do you still regard – they’ve also adopted – they say they’ve adopted a new name. Do you still regard the group by another name as a terrorist – foreign terrorist organization? And from your point of view, are they still a legitimate target in Syria?

MR KIRBY: Well, look, Arshad, this alleged announcement here of their new name and potentially new affiliation is, what, minutes old here. So I think, as you well know, we judge any organization, including this one, much more by its actions, its ideology, its goals. Affiliations may be a factor, but ultimately it’s their actions, ideology, and goals that matter the most. And that’s how we’re going to judge going forward, as we have in the past. Certainly, thus far – and again, this announcement is, what, less than an hour old – we certainly see no reason to believe that their actions or their objectives are any different, and they are still considered a foreign terrorist organization.

QUESTION: Have there been any messages sent to the Administration or to your interlocutors, whether it’s in the Arab world or Staffan de Mistura, in this vein that along with this affiliation could come some kind of more moderate position that they’d be interested in?

MR KIRBY: No. I mean, again, they just made this announcement, so --

QUESTION: I understand, but they didn’t just do it out of a hat. Like, obviously it’s something that’s been considered for – they didn’t just wake up this morning and say, “We have a new name.” This has obviously been --

MR KIRBY: Then you have more insight into their thinking than I do. I don’t know --

QUESTION: Well, I mean, it didn’t just come out of thin air. I mean, obviously this was a considered decision of at least 24 hours, I would think.

MR KIRBY: You’d have to ask them, Elise.

QUESTION: So I’m just wondering, have you --

MR KIRBY: There has been no communication that I’m aware of that would – that would indicate any sort of a different approach to this group at this point. This announcement just got made. And again, we judge an organization by its actions, its ideologies, its objectives. And we see nothing --

QUESTION: And what if it were to moderate --

MR KIRBY: -- that would change our views at this point.

QUESTION: And what if it were to moderate its actions and just focus more on this – on the Assad regime and not the Syrian moderate opposition?

MR KIRBY: It’s a terrific hypothetical that I would be absolutely – it would be impossible for me to try to engage in.

QUESTION: Well, would you – would it not be a good opportunity to encourage them to do so if the – given the fact that they’re breaking with the world’s most --

MR KIRBY: You mean they needed more encouragement than the – than the fact that they have been targets of kinetic strikes thus far?

QUESTION: No, obviously that’s probably – I mean --

MR KIRBY: That’s – that would be, I would hope, discouraging. So no, look, I can’t predict what this means – it just happened – or what it portends for the future. It could very well just be a rebranding technique. So we just have to – we’re going to have to wait and see. And as I say, we judge a group by what they do, not by what they call themselves. And so we’re – and thus far there’s no change to our views about this particular group.

QUESTION: The way that Julani describes the new – well, the same group, new names, objectives – sound very similar to that of ISIL. Does that give this government pause?

MR KIRBY: The new objectives that they’ve stated?

QUESTION: Yes, in this video, that they’re going to basically stand up for the rights of Muslim people around the world; they’re going to claim territory; they’re going to act on their behalf, God willing.

MR KIRBY: They have given us pause – I mean, more than pause, as I’ve said. They have – because they are a foreign terrorist organization, they have been outside the cessation of hostilities. In the last hour or so, since this announcement’s been made, we certainly see no indication that would give us a reason to change the designation of this group. Again, you judge an organization like this on their goals, their ideology, their objectives.

QUESTION: And in that same vein, the deputy foreign minister, Mr. Ryabkov, of Russia, is still alleging as of a couple of hours ago that the U.S. still has not distinguished between terrorist groups and moderate opposition as part of trying to negotiate some sort of cooperative deal between the U.S. and Russia on fighting ISIL inside Syria. I take it, then, that you dispute his characterization?

MR KIRBY: Yes, I would. I would.

QUESTION: What is the status of trying to reach that agreement that --

MR KIRBY: I’m not going to – as you said, look, I’m not – we’ve said we’re not going to talk about the specifics of the proposals that the United States and the Russia – and Russia have agreed to pursue here to try to better enforce the cessation of hostilities. And the reason why I’m comfortable disputing a notion that we’ve somehow been less clear here about groups is that it isn’t just about the United States. It’s the international community, the ISSG, the UN all have agreed that UN-designated foreign terrorist organizations are outside the cessation of hostilities, and those are the only groups that are outside the cessation of hostilities. And to date, that has included, obviously, Daesh and al-Nusrah. And so it’s not just about the degree to which we’ve been clear; it’s about the degree to which the international community has been clear.

QUESTION: And going back to Nusrah, or Fateh al-Sham as they’re now calling themselves, what is being done to try to ferret them out, if I can use that expression, as the coalition is trying to help the Syrian opposition go after ISIL, go after the regime, whatever it is that’s happening on the ground right now inside Syria?

MR KIRBY: I’m not sure I understand what you mean by “ferret them out.”

QUESTION: All right, that was a cute way of saying of trying to kill them.

MR KIRBY: There’s been no change to the fact – again, they just made this announcement like an hour ago, right?

QUESTION: Right.

MR KIRBY: So --

QUESTION: But the fact was that even before they decided to change their name, they were still – they’re in Manbij fighting --

MR KIRBY: They are still a designated foreign terrorist organization.

QUESTION: They’re still in Raqqa – right.

MR KIRBY: They are still not a party to the cessation of hostilities and therefore are still a fair target for coalition operations.

QUESTION: But given that they’re fighting in the same neighborhoods, on the same streets with people that the U.S. and other members of the coalition are --

MR KIRBY: And I – excuse me, I want to correct what I said. Not a fair target of coalition operations. The coalition is going after Daesh. But they’re still --

QUESTION: Right.

MR KIRBY: They’re still – they’re still legitimate targets for --

QUESTION: The United States?

MR KIRBY: Yeah, for the United States and, of course, for Russia, which has a military presence in Syria. So I wanted to correct that.

QUESTION: Yeah. So how does – so how does, then, the U.S. try to go after them or try to support the moderate opposition as it’s fighting ISIL? How do you tease all that out? How do you not end up killing the wrong people, killing your own people?

MR KIRBY: This is – the fact that the loyalties of some opposition fighters have shifted or shift and that there has been an intermingling of sorts with al-Nusrah is not a new problem. It has been a struggle. Some of that intermingling has been by design, as I said, because some loyalties have shifted among members of these groups. And some of it has been coincidental. But it has complicated efforts to better and more effectively target al-Nusrah. That is one of the reasons why, quite frankly, the Secretary and Foreign Minister Lavrov have spoken at length about trying to get some proposals in place to move forward to better be able to enforce the cessation of hostilities, which this group is still outside of.

But I’m loath to get into specific military targeting and intelligence issues from this particular podium. I mean, it remains – it has remained a problem. It remains one today. And again, that’s why it was so important for the Secretary and Foreign Minister Lavrov to have that discussion in Moscow a couple of weeks ago.

QUESTION: And finally, given that the top leadership of al-Qaida put out audio messages indicating that they supported Nusrah’s move to change its name and make itself a distinct organization, what does that say to you, if anything, about al-Qaida’s overall influence on other extremist groups around the world?

MR KIRBY: Look, al-Qaida core leadership has been decimated. We know that and we’ve talked about that many times. It still obviously remains a lethal terrorist organization with still lethal capabilities with designs to attack Western targets and to try to improve its influence. So we’re very mindful of the threat still posed by al-Qaida.

I don’t know what this announcement, yet one hour old, means in terms of al-Qaida’s influence one way or the other. And as I said, we judge an organization by what it does, by its goals, by its objectives, not by the name. So I think we’re just – we’re going to have to watch this as it goes forward. But there’s been, again, no change to our approach to this particular organization regardless of the new brand that they claim to be under.

QUESTION: Turkish media, recording Ambassador Bass in a speech saying that Gulen --

QUESTION: Syria?

QUESTION: Can we stay with Syria? Unless this is Syria.

QUESTION: I’m sorry. Syria? Go ahead.

QUESTION: No, it’s just our tradition to try to go through one topic if we can.

QUESTION: Okay, sorry.

MR KIRBY: I’ll come back to you.

QUESTION: A couple more things on Syria. The Russian defense minister today said that the Russian and Syrian militaries will start a large-scale humanitarian operation in Aleppo during which civilians and militaries – militants, excuse me, will be given a chance to leave the city. Did the Russians coordinate this with the United States? Did you know this was coming?

MR KIRBY: I’m not aware of any coordination. We’ve seen this announcement, and I would tell you that it – hang on a second, let me make sure.

Without further clarification, this appears to be a demand for the surrender of opposition groups and the evacuation of Syrian civilians from Aleppo, and any offensive actions would be inconsistent with the spirit and letter of the UN Security Council Resolution 2254 and our own understandings with the Russians. Our position on humanitarian access has not changed. Russia and the regime must uphold the basic agreed principle that the UN determines what assistance is necessary to relieve the suffering of civilians in besieged communities. And all supplies, including food and medical supplies, must be delivered immediately.

QUESTION: So you don’t see this as humanitarian at all; you see this as basically an effort to get the militants to give up --

MR KIRBY: Again, without further clarification, this would appear to be a demand for the surrender of opposition groups and the evacuation of Syrian civilians from Aleppo. What needs to happen is the innocent people of Aleppo should be able to stay in their homes safely and to receive the humanitarian access, which Russia and the regime have agreed – in principle, have agreed, certainly, according to the UN Security Council resolution, to provide.

QUESTION: Is that another way of saying that you think this is a way of the – for the Syrian Government to just try to win Aleppo for itself once and for all?

MR KIRBY: I think I’ve responded to the answer on this. Again, without further clarification, it appears to be a demand for the surrender of opposition groups and the forced evacuation of innocent Syrian civilians.

QUESTION: Would this move be going against the steps that they agreed to, to work towards a further military cooperation?

MR KIRBY: It goes against the UN Security Council resolution and their own stated commitments. I’m not going to detail the proposals that Foreign Minister Lavrov and Secretary Kerry had agreed to in Moscow, as those proposals are still being – the modalities of those proposals are still being discussed.

QUESTION: Defense minister --

QUESTION: Which means you don’t have an agreement yet?

MR KIRBY: Go ahead.

QUESTION: No, no, no. I mean, that’s what that means, right? “The modalities are still being discussed of proposals” means that there’s no agreement?

MR KIRBY: The way they’re going to be implemented and executed or --

QUESTION: You have a general understanding?

MR KIRBY: -- the methods are still being discussed, but there were proposals agreed to.

QUESTION: The defense minister also spoke of sending experts to Geneva at the request of Secretary Kerry.

MR KIRBY: Well, again, this is all part of – as I said, there are still modalities of these proposals to be discussed, and I believe that’s what the defense minister was referring to. I’d have to let them speak to what officials they’re sending to Geneva. But coming out of Moscow, Foreign Minister Lavrov and Secretary Kerry agreed that our teams would continue to meet and discuss and to get better – some better clarity on the modalities of how to actually implement these proposals, and that’s what’s happening.

Go ahead. You had a question on Ambassador Bass?

QUESTION: Yes. A couple questions. Ambassador Bass is quoted by the Turkish media in a speech as saying that Gulen was responsible for the coup. So is that accurate? Also, Turkish Government officials are quoted, saying that if Gulen is not extradited it will have a serious impact on U.S.-Turkish relations. What is the response to that?

MR KIRBY: Well, first, the answer to your first question is no, he didn’t give a speech and he never said that. On the answer – in the answer to the second question, look, we’ve been very consistent here in everything we’ve said about Mr. Gulen and any potential for extradition, that that kind of a decision would have to be evidence-based; it would have to be properly processed the way it is supposed to in coordination between the State Department and the Justice Department. As I have indicated earlier, we are in receipt of some material, and that material is being analyzed right now. I don’t have an update for you, and I wouldn’t get ahead of what is and can be a fairly lengthy legal process.

QUESTION: Since your comment yesterday characterizing Turkey, we now have official confirmation that more than 130 Turkish media organizations have been shut down. Is – that question was asked yesterday, I think, by Arshad or somebody. Do you still consider Turkey a democracy, considering the thousands of people in detention, tens of thousands of suspects, and the arrests of journalists and 130 to 150 media organizations being shut down?

MR KIRBY: Well, let me just address the media piece of that. We’re obviously deeply concerned by the reports and we’re seeking additional information from Turkish authorities. As you well know and as I’ve said many, many times from the podium, the United States supports freedom of expression around the world. And we have concerns when any country makes a move to close down media outlets and restrict this universal value. We expect Turkish authorities to uphold their assurances that the Turkish Government will protect the rule of law and fundamental freedoms.

QUESTION: The Turkish officials also suggesting that Erdogan, the Turkish president, wants to put the military under his direct control, not have it as a separate entity. Would the U.S. be supportive of such a move, which would require a change in the constitution, or does this raise more concerns about his ability to wield power and to control more facets of the Turkish Government?

MR KIRBY: We’ve talked at length, Ros, about what’s going on in Turkey. We’ve condemned the failed coup. We’ve made clear that we understand the Turkish Government has a right and a responsibility, quite frankly, to their citizens to get to the bottom of this, to investigate it, and to hold those responsible for the coup to account.

The President and Secretary Kerry have also, of course, stressed the importance to their Turkish counterparts of upholding democratic principles and the rule of law throughout this process. I’ve said that I’m not going to make it a habit from this podium of responding and reacting to every single decision. We’ve seen this in press reporting same as you, and I would leave it to Turkish authorities to describe the motives behind it.

But obviously, Turkey matters to us as a friend and an ally. Their democracy matters to us. Their success as a democracy matters to us. And so as a friend and an ally, we’re going to continue to stay in close touch with Turkish authorities as they work through this.

QUESTION: Quick two questions on Turkey.

MR KIRBY: I’m guessing your question’s also on this.

QUESTION: Yes. Earlier, Turkish administration announced that they will send justice minister and interior minister here for the extradition process. Do you know if that visit is still happening, or --

MR KIRBY: I don’t have any updates on their – to give you, and I would point you to Turkish leaders to talk about their travel.

QUESTION: And the last one. There are still a lot of conspiracy theories or theories regarding U.S. involvement, despite the fact that --

MR KIRBY: About U.S. what?

QUESTION: U.S. involvement in the coup attempt. There are still a lot of stories every day, headlines in Turkey. Do you think that the government – Turkish Government – is doing to counter these messages, or do you think the – why do you think these blames and accusations are still continuing?

MR KIRBY: Well, I couldn’t possibly begin to know the answer to that question. The people propagating the false rumors are the ones to ask. Obviously, we had no involvement in this, and any suggestion otherwise is ludicrous. But why such a rumor would still be propagated or still be able to find purchase over there, I couldn’t begin to guess. We are not only an ally to Turkey, we’re a friend, we’re a partner, and Turkey remains a member of the coalition to counter Daesh. And we value that partnership, and as we’ve said all along, we’re going to continue to look for ways to deepen and strengthen it going forward.

QUESTION: President Erdogan is going to Moscow next week, and there are a lot of opinion pieces and speculations that Turkey’s getting closer to Russia and there may be some tensions increasing between the U.S. and Turkey, as earlier question mentioned. Do you have any comment on Turkey’s getting closer to Russia, whether --

MR KIRBY: Look, I mean, as a sovereign nation, Turkey has every right to pursue bilateral relations that it believes are important and to improve and strengthen those bilateral relations that it chooses to improve and strengthen. So I’m not – we’re not in – wouldn’t be in a position to comment or qualify one way or another President Erdogan’s travel or his discussion with foreign leaders. That’s his right and responsibility; that’s the right and responsibility of a sovereign nation.

What matters to us is both a bilateral and multilateral relationship that we have with Turkey: multilateral through NATO, multilateral through the coalition to counter Daesh; and, of course, the bilateral relationship that we have. And look, we’ve been nothing but honest and open and forthright with you right here in this briefing room about issues and things that happen in Turkey that concern us. We’ve also been open, candid, and forthright with Turkish leaders about those same issues, as well as – and this often doesn’t get attention by you guys – but the – all the many ways in which we see eye to eye with Turkey on many things and the things that we try to work together on and try to advance, and there’s a lot of those too. I understand that doesn’t make headlines, but it doesn’t mean that it isn’t happening, and it doesn’t mean that it isn’t happening even today as Turkey works through the aftermath of this coup, because operations against Daesh continue. Operations against Daesh out of Incirlik continue.

So there’s – as there always is in a consequential bilateral relationship like the one we have with Turkey, there is a wide menu, an agenda of issues, to talk with them about. That’s certainly no less true – in fact, more true, I suppose, if you want to look at it that way, in the wake of this coup attempt. And that’s why Ambassador Bass is working so hard to continue the communication and the dialogue and to improve the mutual understanding that he has with his counterparts there in Ankara.

QUESTION: John, following up on that, there was a message put out by the U.S. consulate saying that there are protesters marching towards the – Incirlik demanding that it be closed. Is there any concern about what appears to be a growing march of protesters?

MR KIRBY: I haven’t seen that report, Abbie, so I’m going to have to kind of go back and take a look at that. So without addressing a specific query about a protest march on Incirlik, let me just say that, again, we appreciate Turkish support for the coalition in terms of the use of the Incirlik Air Base for operations against Daesh in Syria. As I said, those operations continue, Turkish support continues, and Turkish leaders – from President Erdogan right on down to the foreign minister in his conversations with Secretary Kerry – made it very clear that there were not going to be negative developments in terms of those efforts as a result of this coup attempt. And with the exception of some temporary loss of power, which we talked about last week, they’ve been good to their word – that there hasn’t been a degradation in coalition use of Incirlik or Turkish support for that use of Incirlik against Daesh in Syria. So again, I just don’t know anything about this – the protests and I’d have to go find a little bit more out for you before I could answer specifically a question about that.

Yes, ma’am.

QUESTION: It recently emerged that the Iraqi Government has just issued orders to make the Shiite militias, the Hashd al-Shaabi, a formal part of the Iraqi army. Among many things, the number two in the Hashd al-Shaabi and the fellow who is, in effect, its head is a designated U.S. terrorist for the role he played in attacking U.S. troops when we were there and for his close ties to Iran’s Revolutionary Guard.

So I’d like to know, what is your view of this Iraqi decision to formalize the role of the Hashd al-Shaabi?

MR KIRBY: First thing I’d say is – and as I’ve said before – this is an Iraqi decision. Prime Minister Abadi has been clear and he’s been consistent about trying to create a more inclusive force to go after Daesh both inside the Iraqi Security Force proper and in working with Popular Mobilization Forces – not all of which, I might remind you, are influenced directly by the IRGC or by Iran. And it is the government in Baghdad – the Iraqi Government – that is and should be making decisions about the degree to which these forces are factored into actual strategy execution on the ground.

For our sake, the only other thing I’d say – and again, we’ve made this clear before too – is that we support those forces working under the command and control of the Iraqi Security Forces. But it is up to the Government of Iraq to decide on troop composition and on placement on the battlefield, and we’re going to respect those decisions.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: Well, if I could --

QUESTION: Sorry, yeah, please.

QUESTION: Yeah. So, I mean, the Iraqi leaders, including Prime Minister Abadi, have said that the Hashd al-Shaabi should participate in the offensive to take – retake Mosul, but others, like political leaders in Mosul – in the Mosul area, have said that’s a bad idea. So is that – I mean, your view on Hashd al-Shaabi’s participation in Mosul’s liberation is it’s okay if that’s what the Iraqi Government wants? It seems that’s what they want too.

MR KIRBY: What I’m saying is that these are – the composition of forces on the ground – and I’m – you’re getting me into military issues that I’m really not comfortable discussing in any great detail, so I would also ask you to seek out my colleagues at the Pentagon. But what we have said consistently is this is an Iraqi campaign strategy – it has been from the start, the whole issue of going after Mosul. We are supporting that – we’re advising it, obviously – and we’re helping, but it’s their campaign strategy. And it’s the strategy, oh by the way, that they have already started to execute. And we have helped in some shaping operations in and around Mosul.

But the composition of forces in the field – that’s a decision for the Iraqi Government to make and for Prime Minister Abadi to make. And he has made it clear that he’s going to be as inclusive as possible, but that he – he intends to, and he has the right to reserve for himself the final decision about composition in the field. And so the degree to which Popular Mobilization Forces by any name or any affiliation are used in the campaign against Mosul, again, that’s for them to decide. And our role is to support Iraqi Security Forces and the Government of Iraq as they begin to – well, they already have begun, but as they complete the job of defeating and degrading Daesh inside Iraq.

Okay.

QUESTION: Just going back to Turkey, I want to make sure I understand something that you said about Incirlik when you said there’s been no degradation. Is what you are saying that the tempo of operations from Incirlik has not changed – it is as high now as it was before the attempted coup?

MR KIRBY: Obviously when there was temporary power problems, I think there was a momentary pause, and it didn’t take very long for them to begin flying again. I’d point you to my colleagues at the Defense Department in terms of the actual tempo. When I said no degradation I was talking strategically from a larger perspective. I have no idea what the flights out of Incirlik are on a day-to-day basis. I suspect it changes every day based on the campaign and targets, but I’m given to understand that there’s been no – as I said, there’s been no degradation to operations out of Incirlik. Now, again, I can’t point to every single mission. You’d have to talk to my Defense Department colleagues.

QUESTION: And then I got a couple others on Syria. You said that to the best of your knowledge there had been no consultation by the Russians with the United States about this Aleppo operation. What makes you – if they’re not consulting you about things like that and if you say that with – without further clarification it appears to be a ruse, what makes you think you’re likely to get a wider deal with them on Syria?

MR KIRBY: Well, it’s – okay, a couple things here. I wouldn’t call it a wider deal. We – and we did have an agreement coming out of Moscow on a set of proposals to better enforce the cessation of hostilities so that – and let’s not forget – so that Special Envoy de Mistura can have the political space he needs to get talks resumed as early as we hope – next month. And the Secretary was, I thought, extraordinarily pragmatic in the way he described it even that very night. He said, look, if these steps are implemented, and implemented in good faith, they have a real chance at seeing progress with respect to the political solution in Syria. But if they’re not, then obviously we’re going to have to reconsider where we are.

And so that’s what’s going on right now, Arshad. Our teams are discussing the modalities of these proposals and how to actually get them implemented. Those discussions are ongoing. The Secretary and Foreign Minister Lavrov talked about that process a little bit out at the ASEAN Regional Forum, on the sidelines of it. And we’ve now seen an announcement by their defense minister that they’re sending additional senior officers to join those discussions. Again, all that is positive movement, but as the Secretary said himself, the proof’s going to be in the pudding here and whether or not these modalities can actually be agreed to and can actually be effective.

Now, on this – the corridors in Aleppo, again, you’re – again, I have no indication that there was any advance consultation on this. And as I said, without further clarification – which would indicate we didn’t have clarification at the outset – it does not appear to be anything more than a demand for the surrender of opposition groups.

So it is deeply concerning to us, this announcement.

QUESTION: And one other thing. Who’s going to meet with General – and I’m probably going to mispronounce this – Gajima Gomadov, who is the general whom the Russian defense minister said would be going to Geneva next week and who’s going to meet with Gennady Gatilov, who he said will be leaving tomorrow?

MR KIRBY: I don’t – first of all, I can’t verify that those are indeed the individuals that Russia is going to send. The Russians need to speak for that. There are obviously teams from both our countries that are having these discussions, and I’m assuming the expectation would be that these gentlemen would join the Russian team in those discussions. I just don’t have any more specificity in terms of the agenda or who’s in the room at any given moment during the discussions.

QUESTION: But are you guys – to your knowledge, are you planning to send any other senior officials from the U.S. side?

MR KIRBY: I’m not aware of any additional officials that would be sent.

QUESTION: And who’s leading the talks from the U.S. side?

MR KIRBY: It’s – certainly our Special Envoy Michael Ratney is involved in this, as is, of course, Brett McGurk, but I don’t have a roster of everybody that’s that – that’s at these meetings.

Yes, in the back there.

QUESTION: Different regions. One, Venezuela. Do you have any reaction or comment to the former Guantanamo detainee that resurfaced in Venezuela?

MR KIRBY: I’ve seen those reports, but I’m not in a position to confirm them.

QUESTION: And do you have any comment on North Korea saying that the U.S. has crossed a red line and declared war?

MR KIRBY: I think what I would say is the same thing we’ve said – that it’s time for the DPRK to cease rhetoric and to cease actions that only serve to destabilize the peninsula and do nothing to improve the lives of the North Korean people.

Okay, one more.

QUESTION: Hillary Clinton emails. Do you --

MR KIRBY: So glad I asked for one more. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: You had stated that you had received an initial batch of emails from the – or documents from the FBI that they had recovered in the course of their investigation. Are you expecting another set of documents?

QUESTION: Batch from the Russians? (Laughter.)

MR KIRBY: Another set? I don’t have anything to speak to today. We have received a batch that we’re still going through. I can’t rule out that there won’t be additional documents given to us by the FBI, but I’m going to have – I just don’t have any – anything new to say on that. I mean, we have received some that we’re still going through.

QUESTION: So you don’t have a – any numbers that you could say as far as pages that have been provided or --

MR KIRBY: Again, we’re still going through the batch that was provided to us, and again, I just don’t have more detail right now.

QUESTION: Two quick ones, if I may?

MR KIRBY: Sure.

QUESTION: Did you – and I don’t know if you were asked about this and I missed it, but there’s a report that an American citizen of Bangladeshi descent was killed in Bangladesh. Can you confirm that report?

MR KIRBY: I have seen reports that a U.S. citizen was killed in a police raid in Dhaka. We understand that there’s an ongoing law enforcement investigation on the matter, and so I’d refer you to local authorities for more detail on that.

QUESTION: Really? So you can’t even confirm that a U.S. citizen was killed?

MR KIRBY: I can only confirm that we’ve seen reports that a U.S. citizen was killed in a police raid in Dhaka.

QUESTION: Aren’t you trying to find out?

MR KIRBY: And out of respect for the privacy of those affected --

QUESTION: Okay.

MR KIRBY: -- we’re going to decline further comment.

QUESTION: And then one other one – or two other ones. China says it’s pressing ahead with its own missile defense system. Do you have any views on that? And at the same time, do you have any views on China’s statement that it plans to hold drills with Russia in the South China Sea?

MR KIRBY: We’re certainly aware of the statement from China’s ministry of national defense. We continue to carefully monitor China’s military modernization and to encourage China to exhibit transparency with respect to its capabilities and its intentions. We encourage China to use its military capabilities in a manner conducive to the maintenance of peace and stability in the Asia Pacific region.

Now, as to the exercises, we have seen their announcement of joint exercises. And again, as we’ve said many times, I mean, militaries – part of the obligation of national defense establishments are to exercise and to try to improve capabilities. And we do that. We do that bilaterally with many nations. China has been invited, as you know, to participate – or was invited to participate in the recent RIMPAC exercise. Some of our exercises are bilateral, some are multilateral, and they’re certainly – it’s certainly to be expected that China and Russia would also pursue multilateral or bilateral training opportunities. But just as we do for ourselves in our training exercise and operations, we would expect that those exercises comply with international obligations and international law.

QUESTION: You don’t think it raises tensions for them to do that in the South China Sea?

MR KIRBY: The physical act of exercising doesn’t – there’s no need for it to raise tensions. Exercises and operations are meant to hone capabilities. It doesn’t have to be that way. It really depends on the way it’s conducted. And as I said, our expectation is that these exercises and operations, like ours, would be conducted in accordance with international obligations and law.

Thanks, everybody.

QUESTION: Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:32 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 - July 27, 2016

John Kirby

Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC

July 27, 2016









Index for Today's Briefing

PHILIPPINES



HAITI



DEPARTMENT



RUSSIA/NATO



SYRIA



IRAN



SYRIA



TURKEY



RUSSIA



TURKEY



CHINA



SOUTH KOREA



DEPARTMENT




TRANSCRIPT:

1:09 p.m. EDT

MR KIRBY:  Hello, everybody. 

QUESTION:  Hey.

MR KIRBY:  A couple things here at the top.  As you know, the Secretary has just wrapped up a series of meetings in the Philippines.  The president of the Philippines hosted the Secretary for a working lunch at his residence in Manila.  The luncheon was an opportunity for the Secretary to congratulate President Duterte for his election victory, which he, the Secretary, said showed the strength and vibrancy of Filipino democracy.  The two also discussed the full range of bilateral and regional issues that underpin our relations, including the recent decision by the Arbitral Tribunal on the South China Sea; security and defense cooperation; law enforcement assistance; human rights; countering violent extremism; economic development; and climate change.  The Secretary pledged U.S. willingness to provide continued assistance to the Philippine Government as it works to address drug trafficking and violent extremism, and to deepen and strengthen our bilateral relations across the board. 

Also today, the Secretary met with Philippine Secretary of Foreign Affairs Perfecto Yasay to follow up on the ASEAN Regional Forum and the East Asia Summit discussions, including the situation, of course, in the South China Sea.  They reviewed bilateral cooperative efforts on law enforcement, regional security, violent extremism, and combating transnational crimes like human trafficking.  They also discussed the implementation of the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement, which will coordinate our efforts to maintain peace and stability in the region while also allowing the United States to provide rapid assistance to the Philippines in the event of emergencies and natural disasters. 

Finally, just today I want to welcome to the briefing a group of Haitian journalists that are participating in a week-long training on broadcast journalism and social media at the Voice of America Creole service.  So thanks very much for being here.  We appreciate having you.  Since 2008, VOA and the United – and the – and our embassy, I’m sorry, in Port-au-Prince collaborate annually to send Haitian print, radio, and broadcast journalists to the United States for training to support the important role that the media play in building democratic societies.  This program, as I understand it, includes a visit to the White House, Capitol Hill, and to the Newseum.  So it’s great to have you guys here; good to see you.

And with that, we’ll get right after it.  Arshad.

QUESTION:  I’d like to start with Russia.  As I’m sure you know, the Republican presidential nominee, Donald Trump, has called on Russia to try to find the personal emails of Secretary Clinton.  Is there – to your mind, is it appropriate for a candidate to call on another country to try to obtain a former Secretary’s emails, whether personal or official?

MR KIRBY:  I don’t know that it’s our place here at the State Department to make a judgment about the appropriateness of comments made by candidates for elected office.  I think we would let those candidates speak for themselves and their views.  So I think I would just leave it there.

QUESTION:  To my understanding, Secretary Clinton said publicly that she, quote, “did not keep,” close quote, those emails, and FBI Director Comey when he described the results of the FBI’s investigation and its recommendation not to bring charges said that they were deleted.  Is it – quote, “deleted.”  To your understanding, do those emails exist anywhere?  Did the State Department itself find any of those emails other than occasional ones that may have gone to officials here from the secretary?

MR KIRBY:  I don’t believe we have any information one way or the other to contradict or otherwise characterize the way former Secretary Clinton did with respect to those personal emails, or the FBI director.  Our focus, as you know, was on making available to the public the 55,000 pages of work-related emails that former Secretary Clinton turned over to us, and we did that over the course of many months, as you well know, and that was our focus.

QUESTION:  Staying on that, we had been told that the FBI has started – given the first batch of the documents, emails, and the State Department has not yet started processing.  Can you update us on that?

MR KIRBY:  I really don’t have much of an update.  I think we’ve already told you that we did get some material from the FBI and we are starting to work our way through that, but I don’t have an update.  And as I think we said at the time, I mean, we’re not going to offer a daily blow-by-blow on this.

QUESTION:  And it is – and about the internal process, I think we were updated around two weeks ago, so it’s not day to day, but is there any update on the State Department’s internal --

MR KIRBY:  The internal review?

QUESTION:  Yeah.

MR KIRBY:  No, I don’t have an update for you.  It’s underway and I think my colleague, Elizabeth, walked you through sort of the parameters of that, and I don’t have anything to add.

QUESTION:  So you say that it is underway, so it has started?

MR KIRBY:  Yes.

QUESTION:  Okay.

MR KIRBY:  Yes.

QUESTION:  Can I follow up on the Russian --

QUESTION:  Also on the email – on the email, we were talking about Trump and Clinton’s email, right?  I missed that part.  I just got here, but --

MR KIRBY:  Yeah, you did.  Why don’t you just go back and check the transcript?  I had a good exchange with Arshad right off the bat.

QUESTION:  I just wanted to --

MR KIRBY:  I was pretty content with it.  (Laughter.)

QUESTION:  I just wanted to preface this --

MR KIRBY:  I mean, it’s all right there.

QUESTION:  I wanted to preface this by saying I missed that.  I was just walking in, although I’m sure Arshad covered it in detail.

MR KIRBY:  Wait, so before you ask your question, you should ask Arshad what he asked, right?  And that way, it won’t be exactly the same.

QUESTION:  Or how you didn’t answer would be the better question.

QUESTION:  I’ll be doing a debriefing later.  (Laughter.)

QUESTION:  So --

MR KIRBY:  He’s got all the context.  Go ahead.

QUESTION:  Look, I mean, one of the questions, seriously, that people are asking about Trump’s call essentially for a foreign government or an invitation more or less for a foreign government to hack a presidential candidate, a secretary of state – one of the questions is:  Is this treasonous?  Is this a treasonous action to call on such activity?  I mean, what – how would you answer that?

MR KIRBY:  I’m not going to – as I think you know, Justin, I’m not going to respond to campaign rhetoric or to the comments that either candidate for president of the United States are making in their campaigns.  It’s just not appropriate from this podium.  This matter, this specific matter that we’re talking about, is under investigation by the FBI.  And we’re going to respect that process.  We’re not going to comment on what is an ongoing investigation.

QUESTION:  Would you comment more broadly on what it means for a U.S. citizen to call on a foreign government to spy on the U.S.?  I mean --

MR KIRBY:  I will let the candidates speak for themselves on the campaign trail and let them speak to and answer for their comments as they seek the presidency.  That’s for them to speak to.  What I can tell you is that this department is out of politics and staying out of the politics.  That’s where the Secretary’s head squarely is, and his focus is on pursuing the foreign policy objectives of this Administration.  And I just at the top read out his meetings with the president of the Philippines today.  And he’s on his way back and he had a very full and eventful trip out there, meeting with our ASEAN – with ASEAN members.  There’s an awful lot for us to focus on, and what we’re not going to focus on is rhetoric by either candidate for the presidency.

QUESTION:  And just to be clear, to go back to how this all ended with Clinton – I know you’re still doing your investigation – there is no --

MR KIRBY:  It’s not an investigation. 

QUESTION:  Oh, your --

MR KIRBY:  It’s an internal review.  It’s an administrative internal review, and as I said to Tejinder, we’re – while it is underway, we aren’t going to be providing frequent or routine updates on the progress of it.

QUESTION:  Okay, but you can already – you’ve already made the determination that she – Secretary Clinton’s email was never hacked by a foreign government, correct?

MR KIRBY:  I’m not going to talk about cybersecurity issues here from the podium, and again, I’m not going to characterize the work of the reviewers that are doing this process.  But the process itself is aimed at determining the degree to which information was classified at the time and then – and therefore transmitted, and examining issues of accountability for any transmission of sensitive or classified information.

QUESTION:  And if foreign governments did hack into her email, that would be considered spying, correct?

MR KIRBY:  I am not an expert on cyber espionage.  I mean – so look, I would point you back to what the FBI director --

QUESTION:  No, but that’s a basic question.  But the --

MR KIRBY:  But the FBI director addressed this issue.

QUESTION:  I’m just asking a basic question:  If they were hacking into her email, that would be spying, right?

MR KIRBY:  There are attacks on U.S. Government cyber accounts and networks every day.  There are – almost every federal agency is under that threat every single day.  It’s something we take very, very seriously.  And people try to gain access to it for a number of reasons, and not all of those reasons are espionage.  Are some of the motivations espionage?  Well, I certainly couldn’t rule that out.  But you’re asking me a hypothetical situation that I’m – it’s impossible for me to answer what the motivation is of a given hacker.

QUESTION:  It depends on the motivation.

MR KIRBY:  It depends on the motivation; it depends on the organization behind it and the purpose for it.  Could it be cyber espionage?  Absolutely it could be, but I’m just in no position to judge.

QUESTION:  Can I just – one small clarification?  Sorry for – Trump a few hours ago at a news conference down south (inaudible) said that he didn’t know if it is Russia, if it is China, or it – if it’s a hacker with a IQ of 200 who has done this.  And the – one of the major media outlet – the U.S. media – has said – quoted intelligence official that they believe that it’s Russia.  So will you be able to confirm or deny if you have anything on that?

MR KIRBY:  No.  As I said, this is a matter that the FBI is investigating, and I’m not going to get ahead of the work that investigators have to do.  And so I think that’s where we absolutely need to leave it.

QUESTION:  What is the level of concern with the new comments from the Russian defense minister about their southwestern front, saying there are activities with NATO that has compelled them to boost troop presence, air defenses?

MR KIRBY:  So we’ve seen those comments and seen the reports of those comments.  If true, we believe that this would appear to run contrary to ongoing efforts to stop violence and to de-escalate the tensions in eastern Ukraine in line with Russia’s commitments under Minsk.  We expect Russia to fulfill any relevant commitments under existing arms control and confidence-building agreements, such as the OSCE’s Vienna document.  Reports indicate that part of this buildup includes Russian troops in Crimea, and on that, our view is also consistent and well-known.  Crimea is and always will remain part of Ukraine.  We’re not going to allow, as we’ve said many times before, the borders of Europe to be redrawn at the barrel of a gun.

And on Crimea, let me reiterate that we condemn and call for an immediate end to the Russian occupation there.  Sanctions related to Crimea will remain in place as long as the occupation continues.

QUESTION:  Is there anything, though, that NATO has done that apparently brought forward these comments or these purported Russian moves?

MR KIRBY:  Well, the Russians can speak for themselves in terms of what their motivation here is.  But let me be clear, as we have in the past, that neither the United States nor NATO is a threat to Russia.  NATO is a defensive alliance which has safeguarded European security for more than 60 years now, and countries everywhere have a right to choose their own security arrangements.

Yeah.

QUESTION:  Syria?  Yesterday, State Department issued a statement saying U.S. and Russia urge the UN to prepare a proposal with respect to the political process in Syria, and the proposal should serve as the starting point for future negotiations.  Meanwhile, de Mistura said in order to go forward, he needs details from the Americans and Russians.  Is there a disconnect here on next steps between U.S., Russia, and the UN?

MR KIRBY:  No, I don’t think there’s any disconnect at all.  As our statement said, we had good discussions in Geneva, and we all did agree that moving the process forward here with respect to the cessation of hostilities, which is what the proposals are really all about – it’s what the Secretary and Foreign Minister Lavrov talked about in Moscow; it’s what they talked about just recently on the sidelines of the ASEAN Regional Forum.  Getting the cessation of hostilities in a more sustainable, more enforceable way across the nation is a foundation – a starting point, if you will – to making sure that the political talks can move forward.  So no, I don’t think there’s any disconnect at all.  Again, we greatly appreciate the leadership of Special Envoy de Mistura and his access to us and to the Russians and ours to him, and the ability to continue to move this forward.  I think he has spoken about trying to get the political talks restarted relatively soon.  We obviously support that, but we know that – again, as co-chairs of the International Syria Support Group, the U.S. and Russia both realize that it’s really important to get the cessation of hostilities in a better place so that the conditions can be created for those talks to actually be successful.  And that’s really what the talks in Geneva were about, okay?

QUESTION:  Do you know what details he’s referring to that he’s waiting on from America and Russia?

MR KIRBY:  I don’t think it would be useful to get into a much more detailed discussion of it here from the podium.  Again, we are – all three of us are very well connected and communication is frequent and regular, and I can assure you that – at least from the United States perspective – that we’re committed to making sure that the special envoy has the information he needs, has the support he needs, more critically, to try to, again, create the conditions for political talks to resume.

QUESTION:  Based on the progress, are you confident that they might start in August?  There was some expectations set earlier – or hopes set earlier about August.

MR KIRBY:  Well, I’d let Special Envoy de Mistura speak to specific timing.  I think that’s really his purview to do that and I wouldn’t want to get ahead of his own decision-making process.  I know that he is committed to doing this as soon as possible.  We obviously want to see the talks resume as soon as practical as well, but I’d be loath to try to guess or speculate when on the calendar that could happen.

Samir.

QUESTION:  The Syrian opposition, in a letter to the Arab League summit this week, described Russia as a force of occupation in Syria.  What’s your reaction to this?

MR KIRBY:  I haven’t seen that particular comment, but look, we have been nothing but clear about Russia’s military presence and their activity in Syria for many, many months now.  They have a historic defense relationship with Syria that goes well – back well before the current conflict.  They’ve had basing there, they’ve had troops there, they’ve had a presence there, so it came as a shock to no one here at the State Department that, as the civil war progressed in Syria, that they would have interest in how things were going, which is why, quite frankly, the Secretary and Foreign Minister Lavrov connected so early on to sort of – to begin to form what has now become a quite expansive International Syria Support Group.

We were also very honest at the outset when we saw Russian military activity bolstering the Assad regime and expressing our concerns about that, and we still do.  But where the Secretary is – and I believe where Foreign Minister Lavrov is – is that they’re both committed to trying to achieve the outcomes of both Vienna communiques and the UN Security Council resolution, which calls for political transition in Syria.  And it’s the how-do-you-get-there that they’re working so hard on right now, and just as my previous answer, in order to have that outcome, you’ve got to create the right conditions.  In order to create the right conditions for people to have political discussions, you got to have the violence significantly reduced, because one of the reasons why the previous three rounds of talks have not succeeded is because the Assad regime has continued to drop bombs on innocent civilians and moderate opposition groups.

So, again, I haven’t seen those comments.  We’ve been, again, nothing but, I think, very clear and candid about our concerns in the past about Russian military activity and, as we’ve also said, that there can be a role here for Russian military forces against groups like Daesh and al-Nusrah in Syria.  And to the degree they’re willing to commit to that goal – the same goal that the international community has, this coalition of now 67 members – that’s a conversation that we’re willing to have.  And that’s the conversation, quite frankly, that Secretary Kerry’s been having with Foreign Minister Lavrov in just the last couple of weeks.

QUESTION:  Thank you.

QUESTION:  Can I follow up on that?  You’ll recall that back in May, the Secretary said that the target date for a transition in Syria was the 1st of August, and he said at the time, quote, “Either something happens in these next few months or they’re asking for a very different track,” close quote.

Question one:  Is it fair to say you’ve given up on any hope of a transition in Syria by August 1st?

MR KIRBY:  I think – I don’t think he said that he expected a transition on August 1st, Arshad.  I think what he said was --

QUESTION:  He said that was the target date.

MR KIRBY:  Target date.  He said it was a target date to develop a framework for a transition.  I don’t think it was – and I can go back and check the quote myself.  I don’t believe he said that he expects a full transition in Syria even on August 1st.  But point taken.  And I think the Secretary’s talked about this actually on this recent trip, and I think he said publicly that he still expects that we can see – perhaps see some movement here, positive movement, in the month of August.  We’ll have to see.  But we’re certainly not giving up on the goal, and as I said earlier, the goal for us is to see progress as soon as possible. 

And again, the Secretary believes that if some of the proposals that we discussed with the Russians in Moscow a couple of weeks ago, if they’re implemented fully and in good faith, he continues to believe that progress can be made, that we can start to lay down a framework for transition – political transition in Syria, and that there’s a possibility that we might be able to see some sort of progress next month.  It’s possible.  But I also want to stress that the Secretary has also been very clear-eyed about this, even as recently as last week when he talked about it – that he’s been careful not to be wide-eyed and optimistic about it, that he’s looking at this very pragmatically.  He’s extraordinarily mindful of the challenges that we faced in the past, the commitments that the Assad regime have made and then ignored, the influence that the Russian Government has not exerted as they had said in the past that they would be willing to exert, so he’s mindful of the challenges.  And I think we’re all going to be working on this very, very hard and obviously pushing to see some progress next month, but we’ll see.

QUESTION:  Are you working on a different track?  I mean, he said in that – on that date, he said so either something happens in these next few months or they’re asking for a different track.  On the other occasions, he’s told us, he’s warned us, against thinking that there’s no Plan B.  Are you working on alternatives if his hopes do not materialize next month?

MR KIRBY:  There have been over many months now interagency discussions here in the United States Government about options and alternatives to the current path, which is the pursuit of a political transition in Syria.  And as the President said himself not long ago, none of those options are great options.  None of those are preferred options.  That the diplomatic path that we’re pursuing, that he, the Secretary, is pursuing is absolutely still the preferred path.  And again, I would only point you back to what the Secretary said.  He believes that it is possible on that path to make some progress before the end of the summer, so we’ll see where it goes.

QUESTION:  What is the utility of warning people that you might adopt a different policy if you never adopt a different policy?

MR KIRBY:  Well, the question would presume that there isn’t going to be an adoption of a different approach --

QUESTION:  But there hasn’t been so far.

MR KIRBY:  -- and I just don’t think we’re at a position to say that right now.  We’re --

QUESTION:  There hasn’t been so far, and the war’s been going for five years.

MR KIRBY:  Well, it’s a very speculative question that I don’t think that it would – that it’s possible to answer, nor would it be useful to try to answer right now.  The path that we’re on, the Secretary and the President still believes, is the right approach.  It’s still the right path.  And as I said, the Secretary believes that progress can be made – perhaps some progress before the end of the summer.  So the belief here is that it’s still worth pursuing this diplomatic approach that we’ve been pursuing.

And then it would be a great parlor game to try to guess and game out but what if and when, and I just don’t think we’re at that point right now.  But there has been – and, frankly, there continues to be – sincere thinking and discussion in the interagency of alternative approaches.  But I can assure you that no decisions have been made to stray off of or to change from the diplomatic approach that we’re taking right now.

And the other thing I’d like to add, just if I could, is that it’s not just the – an approach that the United States is taking.  It’s an approach really by I think a very representative body of the international community – which, oh, by the way, includes Russia.  We have a UN Security Council resolution now that codified this ISSG process that the Secretary has led – he and Foreign Minister Lavrov – and now that’s – that has a gravitas all its own.  And it is representative – their efforts are representative of a truly international approach to trying to solve the civil war in Syria through a diplomatic track.  And so it’s not just about us.  It really is an approach that the entire international community has signed up to.

QUESTION:  Can I go to Iran?

MR KIRBY:  Yeah, go ahead.  You want to move to what?

QUESTION:  Iran.  Iran.

MR KIRBY:  Okay.

QUESTION:  Now that the Iranians are holding three Americans, I’m wondering what the Secretary’s contacts have been like with his Iranian counterpart.

MR KIRBY:  Look, Michele, I appreciate the question.  And while – again, we’ve seen reports of the detention of Iran of a person reported to be a U.S. citizen, and I can tell you we’re looking into that.  I just don’t have additional information to provide at this time.

What I can tell you, separate and distinct from that, is that the issue of American citizens detained in Iran is an issue that never fails to come up in his discussions with his counterpart in Iran, Foreign Minister Zarif.  It’s a constant topic of discussion.  But I’m just not able to go into any more detail.

QUESTION:  Are you trying, though, to – I mean, the other Americans in January were released after there was a separate channel – the McGurk channel – with the Iranians.  Are you trying to revive that channel?

MR KIRBY:  I just don’t have additional information for you right now.  I can tell you that we never lose sight of our concerns over American citizens detained in Iran.

QUESTION:  And there are lots of other – there’s Canadians, Brits, others who have been – seem to be swept up in this right now.  Are you working with other governments to come up with a united front to deal with this issue?

MR KIRBY:  Again, I really don’t have additional information to speak to.  We have, obviously, an obligation to look after the safety and security of American citizens abroad.  We take that very, very seriously, and we do not miss an opportunity to raise with Iran our concerns about American citizens that are unjustly detained there.  And I can appreciate that you’d like more detail on that, I really do, but I’m just not at liberty to provide it right now.

Yeah.

QUESTION:  Can you even say whether you are seeking consular access to the person most recently reported to the U.S. – to the dual citizen most recently reported as having been detained?  I realize they don’t typically provide that, but can you at least say whether you’re asking for it?

MR KIRBY:  Well, you know we – there’s a protecting power.  We don’t have a consul there.  I mean, I get the purpose of the question.  Again, I’m really not at liberty to provide more information right now.

Yeah.

QUESTION:  Thank you.  One Syria-related question before transitioning to Turkey.  Today, there was a suicide bombing in Qamishli, a Syrian Kurdish city, which killed about 50 and injured over 100.  Want to see – I think ISIS already claimed that, if you have any comment.

MR KIRBY:  Yes.  Thank you.  We certainly condemn in the strongest terms today’s reprehensible terrorist attack that killed scores of civilians in Qamishli, Syria and we extend, of course, our deepest condolences to all the families of those that were killed, and, of course, our thoughts and prayers for those who have been injured.  This attack, once again, displays the type of horrific atrocities that Daesh has perpetrated against tens of thousands of innocent people across Syria and Iraq and only affirms – reaffirms, I should say – international resolve to strengthen our efforts to degrade and defeat Daesh and to support those who are also working to degrade and defeat Daesh.  And that resolve remains unchanged, wherever they might be in the world.

Now, on the details of it, I just don’t have – I’ve, again, seen the same reports.  We have no reason to doubt the veracity of the claims of responsibility by Daesh, and I – as for further details on it, I’d have to point you to authorities there.

QUESTION:  On Turkey, over the weekend there was a arrest warrant issued for 42 journalists, and just today there is another warrant for detainment of 47 journalists.  And there are more lists are coming up, obviously.  It looks like there will be hundreds more.  There are about 15,000 people detained.  These are official numbers.  Over 60,000 people are sacked, suspended across Turkey.  I was wondering, first of all, your comment.  And second, you mentioned last week or Monday that Turkey should not take excessive actions after the coup.  Do you think these actions are – can be classified as excessive?

MR KIRBY:  Well, we also said that we’re not going to get into the business of characterizing every decision every moment that it’s made.  I think I would point you back to what the Secretary has said repeatedly, that we have been nothing but strong in expressing our grave concern about the failed coup.  We have been nothing but strong and candid in condemning that failed coup and –condemning the coup attempt, not the fact that it failed, obviously – and expressing our unequivocal support for the democratically elected civilian government of Turkey.  The President himself strongly condemned the failed coup attempt and expressed U.S. support for Turkish democratic institutions.  He thanked Turkish authorities for their continued support in ensuring the safety and well-being of our diplomatic missions and personnel, American servicemen and women who are there, and civilians – our civilians throughout Turkey.  And, of course, we have urged President Erdogan to show restraint, to act within the rule of law, to avoid actions that would lead to further violence and instability.  We obviously support bringing the perpetrators of the coup to justice and we also continue to stress the importance of upholding democratic principles and the rule of law through the process.

QUESTION:  Okay.  So about these journalists – over hundred journalists.  From here, do you think this many journalists can be involved with the coup?  Do you think this can be realistically happened?

MR KIRBY:  Well, look, I – these kinds of actions – and we’ve talked about this in the past, our concerns over press freedoms.  I think we would see this as a continuation of what I’ve talked about as a troubling trend in Turkey, where official bodies – law enforcement and judicial – are being used to discourage legitimate political recourse – I’m sorry, discourse, legitimate political discourse.  I mean, we’ve been I think very consistent about that.

QUESTION:  Can I follow up on that?  Do you believe that the current Turkish Government is systematically dismantling the institutions of society, including the judiciary and the press, that can serve on – as a check on the powers of the executive?

MR KIRBY:  I think I’m going to have to point you back to what I’ve said here just a few minutes ago.  The – we’re not going to characterize each and every move as they occur.  What we’ve been – I --

QUESTION:  I’m talking about the whole thing.

MR KIRBY:  What we’ve – what we’ve been very consistent on is condemning the coup attempt, the attempt by military force to overthrow a democratically elected government.  I think our position was crystal clear on that since that night.  And we’ve also, in conversations with Turkish authorities at various levels, urged restraint, a dedication to rule of law, and the democratic principles that have upheld the elected government in Turkey already. 

But again, I’m not – and we’re obviously watching and – developments there and we’re staying in touch with Turkish authorities.  Our ambassador has been in near constant communication with his counterparts in the Turkish Government.  And I just don’t know that we’re going to be able to characterize it any deeper than that.

Yeah.

QUESTION:  John, knowing your vast knowledge about the world affairs and all, most of the dictators in history have been democratically elected.  Do you feel you are still saying Turkey is still a democracy when all this purging is going on?

MR KIRBY:  Again, Tejinder, it is a democratically elected government, and it was a government that at least some elements of the Turkish military attempted to overthrow.  There’s obviously an investigation going on by Turkish authorities to figure out exactly what happened here, and how it could happen.  We, as I said at the outset, understand the need for them to be able to get their arms around this failed coup and to hold the perpetrators to account.  We’ve said that again from within the first hour or two of it happening.  We’ve also said, and continue to believe, that a measured, deliberate approach to that that is – that observes the rule of law and due process is important.  And we continue to make those concerns known.

Okay.

QUESTION:  I have another one, back to Russia.  It’s a little out of left field, but there was also a very public accusation today that President Putin has, in the past year, publicly used an offensive racial slur to refer to black Americans and perhaps the President.  It was unclear in the accusation.  Is that something that you have any knowledge of, that President Putin has ever used racial slurs publicly to refer to Americans?  Have you seen that?

MR KIRBY:  I have not seen that, no.

QUESTION:  You have not seen that?

MR KIRBY:  No. 

QUESTION:  Yeah.

MR KIRBY:  I got time for just a couple more and then I’m going to have to go.

QUESTION:  Today Turkish prime minister said to Wall Street Journal that evidence is crystal-clear that Fethullah Gulen, exiled cleric here, is behind the coup.  And he ask why the U.S. just can’t hand over this individual to us.  Do you have a comment on this particular --

MR KIRBY:  I haven’t seen those comments.  But as we’ve said, we have received some materials from the Turkish Government, and those materials are being reviewed.  I don't have an update for you on that process. 

QUESTION:  Okay.  Thank you.

QUESTION:  I have two quick on Asia. 

MR KIRBY:  Okay.

QUESTION:  First, I was wondering if you had anything on American citizen James Wang.  He was sentenced today by a Chinese court to prison for selling magazines about the Chinese – Chinese politics.

MR KIRBY:  Yeah.  We can confirm that U.S. citizen James Wang was arrested in China on the 31st of May, 2014.  Since his arrest, we have asked our Chinese counterparts repeatedly for permission to visit him, including permission to attend his trial.  Those requests have all been denied.  We’re going to continue to request access to Mr. Wang so that we may provide the appropriate consular services.

QUESTION:  And then also I was wondering if you had a readout of Deputy Secretary Blinken’s meeting today with his South Korean counterparts.

MR KIRBY:  What I can tell you is that he is meeting with the – I got it here somewhere, hold on.  It’s not in ROK.  I’m looking.  Oh, here it is.  I’m sorry.  She was yelling at me.  I did have it in the right place.  Sorry.  He’s – the Deputy Secretary is hosting First Deputy Director of the Republic of Korea National Security Office Cho Tae-yong in Washington today for the third round of U.S.-ROK strategic consultations on North Korea policy.  Those meetings are ongoing, as I understand it.  They’re discussing issues of mutual concern, including ways to enhance international resolve in holding North Korea accountable for its actions and its destabilizing violations of UN Security Council resolution – sorry, resolutions.  This meeting reflects our continued engagement with our partners in the region and underscores our commitment to address the pursuit of nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities by the DPRK.

I got time for just one more.

QUESTION:   One more on the internal review that the department is conducting into the excising of the portion of the briefing video.  Have you made any progress on establishing how that came to happen and who made the request for it?

MR KIRBY:  On the – I’m sorry, on --

QUESTION:  This is on the briefing video.  You remember the – yeah.

MR KIRBY:  Oh, the video.  I’m sorry.  I’m sorry.

QUESTION:  That’s okay.

MR KIRBY:  No, for some reason I misunderstood the question.  I can tell you that our Office of the Legal Adviser is continuing that work.  It’s not complete.  I don't have an update for you.  But they are still working at it.  And when we are in a position to speak about their findings and their recommendations going forward, we’ll do that.

QUESTION:  Thank you.

MR KIRBY:  Thanks, everybody.

(The briefing was concluded at 1:51 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 - July 26, 2016

Elizabeth Trudeau

Director, Press Office
Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC

July 26, 2016









Index for Today's Briefing

ASIA REGION



SOMALIA



FRANCE



SWEDEN



SOUTH SUDAN



TURKEY



IRAQ/SYRIA



RUSSIA/SYRIA/REGION



ESTONIA



PAKISTAN



INDIA



NORTH KOREA/REGION



ISRAEL




TRANSCRIPT:

2:12 p.m. EDT

MS TRUDEAU: Thank you very much. We’ll move on to the regular daily press brief.

Today, Secretary Kerry met in Laos with his counterparts from the 27-member ASEAN Regional Forum and the 18-member East Asia Summit. The foreign ministers discussed shared priorities and key challenges facing the Asia Pacific region, including North Korea’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs as well as the situation in South Sudan – or in the South China Sea, apologies. In addition, the ministers discussed a range of important transnational challenges, including terrorism and violent extremism, climate change, and trafficking in persons. The foreign ministers also discussed specific actions to combat illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing as well as ongoing concerns regarding the degradation of the marine environment.

At meetings today, several ministers including Secretary Kerry highlighted the significance of the recent decision of the tribunal in the Philippines versus China case, which is binding on both parties. Secretary Kerry also emphasized to his counterparts the importance of the full implementation of the UN Security Council Resolution 2270 to curb North Korea’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs. As the meeting concluded, Secretary Kerry and his party continues on to Manila for meetings with President Duterte and other senior Philippine officials.

Next, on Somalia. We condemn the terrorist attack this morning in Mogadishu, which took place near the international airport. Civilian, UN, AMISOM casualties have been reported, yet we have no final confirmation on numbers yet. We extend our thoughts to the families and friends of the Somali people and United Nations and AMISOM personnel who were killed and injured in this barbarous attack. We remain committed to helping Somalia progress towards a path towards peace and prosperity and the defeat of terrorist groups, including al-Shabaab.

Finally, we would also like to extend our condolences regarding the horrific terrorist attack today at a Catholic church in Normandy, France. We offer our condolences to the family and friends of the murdered priest, Father Jacques Hamel, and our thoughts and prayers with the other victims of the attack as well as the parishioners and community members at the church. The United States and France have a shared commitment to protecting religious liberty for all faiths. Today’s attack will not shake that commitment. We stand with the French as they move forward in their investigation.

And with that, we’ll go to Abigail.

QUESTION: Do you have any information about reports of a shooting at a shopping mall in Sweden?

MS TRUDEAU: I do not, actually. Is that happening now?

QUESTION: There was a warning put out on the embassy website, an emergency message.

MS TRUDEAU: Okay. So that would make sense that a security message has gone out. As you know, when we do security messages for U.S. citizens overseas, it’s often breaking news like that and it instantly goes to U.S. citizens who have registered. So I take the opportunity again for those who travel and work abroad, please do register with the STEP program at travel.state.gov. In terms of this latest incident, I don’t have details.

Ros.

QUESTION: Yeah, can we talk about what’s happening in South Sudan today?

MS TRUDEAU: Of course.

QUESTION: Riek Machar has been basically kicked out of the government, and someone who had been the mining minister has been replaced. Is this helpful towards trying to establish unity within the government and across South Sudan writ large?

MS TRUDEAU: So I’ll back up and provide a little context for this because these events are taking place rather quickly. So Taban Dang Gai, the former minister of mining, as you noted, in the transitional government was sworn in as the first vice president on July 26th. On July 25th, yesterday, President Kiir did issue a republican decree replacing former Vice President Machar with Taban Dang Gai. Machar has stated that he rejects Taban’s selection as his successor and has requested that he be removed from his position in the SPLM-IO, In Opposition, as well as the transitional government.

However, we would note that the peace agreement contains procedures and requirements that govern changes in leadership in the transitional government. Specifically, the agreement provides that, and I quote, “The top leadership body of the armed opposition has the power to nominate a new first vice president if the position is vacant.” A number of senior SPLM-IO, In Opposition, members in Juba met on July 23rd and agreed that Taban would take the position of first vice president. However, they also recommitted to implementation of the peace agreement and rebuilding IO unity. Other IO leaders have contested whether the group can act as the top leadership body. They’ve also contested whether the government can relieve Machar of this position under the agreement.

So what I would say on this is there were provisions within the peace agreement on this. The government writ large, both SPLM-In Government as well as In Opposition, remains in dialogue. We see that the president has issued a decree on this. The United States writ large stands with the people of South Sudan. We will work with the Government of South Sudan. In terms of this and whether it’s allowed under the peace agreement is going to be a question for the leadership of South Sudan.

QUESTION: Does the U.S. believe that the government is operating in good faith with the replacement of Machar with Mr. Taban?

MS TRUDEAU: We believe it’s up to the leaders of South Sudan to decide on their political leadership. We do expect, however, the transitional government and all parties to take every step possible to avoid the fighting and to reach a peaceful resolution of these differences.

QUESTION: Is there any input or guidance that U.S. officials are providing to all sides in South Sudan right now?

MS TRUDEAU: I wouldn’t say guidance. I would say that we remain in discussion with all parties. Our fundamental concern is peace and stability in South Sudan. What we’ve seen is this recent spate of violence has increased the suffering of the people of South Sudan, I’m told 40 percent of whom face hunger. This latest spate of violence, this political situation now, does not add to the stability which the people of South Sudan so clearly need.

QUESTION: Turkey?

MS TRUDEAU: Yes.

QUESTION: Thank you. My first question is last week U.S. Government stated that it received documents from Turkey regarding extradition process for Fethullah Gulen, and you were going to take a look whether this can be qualified as an extradition request. Are you – have you made that decision yet?

MS TRUDEAU: I have no update on that. As we mentioned last week and I believe we touched on this week too, we have received documents. We continue to review them. So I have no update on that.

QUESTION: The Turkish foreign minister Cavusoglu today stated that they have – even though they already submitted necessary documents to U.S. Government, they have not responded that yet. Do you have any particular response to that comment?

MS TRUDEAU: I wouldn’t. I’d let the foreign minister’s comments stand. But I would say that as we’ve said, the extradition process is a formal process, it’s a legal process, it’s a technical process, it’s governed by the extradition treaty that both our governments signed. So we’re going to let that process play out.

QUESTION: Okay, and another question. After the coup – I haven’t been able to ask this question. Yesterday, there is a new arrest warrant for 42 journalists, and there are more. These 42 journalists only just yesterday numbers. And for example, there are 19 journalists, arrest warrants for 19 journalists in Antalya, south city, and there are other cities similar warrants. Are you concerned that after the coup attempt government is moving to basically go after the critical voices and news journalists along with the coup plotters or allegedly coup plotters?

MS TRUDEAU: Well, I’d say what we’ve said repeatedly: In a democratic society, critical voices need to be encouraged; they don’t need to be silenced. We have said many times, not just in relation to Turkey but countries around the world, that democracies become stronger when they let voices from diverse points of view speak.

I’d note, and the President has spoken to this himself, we’ve conveyed both publicly and in private conversations with our Turkish friends and allies the importance of protecting freedom of the press. We are committed to defend freedom of the press, media freedom, due process, freedom of assembly everywhere in the world.

QUESTION: So in terms of in this context, are you concerned with this ongoing campaign of arrests for Turkish journalists?

MS TRUDEAU: So what I would say is that we have actually spoken to this. The President spoke to this and we’ll let his comments stand.

QUESTION: The Travel Warning notes that the voluntary departure of relatives of those working for U.S. embassy and consulate personnel has been authorized.

MS TRUDEAU: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: What has changed in the last several days, since it does seem that, for better or worse, President Erdogan has a firm grip on power? Why is it not safe for the relatives to stay?

MS TRUDEAU: Okay, so it’s important to differentiate on this. This is an authorized departure, so this is an authorized departure. I think many of you saw the Travel Warning that went out. It’s an authorized departure for our embassy in Ankara as well as our consulate in Istanbul for the family members of U.S. personnel stationed there. This is a precautionary measure. It does follow the July 15th attempted coup. We continue to monitor the security developments there, and as we have information, of course, as we are obligated to do, we will share that with the American public. But again, this is an abundance of caution, and again, this is optional. So this is authorized; this is not ordered.

Yes, ma’am.

QUESTION: On the attack on the Catholic church in France and the --

MS TRUDEAU: Horrific.

QUESTION: -- murder of the elderly priest. Last year, the German news weekly Der Spiegel published an analysis of Daesh which was a leak from German intelligence, and it said that Daesh was created in Syria as the regime there began to lose its grip and that Daesh was established by former Iraqi intelligence officers in Syria, and then they took it back into Iraq. And the Kurdish leadership in and out of government has said pretty much the same, like President Barzani’s media advisor in 2014, quote, “Most of the people in the region believe that the organization known as ISIL is actually founded and ruled by the Baath.” Is that an analysis that you would agree with, or you have a different view?

MS TRUDEAU: So you’re asking me to comment on a leaked German report.

QUESTION: Well, I’m – okay, let me say – how do you – how do you understand the structure of this organization which has murdered this priest --

MS TRUDEAU: So – sure.

QUESTION: -- ISIS or Daesh or – how do you understand its structure? Who’s ruling it?

MS TRUDEAU: I would say that there’s been books written about the – what Daesh is, the structure of Daesh, how they continue to adapt and change. Certainly, from this building, while the history of Daesh and where they came from – the rise of Daesh and, in fact, violent extremism writ large in ungoverned spaces – is something that we talk about a lot. I think where this building is and where our counterparts are in the interagency is how do we fight them as they continue to adapt, and where is the commitment in the international community to combat Daesh.

And so you saw this last week, and we spoke about it earlier this week. You see – I think we’re now at 67 countries and international organizations have joined around the world to combat Daesh. I’m not going to speak about where they started or what their foundation was, but really what we’re very focused on is how they’re adapting and how we can adapt to mitigate that risk.

QUESTION: Don’t you think it’s – Sun Tzu, know the enemy, to understand Daesh – that to fight Daesh most effectively, one should understand what it is?

MS TRUDEAU: Oh, absolutely, and I agree with you on that, and also taking a look at how they continue to adapt and change. We’ve spoken many times from this podium too that as the amount of territory that they control in Iraq and Syria shrinks, that we do see these attacks that are – don’t require coordination, they don’t require a lot of resources. And also, frankly, we have discussions about what it means for attacks to be inspired by Daesh or maybe directed by Daesh. This is a very fluid, I would say, security situation and a fluid group. So we are very much committed to finding out about them. We have whole departments within the interagency focused on this.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah, I’m sorry. So we’re going to stay in Syria and then I’ll go to you, Samir. Of course.

QUESTION: Regarding the Secretary’s recent talks with Foreign Minister Lavrov about how to proceed militarily inside Syria, has there been a formal agreement reached between the two governments as part of going after Daesh and other terrorist groups inside the country? When might we expect a formal explanation of what this would require from all parties?

MS TRUDEAU: So I think you saw the Secretary had a press conference, actually, in Laos where he spoke to this a little. We’re not going to speak to what we’re going to do over the next couple weeks until it’s done, if it’s done. We’ve been doing our homework; we’ve been doing a lot of it. We’ve been talking to our partners in the international community. We do hope that somewhere within the first week or two of August we’ll be in a position to tell you what we’re able to do, frankly in the hopes that it’ll make a difference in the lives of the people of Syria. So no, I’m not in a position now to unpack that. I’d stay where the Secretary stayed today in Laos.

QUESTION: Is there any indication that, whatever the U.S. is expecting Russia to do, Russia will do it?

MS TRUDEAU: So the Secretary also spoke to this. This is not an agreement, as we’ve said, that’s based on trust. Certainly this building, I think, is very pragmatic on this. We have seen, as we’ve said, that Russia does have an influence in that country, in that arena, with this regime. We continue to have conversations about how to make that influence mean something to the people of Syria.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS TRUDEAU: Samir.

QUESTION: There’s a press report that Jabhat al-Nusrah is expected to announce soon it’s disconnecting its relations with al-Qaida. Is this going to change – is this going to influence the cooperation with Russia or --

MS TRUDEAU: I’ve seen that report. I just don’t have a comment on it. We believe Nusrah’s fundamental nature is that it’s al-Qaida in Syria.

Okay.

QUESTION: Even if they announce that --

MS TRUDEAU: This is – this would be something, one, I’m not going to speculate out, and two, we believe its fundamental nature is well known.

Abbie.

QUESTION: Syria.

MS TRUDEAU: Oh, I’m sorry. Are we staying on Syria?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MS TRUDEAU: Sort of. We’re going to Syria, and then I’ll come back to you, Abbie.

QUESTION: Just one question on Syria. In northern Syria, in Rojava region, Syrian Kurdish region, some time ago there’s reports that the U.S. is building a Rmeilan air base. Do you have any update on that air base?

MS TRUDEAU: Absolutely not. It wouldn’t be for the State Department to speak to it. But I’ve seen no reports of information on that.

Abigail.

QUESTION: Foreign Minister Lavrov this morning denied any association with a hack into the Democratic National Convention emails. Secretary Kerry briefly addressed this, but is there belief from within this building that they accept their denials?

MS TRUDEAU: So Secretary Kerry did address it. The belief within this building is that the FBI is doing an investigation. It’s a live investigation. We’re going to let that play out.

QUESTION: Can I switch to Estonia?

MS TRUDEAU: You, of course, can switch to Estonia.

QUESTION: There was a message put out that there was a warning of a possible bomb threat at the international airport there, the credibility of which was unknown. Has there been any further information found out? Was it a credible threat?

MS TRUDEAU: I don't have further information for that. I’d direct you to the Estonians to speak to.

Goyal.

QUESTION: South Asia?

MS TRUDEAU: Of course. You were just at the White House. How’d you get over here so fast?

QUESTION: Oh, I didn’t know you were watching me there.

MS TRUDEAU: Of course. (Laughter.) How are you?

QUESTION: Thank you. Madam, I just have two questions on South Asia, one on Pakistan and one on India.

MS TRUDEAU: Of course.

QUESTION: As far as Pakistan is concerned, there’s a particular one community in Pakistan, they’re called Muhajirs, and it’s an ethnic community and which has been under attack by the Pakistani military and by the terrorists there and extremists and all that. Several times they had demonstrated here at the State Department, outside, and – but this week on Saturday, they were at the White House, several hundred of them, and they were asking justice from the President and from the Secretary, that their community is under attack because of their human rights belief and all that, and they don’t consider them to be Pakistanis or Muslims even, some of those in the military and their intelligence, ISI, among other things. And they’re – even they came from 35 countries and also all over the U.S. to voice their genocide against their community.

My question is here, at the same time, there was a handful of demonstrators also counting them –or countering them, and they were praising the Pakistani military and the military who is taking action against these minorities and ethnic groups, and these group, small group was supporting them, the military of Pakistan. So where does this community stand? And because many times the Secretary meets many Pakistani officials and also we had many officials here. So what is their future? What message do you think Secretary has for these and other minorities under attack in Pakistan?

MS TRUDEAU: So what I would say – not speaking to the protest, of which, frankly, I wasn’t tracking, but speaking broadly to the issue of human rights and the issue of minority rights, not only in Pakistan but around the world – is that the United States continues to work hard and in our engagements both bilaterally with countries as well as broad reports, like our Human Rights Report, to detail and express concern and to engage with governments to support the rights of marginalized, disadvantaged minority groups around the world. It’s of enormous importance to the U.S. And again, not saying America’s perfect, but saying that this is something, I think, that we as an international community can all learn from each other on.

And you had a question on India?

QUESTION: Yes. As far as terrorism is concerned and U.S. India has now agreement and treaty and also meeting and greetings as far as fighting against terrorism inside India or ISIL and others. Now India has been fighting against terrorism, in which many of – are tracking India from outside, across the border and also. So where do we stand today – U.S., India, terrorism-fighting treaties? Or where are we there, as far as fighting against terrorism, which India has been shouting – shout – and also asking the U.S. help – to help India bring those wanted by India from other countries?

MS TRUDEAU: Well, not speaking specifically to any particular case, I would say as two large democracies, the United States and India have a joint commitment to fighting against violent extremism – the kind that impacts the people of India or the kind that impacts anywhere around the world. India, unfortunately, has suffered at the hands of terrorists. They understand this issue and our cooperation – law enforcement, counterterrorism, countering violent extremism – is extremely strong and robust. Okay.

QUESTION: May I have one more quickly on China?

MS TRUDEAU: One more quick and then I’ll move over here.

QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.

MS TRUDEAU: Go ahead.

QUESTION: So according to the Reuters, the North Korean foreign minister who was visiting the Laos said to the reporters that any additional nuclear test depends on the position of the United States. Are you aware of this statement, and are you – is there any reaction on this?

MS TRUDEAU: So I’ve seen the foreign minister’s comments. Our position, I think, would be what it has been continually from this podium and from the U.S., is we call on North Korea to refrain from actions and rhetoric that further destabilize the region. We think that they should focus on taking concrete steps to fulfilling its commitments and international obligations.

Ros?

QUESTION: Yeah. The Israeli-U.S. defense relationship.

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah.

QUESTION: Do you – can you confirm Israeli reports that Jacob Nagel, the acting national security advisor, is coming to the U.S. over this coming weekend to meet with, among others, the National Security Advisor Susan Rice to talk about finalizing a new 10-year military deal?

MS TRUDEAU: I can’t. For issues on Ambassador Rice’s meeting, I’d refer you to the White House on that.

QUESTION: Do – are you aware of any meetings that may be held with pol-mil folks in this building?

MS TRUDEAU: I am not. I am not. Thanks, guys.

QUESTION: Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:35 p.m.)

DPB # 131

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 - July 25, 2016

John Kirby

Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC

July 25, 2016









Index for Today's Briefing

SECRETARY KERRY'S TRAVEL



IRAQ



RUSSIA



SOUTH KOREA/JAPAN




TRANSCRIPT:

2:11 p.m. EDT

MR KIRBY: Good afternoon, everybody. Just a recap, if I could, of the Secretary’s meetings and discussions today. He met today, as I think you know, with the foreign ministers of the 10 ASEAN members in Laos to discuss shared priorities in the U.S.-ASEAN strategic partnership, including strengthening democracy, good governance, and economic integration in Southeast Asia, as well as upholding a rules-based regional order. The foreign ministers discussed U.S.-ASEAN Connect, which is an initiative to deepen U.S. economic cooperation through targeting strategic sectors, including innovation, energy, and business engagement. They discussed specific actions to combat illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing, and they pledged to strengthen cooperation against terrorism and violent extremism.

The foreign ministers also discussed the South China Sea. Several ministers, including Secretary Kerry, noted the importance of fully respecting diplomatic and legal processes to resolve disputes peacefully, and they called upon both parties in the Philippines-China arbitration to abide by the decision of that tribunal and to uphold international law. We expect these issues to feature at the meetings of the ASEAN Regional Forum and the East Asia Summit foreign ministers’ meeting, which Secretary Kerry will attend tomorrow.

The Secretary and his ASEAN counterparts agreed on the importance of full implementation of UN Security Council resolution 2270 to curb North Korea’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs, and he also met today with counterparts from Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam at the ninth ministerial meeting of the Lower Mekong Initiative. Participants welcomed the progress that this initiative has made in promoting sustainable development in the Mekong region, and they launched the Sustainable Infrastructure Partnership. This partnership will provide training for government officials from Mekong Initiative countries aimed at building regional capacity and infrastructure plan.

That’s it for the top today. Who’s got a question? Go ahead.

QUESTION: Okay. This is on Iraq, and Iraq’s defense minister has been saying that the Kurdish Peshmerga will not be fighting in the liberation of Mosul – that they only have a logistical role to play. Can you clarify what the U.S. view on this is?

MR KIRBY: Our view has been since the very beginning that we are there to support an Iraqi campaign plan and an Iraqi strategy to defeat Daesh in the country. And we continue to provide support to that campaign and to that strategy through train, advise, and assist missions and, of course, obviously through coalition air power and other assets. But this is an Iraqi plan, and I’m not going to speak here for an Iraqi operational strategy. What we are focused on is supporting the Government of Iraq as it continues to take back territory from Daesh. And we’re supporting their efforts, trying to improve the battlefield competency and capability of Iraqi Security Forces.

QUESTION: So you would accept the – if it’s an Iraqi definition, you would accept the definition of the role of the Peshmerga in the liberation of Mosul as only having a logistical role if that’s what the Iraqis are saying?

MR KIRBY: What I’m saying is these are decisions – how the strategy to retake Mosul – those are decisions that Iraqi leaders have to make. Our job is to support the Government of Iraq. Obviously, we want to see Mosul retaken; everybody is committed to that goal, but this is an Iraqi plan, an Iraqi strategy, and we’re going to support them as they execute that.

QUESTION: I have a follow-up question.

MR KIRBY: I was certain that you did.

QUESTION: It has to do with the statement of the president of the Kurdistan Regional Government, the KRG, that he issued today. And I – well, what he – we know, okay, that the KRG, the Kurds, are among America’s most loyal allies in the Middle East. And if you think about the vast area between Jordan and India, the KRG is quite arguably America’s most faithful and trustworthy ally. But today the president of the KRG, Masoud Barzani, issued a very strong statement noting the bravery and sacrifices of Peshmerga in fighting ISIS, as well as that of the Kurdish people generally, who host two-thirds of the refugees and displaced persons in Iraq. And he complained that nonetheless, Iraq created obstacles for a Kurdish representative to be present in the last anti-ISIS summit in Washington. Quote, “Unfortunately, the host of that summit went along with the Iraqi foreign minister. This is merely one example of many where the people of the Kurdistan region and their aspirations are deliberately neglected in accordance with the personal mood of certain individuals.” How would you respond to that?

MR KIRBY: I haven’t seen those comments, and so I’m not going to put myself in the position of responding to remarks that I haven’t seen or were not aware of. Let me just go back and talk a little bit about last week’s ministerial, which was very important – the counter-ISIL ministerial. I mean, both days – the pledging conference and – was obviously critical too, but they were two separate events. But let’s talk about the counter-ISIL ministerial for a minute. I mean, now you have 67 members, with the inclusion now of Interpol, in the truly international coalition to defeat Daesh, and there were substantive, constructive, positive discussions that were had last week on how to improve coalition efforts across all the lines of effort against Daesh. And there was, of course, an Iraqi delegation led by that country’s foreign minister, which included a member of the KRG. So – and again, we left – as we do with any country in this coalition, we left decisions of delegation participation up to that government, and the Iraqi Government chose to include a member of the KRG.

Now, let me just say a point about what you said in terms of efforts by the KRG and the Peshmerga in the fight – and they have been very effective, they have been very brave, they have been competent, and we have on many occasions said how much we appreciate that competence and that bravery, that skill on the battlefield, which is why we continue to support the Iraqi Government in Baghdad as that government tries to deal with this threat. And we have from the very beginning encouraged dialogue, cooperation, coordination between north and south, between the KRG and the Iraqi Government in Baghdad, which we will continue to do. And I don’t know how – any more tangible way to get to this than you just look at the travels of the Presidential Special Envoy Brett McGurk, who goes to the region very, very frequently and he constantly spends time in Irbil talking to leaders up there about how – what kind of progress they’re making and how things are going to go moving forward.

QUESTION: Well, I guess a statement like the – there’s an expectation on the part of the U.S. that the Peshmerga are going to play a critical role fighting in the liberation of Mosul would address those kinds of concerns.

MR KIRBY: They have played a critical role in the fighting, and as for the campaign against Mosul, I think you can understand – at least I hope you can understand – why the U.S. Department of State wouldn’t be commenting about the specifics of a military strategy; and number two, even if I were going to do that, why we wouldn’t transmit publicly exactly how a strategy against a still determined, lethal enemy is going to be prosecuted. Everybody understands the importance of Mosul, the Iraqi Government obviously first among them who understands the importance of retaking Mosul. They have a strategy; they have a campaign plan. That campaign plan, by the way, has already been in motion, and DOD can speak to this with much greater specificity than I can, but there have been shaping operations going on for many months now around Mosul. We’re going to continue to support that strategy and that plan, but it is an Iraqi plan, and we have all along said that we support Prime Minster Abadi’s efforts – politically and militarily – to be as inclusive as possible as he continues to prosecute the efforts against Daesh inside his country.

QUESTION: Okay, but my last comment would be that it was not so long ago that the United States actually worked to remove the Iraqi foreign minister, who was then prime minister, from his position, and the United States was not quite so deferential to the Iraqi Government.

MR KIRBY: Well, I think I’ve spoken to this issue quite extensively today.

Ma’am.

QUESTION: Hi, thank you. On the possibility that Russia was behind the DNC hack, could you tell us if the Secretary has spoken or any other State Department official have spoken to their Russian counterparts, either to ask about this, protest, whatever, or if there’s been any other sort of communication with the Russians – letters, missives, whatever?

MR KIRBY: Well, look, I mean, I think it goes without saying that issues of cyber security remain a topic of discussion between us and our Russian interlocutors on a continuous basis. I don’t have any specific conversations to speak to, and nor would I as this matter is under investigation by the FBI.

QUESTION: Could you say whether this – the interference in an electoral campaign by a foreign power – rises to the level of an attack on – through cyber attacks – rises to the level of attack on vital installations or even cyber warfare?

MR KIRBY: I think we need to let the FBI do their work before we try to form any conclusions here about what happened and what the motivation was behind it. The FBI has spoken to this. We’re going to respect that process.

Ma’am.

QUESTION: On Asia, there are a few meetings at the State Department today that I wondered if you had readouts on: Under Secretary Tom Shannon’s meeting with the South Korean vice defense minister as well as Under Secretary Gottemoeller’s meeting with the Japan ambassador to NATO.

MR KIRBY: Let me get back to you on that, all right?

QUESTION: Okay.

MR KIRBY: We’ll see if we can’t get you some basic readout information after those meetings are complete. I don’t have anything for you right now here at the podium.

QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.

MR KIRBY: Okay. I think this is a new record. Thanks, everybody. Have a great day.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:22 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 - July 22, 2016

Elizabeth Trudeau

Director, Press Office
Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC

July 22, 2016









Index for Today's Briefing

POLAND



BRAZIL



ALBANIA



GERMANY



TURKEY



IRAQ



TURKEY



DEPARTMENT




TRANSCRIPT:

2:01 p.m. EDT

MS TRUDEAU: Happy Friday, everyone. The legendary Richard Boucher, a spokesperson here at the department, once had a four-minute press brief. I don’t think I’ll make that today, but we’re going to be pretty brief. I do have a few things at the top.

First, today, Poland’s parliament approved new legislation regarding the constitutional tribunal. While the new law has addressed some Venice Commission recommendations regarding legislation passed last year that was later ruled unconstitutional, it impedes a compromise resolution to the seating of six judicial nominees.

At the NATO Summit, President Obama expressed concern over rule of law to President Duda and urged all parties to work together to sustain Poland’s democratic institutions. The United States encourages Poland’s authorities to promptly redress unresolved issues so Poland’s democratic institutions and the system of checks and balances are fully functioning and respected.

Secondly, I’d just like to flag this morning we did release a fact sheet on the Olympics/Paralympics that’s happening in Brazil. Especially for U.S. citizens traveling to Brazil for these games, we’d make sure you please register at travel.state.gov and take a look at that information. There’s excellent resources.

Finally, one point on Albania. The United States congratulates the people of Albania on the passage of justice reform. This is a historic step forward for Albanian democracy. The unanimous approval of the reform is a strong statement of national unity. Albania’s leaders have placed the country on the right side of justice and history and moved it further down the Euro-Atlantic path. This success belongs to Albania’s people and civil society who never gave up their demands for change. The United States is committed to helping Albania implement this reform and ensure its success.

And we’ll go to Abbie.

QUESTION: Okay. Do you have any information about reports of a shooting at a mall in Munich?

MS TRUDEAU: I do, and thanks for the question. We’ve seen these initial reports. I think we all know this story is just breaking now. So, again, we’ve seen initial reports about a shooting at a shopping center in Munich, Germany. Our thoughts are with the victims and their families. We’re following the situation closely here at the Department and we’re working with local authorities to determine if any U.S. citizens have been impacted. For details on this as the situation continues to unfold, we’re going to refer you to German authorities. Thanks.

QUESTION: Do you – so you have no further information about anyone injured at --

MS TRUDEAU: At this time I’m going to refer you to German authorities. I think we’re all aware that this situation continues to unfold. It would be premature for me to say anything else.

Great. Oren.

QUESTION: Yeah. Turkey’s ambassador said that Turkey will work with this joint State Department-Department of Justice team on the extradition request. What’s the next steps in this – the extradition request for Mr. Gulen?

MS TRUDEAU: Okay. So we spoke about this quite a lot yesterday and we’ve spoken about it, I think, in fact, all week. We’ve been clear the United States would be willing to provide assistance to Turkish authorities conducting their investigation in this coup attempt. U.S. Government officials in the United States and in Turkey, including representatives from the Department of Justice, have offered to consult with the Government of Turkey on this matter, including hosting their Turkish counterparts either here in Washington or traveling to Ankara for consultations. Beyond that, I just have nothing to add.

QUESTION: In terms of the assistance that the U.S. Government will provide, what exact type – what exactly is that assistance going to be? I think they said that it’s not going to be – help with the investigation. What exactly are they going to provide?

MS TRUDEAU: At this stage, I just don’t have anything more to add on the granularity on that. We remain in close touch with our Turkish allies, our friends, our partners on this. The extradition process, as we’ve talked about extensively from here, is a legal process. It’s governed by our extradition treaty, so it’s a very formal, very technical process on that. But in terms of the cooperation, the offer is there.

Great. Laurie.

QUESTION: It seems the State Department did a great job hosting all those international conferences on Iraq.

MS TRUDEAU: Thank you. We appreciate it. It was a good team.

QUESTION: No, terrific, and I was very pleased to see the Kurdish – KRG representative was there as well.

MS TRUDEAU: She was.

QUESTION: And that was terrific. And you even raised more money – somewhat more money.

MS TRUDEAU: Over $2.1 billion for Iraq.

QUESTION: And you said, if I recall correctly, 2 billion was the goal. So you raised more than your goal?

MS TRUDEAU: That’s correct.

QUESTION: So I have a question for the next phase.

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah.

QUESTION: Because the Iraqi Government’s a – well, it ranks 161 out of 168 countries for corruption in Transparency International’s index, and it’s not known particularly for its honest government. What mechanisms are in place to make sure that this money is spent correctly, and since the Kurdistan region hosts two-thirds of the displaced persons and the refugees from the war with Daesh, to ensure that the Kurdistan region gets its fair share of the – this humanitarian aid?

MS TRUDEAU: Well, I’d start off by saying that the United States is grateful for each of the countries and organizations who were represented at the conference. As you know, this was a tremendous success, so thanks for recognizing that. These countries and organizations who participated are demonstrating important leadership, and they’re making it possible for Iraqi citizens displaced by Daesh to return – to choose to return – to their homes, to receive the services they need in order to rebuild their community.

Speaking specifically about the money, because I do want to discuss that a little, pledges from these international donors will go to four critical need areas in Iraq: humanitarian assistance, de-mining, the UNDP Funding Facility for Immediate Stabilization, and the Funding Facility for Expanded Stabilization. The latter, it’s my understanding, functions as a bridging effort between the Iraqi Government and the coalition in areas liberated by Daesh.

In terms of the Iraqi Government’s work on this, our partnership with the Iraqi Government is deep and it’s strong. This is something that we’ve spoken frequently about in our support of the government as they seek to reform their own efforts in doing this, so it’s something that we’re very closely invested in.

In your question on what money is going where, the conference just wrapped up, so I’m not going to get ahead of that. What we will say, which we have always said, is that funding and the support will go through Baghdad, but we are very aware of the impact that certain areas of the country have experienced at the hands of Daesh.

QUESTION: And doubtless you have in mind measures to make sure that Baghdad spends the money appropriately and it doesn’t go into people’s pockets?

MS TRUDEAU: So that’s one of the conversations that we continue to have with U.S. aid regardless of where it goes in the world.

Great. Tejinder.

QUESTION: Yeah. So on – you used the word “pledges.” At most of these conferences there are pledges. I remember Haiti, for example. And how much money and when is it going to come and where is it going to come? Who is going to be the collector?

MS TRUDEAU: Mm-hmm. So we’re still tallying the amount, so the comprehensive list of pledges from yesterday’s conference is still evolving. It’s my understanding there’s a number of countries who are still making announcements, so I’m not going to give you a total there. We anticipate, actually, more funds will come in. However, as of right now, 26 donors pledged contributions totaling more than 590 million for urgent humanitarian assistance. Those funds will support the needs as identified in the UN’s 2016 Humanitarian Response Plan. Fourteen nations announced new funding – which gets to your question – for critical stabilization programming in Iraq, pledging more than 350 million. An even larger number of countries were able to make a combined pledge of an additional 125 million for UNDP’s funding facility, which we spoke about.

What each country does in terms of its budget or its funding mechanisms – we let each country speak to itself. But Secretary Kerry spoke about the U.S. funding yesterday and said it would be immediate.

QUESTION: I’m trying to understand that the U.S. hosted the conference.

MS TRUDEAU: We did. We were the --

QUESTION: The pledges were made. Now, who is going to – is it going to make sure that the pledges are converted into checks or a transfer of money?

MS TRUDEAU: So this is – this would be the coalition, the group --

QUESTION: Okay.

MS TRUDEAU: -- of individuals who actually participated in the conference. As you know, we had an extremely robust group of co-hosts who also have assumed a leadership position in that as well.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: You just talk about the team that will work on the extradition --

MS TRUDEAU: We are skipping all over the place today. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Sorry, I should have told you.

MS TRUDEAU: No, it’s fine. I should have gone to --

QUESTION: Going back to Turkey, we know that the U.S. also offered your help for the investigation of the coup attempt. Have you been – received any kind of response?

MS TRUDEAU: I have no update on that. I know we spoke about it yesterday, but I don’t have any new information on that.

QUESTION: Okay. Yesterday, John Kirby stated that U.S. is concerned about what’s going on since the coup – failed coup attempt last week about the administration – Turkish administration actions. Today, they are – new websites are closed down and a few more journalists detained. I was wondering if you have been able to communicated your concerns with the Turkish Government. And do you have any update on this?

MS TRUDEAU: Well, what I would point you to is what President Obama himself said today, which starts from the premise that Turkey is our friend, our ally, it’s our partner in one of the toughest fights that the world is facing now. We’ve discussed this many times. I don’t have anything to add to what the President said. I think his comments trump everything.

Great. Tejinder.

QUESTION: Going back to President Obama, he has commented on last night’s speech of Republican nominee, saying that whatever he’s drumming up, that the world is – U.S. is collapsing, that we’re – so the U.S. part I’m leaving out. What is the observation from this department? Because you deal with the world, so do – what do you feel that – about his comments? Like, you cannot say you can’t – because you see the President has also – has commented. He’s commented on domestic point of view, he’s commented on foreign. But you deal with the U.S. policies with all the countries. What are you hearing? What are you getting so --

MS TRUDEAU: So, I – a couple things on that. I’m not going to speak to political rhetoric, Tejinder. We won’t from this podium.

QUESTION: Okay, okay.

MS TRUDEAU: Okay. I would point you to the President’s comments. The President of the United States, more than anyone else in this Administration, deals with the world. So I would frame it in the way.

But I would also say of course we track the same issues you do – you on that side of the podium, us on this side of the podium. So I think we’ll leave the President’s comments where they stood.

QUESTION: Do you agree that – because he gets his feedback from this department.

MS TRUDEAU: I think the President gets his feedback from a lot of different places, Tejinder.

QUESTION: Yeah, but this is one of the major policy with all the embassies and --

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah, I’m not going to characterize sort of developments in the world.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS TRUDEAU: I think that would be a pretty broad reach.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS TRUDEAU: Abbe.

QUESTION: New topic.

MS TRUDEAU: Of course.

QUESTION: Have you received from the FBI the first initial set of documents from Hillary Clinton’s emails?

MS TRUDEAU: So thank you for the question. I’ll start off and just note something from the top. The department takes its record management and Freedom of Information Act responsibilities seriously. Just as we appropriately process the material turned over to the department by former Secretary Clinton, we will appropriately and with due diligence process any additional material we receive from the FBI to identify work-related agency records and make them available to the public consistent with our legal obligations.

The FBI provided the department with an initial set of material on Thursday. We’re going to review the material to identify those that are agency records. As we have not yet reviewed the material, we’re not going to speculate further about their scope or content, nor do we have any details to offer on how or when any such agency records will be released.

QUESTION: Do you have any update on the state of the internal investigation into possible mishandling of classified information?

MS TRUDEAU: No, I think I updated that – it feels like a long time ago, but I only think it was last week. I have no update from that.

Great. Great, guys. Thanks so much. Have a good weekend.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:14 p.m.)

DPB # 129

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 - July 18, 2016

Mark C. Toner

Deputy Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC

July 18, 2016









Index for Today's Briefing

DEPARTMENT



TURKEY



CHINA/REGION



TURKEY



CHINA/REGION



TURKEY



SOUTH SUDAN



IRAN



FRANCE




TRANSCRIPT:

2:11 p.m. EDT

MR TONER: Hey everybody, welcome to the State Department. Just a couple things at the top and then I’ll get to your questions. First of all, I wanted to announce the U.S. Department of State will convene an International Drug Treatment Experts gathering to address the issue of childhood addiction. This is a first-of-its-kind gathering and the State Department is doing this today. It’s convening experts and practitioners from around the world to make progress against this rapidly emerging and alarming phenomenon of childhood substance abuse and addiction.

This is going to be a three-day meeting that brings together other drug treatment experts, NGO, practitioners, government officials from 10 countries and several international organizations. Excuse me. And the goal here is to build upon the drug treatment protocols for youth that have been developed by the State Department as well as our international partners to create a comprehensive and evidence-based treatment, prevention, and recovery platform for these children.

Also just a quick update on the Secretary’s travels. As you know, he was in Brussels earlier today, where he met with EU Foreign Affairs Council – the EU Foreign Affairs Council, rather. He also held a joint press avail with EU High Representative Federica Mogherini and then participated in a U.S.-GCC foreign ministers meeting. He is en route, or I believe he’s now arrived in London, where he’ll meet tomorrow with UN Special Envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura as well as Foreign Minister Boris Johnson, British Foreign Minister Boris Johnson, and also attend other multilateral meetings on Yemen and Syria.

Lesley.

QUESTION: Hello.

MR TONER: Hey.

QUESTION: I want to start with Turkey. Has the Secretary made any further calls today regarding Turkey? Has he spoken – he’s spoken three times to the foreign minister, right?

MR TONER: Yeah, and I think he just spoke within the past hour and I don’t have a readout. Frankly, it was a rather brief call, but he spoke with Foreign Minister Cavusoglu again just a short while ago.

QUESTION: Was that a follow-up from the – you don’t know what --

MR TONER: No, I wasn’t – I apologize, I wasn’t able to get a readout. If there’s anything to share, I’ll share it with you guys later.

QUESTION: And then the White House has said that the U.S. has not yet received a specific extradition request from the Turkish Government regarding the cleric Mr. Gulen. Is that your understanding as well that that has not been received?

MR TONER: That is our understanding. We have not yet received a formal extradition request. Yes.

QUESTION: So you’ve not received a formal one, but has the government actually said to you that it intends to do that and that it will provide evidence that Mr. Gulen was – helped mastermind this coup?

MR TONER: So I’ll switch that question around a little bit in my answer because I don’t want to speak on behalf of the Turkish Government. What I would say is the Secretary has clearly stated that he and we, the United States, would welcome a formal extradition request with the evidence that we believe – or that they would offer in terms of the extradition for Gulen.

As you know, the extradition process is not something we talk about openly or publicly. And in fact, we don’t often address publicly extradition requests. In this case, we’ve made an exception given the level of public rhetoric back and forth to say that we haven’t yet received a formal request. But we do have an extradition treaty in effect with Turkey, and again, we would welcome such a request from them with the evidence that they believe shows that Gulen is involved in this coup attempt.

QUESTION: You said you would welcome one. So you’re expecting one?

MR TONER: Again, I don’t want to necessarily – I mean, again, there’s lots of public comments on the part of Turkish officials about who or what factions may have been behind this coup attempt. I think it’s important, frankly, in these early days of the aftermath that we don’t speak on behalf of the Turkish Government. We let them carry out their investigation. We’ve offered assistance in that investigation, whatever we can provide. But I think in terms of extradition, all we can say at this point is we do have a formal extradition treaty with Turkey. It’s been in force since 1981. It has a set process to it. We need to receive a formal request. We’ve said we have not yet received that formal request. But once we do, we’ll evaluate it according to that process.

QUESTION: What is your response, then, that Turkey’s saying it will reconsider its friendship with the U.S. if the U.S. doesn’t extradite Mr. Gulen?

MR TONER: Well, again Lesley, I think what’s important here is that we not try to make this personal to the case of Gulen. This is a legal treaty. It involves legal analysis and a process. We have said that we will carry out that process. We just need to receive the formal extradition request and, as well as that, we need to see the evidence. We’re going to make an evidence-based decision on whatever decision that may be. And that’s all we can do. It has nothing to do – it has no bearing on whether we believe or buy into what allegations may be made – may be flying around right now. What we need to see is clear evidence that backs up this request, and then based on that evidence we’ll make our best judgment.

QUESTION: Has the U.S. actually asked Mr. Gulen if he has any involvement? Have you personally sought that assurance from him?

MR TONER: Lesley, I’m not aware that we’ve actually had any formal contact with him since Friday.

QUESTION: One more --

MR TONER: Yeah, sure.

QUESTION: -- before I hand it over to my colleagues. The Secretary and others in the EU have expressed concern on – over the clamp-down of what the government’s been doing. I mean, 20,000 officials have already been – that the – that Turkey’s taken actions against because of the coup. Do you – does 20,000 seem excessive to you at this stage?

MR TONER: Detained?

QUESTION: As an excessive action against – I mean, so many people involved.

MR TONER: Yeah, look, I mean, again – a couple of thoughts. First of all, we absolutely stand by the Government of Turkey and the people of Turkey in the aftermath of Friday’s attempted coup. Turkey’s a NATO ally. It’s a key partner in the region. It’s a key partner to the United States. It’s a key partner to the EU. And we stand squarely on the side of the elected leadership of Turkey.

We’ve been clear since the moment of the news of this coup attempt became public, we’ve been very clear that we stand with the democratically elected government of Turkey. We have also offered assistance as Turkey attempts to bring the perpetrators of this coup attempt to justice and we support that effort. But – and this is not – I don’t want to comment necessarily on the 20,000 or this move or that move. What I want to speak to broadly is that we have cautioned against a reach – if you will – that goes beyond a legitimate effort to bring these perpetrators to justice, and to stress that, as again we’ve – in the aftermath of Friday’s and Saturday’s events, that the Turkish Government remains true to the values – the democratic values that it holds and the Turkish people hold dear. And I think that’s essentially our message.

QUESTION: The very fact that U.S. and the EU – Mogherini basically was – if you impose the death sentence, it’s a – that’s a deal breaker of you joining the EU. The fact that you actually expressed this concern means that you have the concern that – I mean, are you concerned that the government could be over-reaching?

MR TONER: A couple of thoughts or ways that I would respond to that question. First of all, it’s no secret publicly we’ve said in the last few months we have expressed our concern about some of the actions of Turkey’s government with respect to freedom of the press, freedom of expression, civil society, and we have called on Turkey’s government to live up to the values in the Turkish constitution, live up to its democratic aspirations and its democratic traditions. So that’s not new; we’ve been very clear about that.

We also recognize that in the aftermath of the kind of upheaval and the kind of dramatic events that took place on Friday – and let’s be very clear, they were dramatic events – that there can be a tendency on the part of any government to react in a way that extends beyond appropriate due process and investigations into who was behind these actions. So that’s all we’re saying here. We’re just simply cautioning that in – cautioning our Turkish friends and partners and allies that in the aftermath of this, they need to remain true to the democratic ideals that they hold dear. And this is true, frankly, for many governments the world over that face political crises, social crises, that they always have to be mindful of their values – their core values as a nation.

QUESTION: I’ll leave it up to my colleagues.

MR TONER: Sure. Nike.

QUESTION: Yes, hi, Mark. Thanks. So we have reporters on the ground trying to filming the reactions, but they were encountered with crowds shouting they are Americans, don’t talk to them, don’t listen to them. So with such high anti-American sentiment in Turkey, are you concerned of the U.S.-Turkey cooperation in the aftermath?

MR TONER: I don’t think so, Nike. And I’d also be wary of just – and I recognize that your reporters on the ground are reporting what they’re seeing and what they’re hearing, but I don’t know how pervasive that sentiment is. As I said to Lesley just now, we’ve been – we couldn’t have been clearer and quicker in our response of support for the democratically elected Turkish Government. And let’s be very clear and mindful of that fact, that there is absolutely no rationale, no justification for the actions that were taken against that democratically elected government last Friday evening. And so we’ve been very clear where we stand on this issue. We have offered our support for the Turkish Government. We have, again, been very clear in condemning the actions of the military or those factions within the military that tried to carry out this attempted overthrow of a legitimately elected government. There’s never any justification for that.

So are we concerned about anti-American sentiments among the Turkish people? I would hope that the Turkish people recognize that the United States stands with, again, the democratically elected Government of Turkey, but also with the Turkish people and their aspirations for a strong democracy. And we’ve been very clear about that. We’ve been very clear, as I said even prior to this, when we see efforts or moves on the part of even the Turkish Government that we believe restricts that democratic space, we express those concerns because we feel – and this is also important – that we have the kind of relationship with Turkey that we can share those concerns with them. They are a NATO ally, a long-term – or a longtime ally of the United States, and we have an honest and candid relationship. And we have areas – and we’ve seen this, frankly, in terms of going after Daesh – where we disagree a little bit on some of the ways and modalities that we go about that. That’s part of any relationship. So we’re not always going to agree on everything with the Turkish Government, but in a moment like this, we stand strongly and firmly with them.

Please.

QUESTION: Are you calling for the restraint from the rhetorics from Erdogan’s government? Because over the weekends, we’ve seen and we heard some of the rhetorics quite accusive.

MR TONER: Well, again, I would think that – and, again, bearing in mind that in the aftermath of a tumultuous event like Friday, it’s not unexpected that you’re going to hear fiery rhetoric, impassioned rhetoric, and not just from the political leadership but on all sides. I think my response to that would be we always need to be mindful of that, and like we would in many situations around the world – even in our own country – we could caution against rhetoric that escalates tensions and rather support de-escalation.

Please.

QUESTION: One final question, if I may.

MR TONER: Please. Yeah, sure.

QUESTION: So are you concerned about the military cooperation in the aftermath? Because some of the personnel live off-base. And then are you worried about the military cooperation?

MR TONER: Sure. I mean, I’d refer you to our colleagues over at Department of Defense to speak specifically to the status of Incirlik and our use of that airbase. But broadly speaking, no. I mean, we’re not concerned about our ongoing cooperation with Turkish security forces, Turkish military, especially within the anti-Daesh or anti-ISIL coalition. And we’ve been very clear about expressing our commitment to keeping the pressure up on those airstrikes that we’re carrying out against Daesh in northern Syria especially. But also in Iraq we’re not going to let up, and we’re going to try to seek to continue those operations as much as we can given the fact that – again, that events on the ground, especially over the weekend, led to some at least temporary disruption of those activities.

QUESTION: Are they coming to the counter-ISIL conference this week in Washington?

MR TONER: My expectation is that they are, yes – or our expectation is that they are.

Please.

QUESTION: On Turkey, a couple more, Mark?

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: You said that you made it clear to Turkish Government and you are with the democratically elected government.

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: When you look at the ministers, one after another coming out, and I can quote you some of their remarks, that they hold America responsible for this coup as long as you don’t give Gulen back to Turkey, or like Prime Minister Binali Yildirim who said that there will be no country as a friend of Turkey if not giving Gulen back, apparently talking about the U.S. And look at the pro-government. Maybe it’s – basically it’s out there and it’s again accusing U.S. So my question is: When you’re talking to Turkish officials, are you conveying these messages and when you get it, because there is no counter-message in terms of --

MR TONER: I think it’s a fair question. I think what we’re conveying in our conversations to Turkish officials is exactly what I just attempted to explain to Lesley, which is the fact that we need to, looking at the – again, the process of extradition and the potential extradition request for Gulen, because we haven’t received a formal extradition request, we need to take the emotion, we need to take the drama – if you will – out of it, and need to look at it as purely as a legal question or a legal case, and that that needs to follow a legal process.

It has nothing to do with our strong and ongoing alliance and partnership with Turkey. It is simply, when we look at any extradition case, irrespective of who that person – or who it’s about, we have to evaluate the merits of that case based on the evidence that’s made available to us. And it’s a – it is a set process. It’s looked at purely from a legal standpoint, and that’s, I think, what we need to abide by. And we would expect the same – if the – if it were switched and we were asking for Turkey to extradite someone, we would expect the same diligence and we would expect Turkey to also abide by due process.

QUESTION: Did the Turkish Government – have they told you they are sending the notice or request anytime soon? Any kind of deadline? Have you been noticed about the request?

MR TONER: Yeah, I don’t want to get in – I don’t want to get really beyond what’s been said so far. And the reason is that we don’t generally discuss – we’re a little bit, as we say, out in front of our skis in terms of even acknowledging that we haven’t received a formal request. But given, as I said, the swirl of rhetoric around this particular case, we have said that we’ve not yet received a formal request. But we don’t generally speak about extradition requests. And again, it speaks to, I think, the fact that any extradition request needs to be carried out in a way that is objective and is – and according to legal standards.

Please.

QUESTION: Apart from these accusations of coup involvement with the Gulen movement, what are you – I am sure you have looked into this movement now or the Fethullah Gulen. What is your assessment of the group? Can you describe us how do you see this group?

MR TONER: Of Gulen’s --

QUESTION: Gulen group or Fethullah Gulen himself. Do you consider him peaceful? Do you consider him – how do you consider him or his movement?

MR TONER: I mean – look, I mean, again, I don’t know that we have any assessment of Gulen’s group apart from what we have – let me rephrase that. We haven’t made any assessment of Gulen’s group and their involvement in this attempted coup. That’s to be – that remains to be seen. If we receive evidence, we’ll certainly evaluate or assess that evidence.

As to his role, we’re well aware of how he is perceived by members of the – Turkey’s Government and political leadership, but he is, to our knowledge thus far, living in accordance with the law. If he wasn’t, then we would obviously have something to say about that. But to our knowledge, he’s living peacefully up in Pennsylvania in his compound.

QUESTION: But you say you’ve not made an assessment. Are you planning on doing an assessment of whether he was involved or not?

MR TONER: Again, I think as much as it is part of any extradition request, we would look at that. Yes, we would make that kind of assessment, certainly if we were trying to evaluate his involvement in the coup.

QUESTION: And outside the extradition – I mean, if this is going to – if this is something that’s going to become between you and a key ally --

MR TONER: I think --

QUESTION: -- is it not that you --

MR TONER: Without getting – and I feel like I’m already wading into hypotheticals a little bit more than I’d like to. But how I would answer that is that certainly if Turkey has concerns about the involvement of Gulen or his group, they can share their concerns with us along with the evidence that they have collected, and we will certainly look at that and evaluate it. That’s something we would do for any ally and partner. As to any extradition request, again, that is something that would have to proceed along to – established processes.

Yes.

QUESTION: So when we go back to Friday --

MR TONER: Oh, sorry.

QUESTION: -- when exactly did you learn about the coup attempt on that day?

MR TONER: I think it was late afternoon our time.

QUESTION: So, like, to give an exact time?

MR TONER: I think we first saw the reports over social media. Again, I’m speaking only on behalf of the press office and our knowledge of it, but I think most people became aware of it late on a Friday afternoon in Washington around 4 p.m. Washington time. I think there were initial indications on social media first and foremost, is my understanding.

QUESTION: Did you knew anything about it before that timing, before it came out like an issue on the social media?

MR TONER: Not that I’m aware of, no.

QUESTION: I have a couple more, if I may.

MR TONER: Sure, go ahead. Please finish. Yeah.

QUESTION: So there are some critics that the U.S. Administration believes the statement that it stands with the democratically elected Turkish Government after five to four – four to five hours after the coup attempt took place. So why not earlier releasing the statement?

MR TONER: In terms of the timing of the statement? Look, I mean that it was a very dynamic situation. As with any situation like that, we’re trying to evaluate, frankly, what is happening on the ground. I think the Turkish Government was trying to evaluate and analyze what was happening on the ground, so I don’t think it’s unusual that we also were trying to figure out what exactly was taking place. But for you to insinuate that there was somehow any delay because we were trying to game out this or to – that somehow we were involved, I would just reject that wholeheartedly.

QUESTION: But I mean, even if the claims were not true, I mean, you would still support the Turkish Government, which is like --

MR TONER: Exactly.

QUESTION: -- which is the democratic – like, the representative democracy.

MR TONER: Precisely, yes.

QUESTION: So you could – you may have – right – like release it before earlier, even if the claims were not true. So what is your reaction to that?

MR TONER: Again, I – in terms of the timing, I believe we were as responsive as we could be given the circumstances. And we couldn’t – our message couldn’t have been clearer, which is that we stood by and stand by the democratically elected government of Turkey.

QUESTION: So there are also some reports, sir, saying that NATO should remove Turkey from the alliance. And I want to ask you what’s the -- what the U.S. position is on that, because you are referring to Turkey as a NATO ally, like, regarding all the issues, like the fight with the Daesh and, like, with everything. So what is your --

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: -- what is the U.S. Administration position on this?

MR TONER: Our position or our policy hasn’t changed. Turkey is a NATO ally and a strong partner. I would refer you to the NATO secretary-general to speak on what NATO’s position is regarding Turkey’s membership, but with respect to our understanding and our belief is that Turkey remains a NATO ally. I think what the Secretary and others have expressed since the events of Friday has been very clear in that regard. And as a NATO ally – and as a democratic NATO ally, we expect and look to Turkey to exhibit the kind of behavior befitting a democracy. And I talked about this before – in the aftermath of political upheaval like this, there can be frankly – and not just in Turkey, but in many countries – and I’ve said this several times already – a tendency to overreach. And we would just – and we have been very clear in our discussions with our colleagues in Turkey that we would expect Turkey to live up to its democratic standards.

QUESTION: So you don’t expect any changes regarding that latest issue --

MR TONER: No.

QUESTION: -- with Turkey’s NATO alliance?

MR TONER: No.

QUESTION: And my last --

MR TONER: Yeah, please, go ahead. I’m sorry, finish up.

QUESTION: My last question is whether you think that this last tensions between the U.S. and Turkey regarding the Fethullah Gulen issue would further escalate --

MR TONER: Regarding the – Gulen issue.

QUESTION: -- the Fethullah Gulen --

MR TONER: Sorry.

QUESTION: -- yeah – issue, because it’s apparently has become an important issue between the two countries right now. So do you expect this case to further escalate the U.S.-Turkey relations? Or how – in other words, how do you expect this issue to change or whether it will have an effect on the U.S.-Turkey relations?

MR TONER: Well, I would hope not. And the reason I would hope not is because, again, there is an extradition treaty that we have had for many years with Turkey. Secretary Kerry made very clear to Foreign Minister Cavusoglu that there is a formal process for any extradition request and that it must go through appropriate legal channels and be subject to legal analysis. This is not a political decision; it is not an emotional decision. It is based on our best legal judgment of any case. This doesn’t – and I’m not speaking specific to any request we may receive about Gulen. It’s anybody. It’s a very serious matter.

So it doesn’t – I understand emotion is running high in Turkey right now. That’s to be expected and it’s somewhat understandable. All I would simply stress is that with – as with any extradition request, that we would live up to our obligations under that treaty and do so in a manner that is devoid of emotion, devoid of any political intention, but adheres to an established legal process.

QUESTION: And may I --

MR TONER: Okay, sure.

QUESTION: -- ask just one more?

MR TONER: Of course.

QUESTION: There are some – also some media reports saying that some CIA officials have said that the coup – like, having a coup is legitimate. What exactly – which coup do they mean? Do you know something about it? Are you aware of these reports?

MR TONER: Again, we would never support – I don’t know. When you say anonymous CIA officials, I become immediately wary. But all I would say in response to your question is that there’s never a justification for an attempt to overthrow a democratically elected government.

In the back, sir. Oh, and then I’ll get to you. I promise. I’m sorry to overlook you. Still on Turkey or --

QUESTION: Yeah, one quick on Turkey and one on the South China Sea.

MR TONER: Of course, okay.

QUESTION: First, on Turkey, has the U.S. ever received official extradition requests for Fethullah Gulen from Turkey in the past?

MR TONER: Not to my understanding, no.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR TONER: Not to my knowledge.

QUESTION: And then on the South China Sea, China has said that it’s going to close off part of the South China Sea for military drills. Do you have any reaction to that?

MR TONER: I don’t, other than that – I mean, I would simply go back to what we said last week in the wake of the tribunal’s ruling, and that is we would call on China to really, in the aftermath of the ruling, to seize the opportunity that it presents to look at all of the claimants’ concerns and to seek out legal and diplomatic processes to resolve them. And so we don’t want to see escalation, we don’t want to see further escalation in the South China Sea. That applies to China but it applies to other aspirants – or not aspirants, excuse me – claimants with regard to the territory of the South China Sea. So I think we would call on all claimants to de-escalate and to seek mechanisms that don’t involve military assets or any kind of construction or any kind of artificial construction that only increase tensions in the South China Sea.

QUESTION: Turkey?

QUESTION: Oh --

MR TONER: Please. Oh, we’re between Turkey and – are you South China Sea?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR TONER: Let’s do you and then we’ll go back – I promise I’ll get to you.

QUESTION: Okay. So a follow-up about the South China Sea tribunal.

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: Do you suggest to China to give up its claims?

MR TONER: Not at all. Not at all, and we’ve never said that. We encourage all claimants to seek out peaceful resolution of disputes. That’s our clear and unchanging message with regard to the South China Sea. We’re not saying that – we’re not making any judgments on the South China Sea’s claim – or, rather, excuse me – on China’s claims or any other claimants’ claims. All we’re asking for is that all parties simply refrain from provocative actions in the South China Sea.

For our part, we’ve always maintained that we want freedom of navigation and we will continue to carry out freedom of navigation operations within the South China Sea, just as we do throughout the world.

QUESTION: Yeah. So did the Philippines request any assistance and did the U.S. provide any assistance to the Philippines, whether it was financial, personnel, subject matter expert, or evidentiary support?

MR TONER: This is – you’re talking about with regard to their – the tribunal and its --

QUESTION: The whole process.

MR TONER: Again, not that I am aware of. This was – we had no involvement in this process. This was – and we’ve been pretty clear about that throughout that this was a legal process that was carried out by the tribunal. The U.S. didn’t have any sway or any influence on the tribunal, and nor would we have attempted to weigh in in any way, shape, or form. In fact, we see these kinds of legal processes that are objective, that are apolitical, as a way to, frankly, answer some of the questions around claims in the South China Sea.

QUESTION: So will the U.S. recognize China’s historical claims in the nine-dash line that are not completely affect by the tribunal award?

MR TONER: One more time, the question? I apologize.

QUESTION: I mean the award only affects rights that overlap with a exclusive economic zone and doesn’t apply to the rest of nine-dash line of the South China Sea. What’s the U.S. position on the nine-dash line right now?

MR TONER: Well, again, I think – look, I mean, I think what’s important here is that the tribunal addressed all of these concerns in its ruling, including the nine-dash line. And it did so, as we said, as the result of a legal process that was devoid of any kind of political influence, and so we respect the outcome of that process.

QUESTION: Does U.S. consider one day to ratify the International Law of the Sea?

MR TONER: You know where we stand on that. We would – we adhere to the International Law – the UN – UNCLOS, the UN Law of the Sea. It has yet to pass our Congress, but we would appeal to our Congress to indeed pass the Law of the Sea.

Thanks.

QUESTION: After looking the other way for some time regarding Turkey’s human rights abuses, I guess because of the war against Daesh, the U.S. and the EU have spoken out because now the crisis is so acute. But the statements that you and the EU make don’t say anything about Turkey’s military aggression in the Kurdish regions, which is acute. Both Amnesty International and Human Rights have condemned it. And I wondered, now that Turkey’s human rights is an issue for the U.S. and the EU, might you also be raising the topic of the human rights violations in the southeast, particularly because of the potential for expanded military conflict?

MR TONER: Well, look, our policy has been pretty clear about PKK activities. We view the PKK as a foreign terrorist organization and we support Turkey’s efforts to go after the PKK. But as with any counterterrorism operations, we always want to see every effort made to avoid and certainly minimize any civilian casualties. And certainly, we would want any kind of counterterrorism operations to be mindful of human rights and human rights concerns.

We have seen, unfortunately, over the past six months to a year really an uptick in violence in – between the PKK and Turkish authorities. We’ve seen a breakdown in the mechanism that was established towards negotiations with and talks with the PKK. We’d like to see the PKK to stop its attacks on Turkish authorities or Turkish police and security forces, and to see a return to, again, some kind of mechanism whereby there could be a peaceful – or discussions, rather, about ending the violence. But in any case, we support Turkey’s right to defend its citizens.

QUESTION: Well, the idea of talks to end the violence now – and this might seem kind of counterintuitive – but army morale cannot be very good right now given how the Turkish Government is abusing its own military. And it may not be – and that may tempt the PKK into more aggressive action, which would mean more conflict, violence, innocents die, so that in the general context – maybe not today or tomorrow, but in this context, would it be – might it appropriate for some party – the UN, the U.S., the EU – to start thinking of negotiations so as to preempt any PKK counter-aggression and maybe even take a monkey off the back of Ankara right now because they have enough problems to deal with?

MR TONER: Look, I don’t want to conjecture about any possible international role in resolving the conflict with the PKK. I would simply reiterate the fact that we would hope the PKK would exercise restraint, that it would refrain from any violent actions and terrorism against the people of Turkey, and certainly, given the sensitivity in the aftermath of Friday’s coup attempt, that it’s – and that it simply refrains from ongoing terrorist acts against Turkish security forces. But as to possible outreach efforts or engagement by the international community with the PKK, I just can’t speak to that.

Please, in back.

QUESTION: South China Sea-related. After the tribunal ruling, Japanese Government last week – it also claimed that --

MR TONER: I’m sorry, we’re back on South China Sea?

QUESTION: Yes, related. The question is on Japanese Government position on one of – on the island or rock, it claimed called Okinotori in the West Pacific Ocean. Even though the island is only – or the rock is only nine square meters but it claims all maritime entitlement. Do you have a position on this?

MR TONER: Are we still talking about the Taiping rock?

QUESTION: No. I mean, it’s related. As you know, Taiping is one of the largest island in Spratly Islands, but one of the rock or island Japanese Government claimed in the West Pacific Ocean, it’s only nine square meters --

MR TONER: Sure. I --

QUESTION: -- but Japanese Government – yeah.

MR TONER: Yeah, no – thanks. And thanks for the question. I just would say the United States does not generally take a position on whether small islands around the world are rocks or not for purposes of Article 121-3, and that is part of the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention. And that says, and I can read it aloud: “Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.”

QUESTION: Then that applies exactly to Okinotori, which doesn’t – which can’t really maintain the human lives on the rock.

MR TONER: Which cannot or --

QUESTION: Which cannot. So I wonder, so does it mean the United States not necessarily support Japanese Government’s claim?

MR TONER: Does not necessarily support the Chinese – I’m not aware of the specific rocks or islands that you’re referring to. I’m just saying that we don’t take a position on other small islands around the world are considered rocks or not in terms of International Law of the Sea.

QUESTION: Then in that regard, do you think other countries also have fishing rights, freedom of navigation in 200 nautical miles within Okinotori?

MR TONER: Well, again, I think I would just refer you to the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention. There is an article there, 123-3 – or 121-3 that specifically lays out what can be considered a rock or what can be considered an island and whether it can have an economic exclusive zone or a continental shelf. There is a very legal definition that we would adhere to.

Please.

QUESTION: Follow-up – my question, Mark. Thanks so much.

MR TONER: Yeah, no worries.

QUESTION: Do you think it’s justified for Mr. Erdogan’s government to – since it’s after coup and its upheaval, do you think for him to justify to go after the journalists and websites and shut them down? There about 20 news websites have been shut down within last 72 hours, and there are lists being published about the journalists – critical journalists that claims that they’ll be arrested soon, and I even know one journalist friend already there is a issue – warrant issue for her.

MR TONER: I don’t mean to cut you off, but I would just say --

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR TONER: Look, and a core democratic value is freedom of speech. A free media, an independent media, is a critical element of any democratic society, any democratic government. So of course, we would have any concerns to restrict that media space – even, as I said, given that in the aftermath of events like Friday’s, there can be an attempt by government, any government, to go after or attempt to establish control over what’s going out publicly from different media organizations. So I think, again, it speaks to the fact that we would like to see Turkish authorities, Turkish Government exercise some restraint.

QUESTION: Mark, do you expect this – the coup to come up during the anti-ISIL conference this week? I mean, some kind of commitment from the Turks that they are going to play a role, and that despite internal political issues --

MR TONER: It’s a fair question. It’s really question for the Turkish Government to speak to. I mean, I – look, I mean, we’re there to talk about, obviously, anti-ISIL efforts and coalition efforts. Turkey’s a strong partner and member of that coalition. It’s going to be a chance for us, I think, to do at least – at the very least a signals check of where we stand in the aftermath of Friday’s coup attempt. But it’s our expectation that these efforts are going to go on, they’re going to continue. We have made tremendous progress against Daesh over the past year and year and a half. We want to keep that pressure on.

QUESTION: So there’s no concern that even the commander of the airbase from which you operate has been detained?

MR TONER: I mean, look, there is – this is something that the Turkish authorities, Turkish Government is reacting obviously to Friday’s events. We support them in going after the perpetrators of Friday’s events. But it really – as to the continuity of their armed forces and their security forces, that’s really something for them to speak to. I think on our part, like I said, is we would certainly hope that our strong partnership with Turkey with regard to going after Daesh continues.

QUESTION: Can I turn to South Sudan?

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: I’m curious why the U.S. felt it necessary to explain over the weekend that it wasn’t – and to reassure South Sudan that you weren’t basically trying to take over the country.

MR TONER: Well, I think it was an effort to simply tamp down what was an unwarranted and un – or baseless rumor that somehow the U.S. was planning some military action in South Sudan. We felt it best simply to come out publicly and refute that as strongly as possible given, I think, the volatility of the situation on the ground and the sensitivity of the situation on the ground, that we want – we certainly didn’t want any misperceptions or any rumors picking up steam among the people in South Sudan.

QUESTION: So the South Sudanese leaders had not asked you? Is that – these were just purely rumors or press reports, or --

MR TONER: Exactly. I mean, we were picking up from our folks on the ground these kinds of rumors that were being generated. I don’t want to speak to who was behind them; I don’t know. But we felt that they were getting enough pickup, if you will, enough legs, that we felt we needed to address them.

QUESTION: Has it – did it have anything to do with the 200 U.S. military personnel that were – that are – have been sent to South Sudan?

MR TONER: Well, and that was something – again, we tried to address that in the statement that we released yesterday, which is that we did send a small contingent on July 12th of U.S. military personnel that was sent simply to assist the embassy in bolstering its security and also assisting with the departure of nonemergency personnel. That’s it. And so we wanted to make very clear that there was no other or ulterior motive to these military personnel being on the ground in Juba. And we just wanted to explain their presence to the citizens of Juba.

QUESTION: Thanks.

MR TONER: Yeah, hey.

QUESTION: Hey.

MR TONER: Hey.

QUESTION: Can I switch topics?

MR TONER: Of course.

QUESTION: AP has just released a story saying that they’ve obtained a document that shows that key restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program would be eased in slightly more than a decade, and that these restrictions, once they’re eased, would allow Iran to make a weapon within six months as compared to a year. Any knowledge of that or a response to that report?

MR TONER: No. No – I’m sorry, you said it’s an AP report based on --

QUESTION: A document that they have obtained.

MR TONER: A document from – whose document, I guess is my question.

QUESTION: That’s a very fair question --

MR TONER: Okay.

QUESTION: -- to which I don’t have an answer.

MR TONER: I – honestly, I don’t – Abigail, I don’t have any reference to that. We stand by the JCPOA and our belief that it will continue to prevent Iran from being able to pursue any pathway to obtain a nuclear weapon. And as to any alleged document, I just can’t speak to it at this point in time.

QUESTION: May I go to Nice for a moment?

MR TONER: Sure, of course.

QUESTION: Do you have any more information about Americans who were involved? I know that you had confirmed that two Americans were killed in the attack. Was there any further information about Americans who were injured or killed?

MR TONER: That’s right. So, of course, as we did last week, we strongly condemn the attack in Nice and our condolences go out to the families of those who were killed – certainly the many French – innocent French citizens who were killed in the attack. We did confirm or are able to confirm now that a third U.S. citizen, Nicolas Leslie, was killed in last week’s attack, and that is on top of the two other confirmations that we gave of U.S. citizens Sean and Brodie Copeland, who were also killed in last Thursday’s attack. And our deepest condolences to their family and friends.

I can say that our consular teams are on the ground in Nice, in Marseille, as well as in Paris, and have been working, frankly, around the clock to provide whatever assistance they can to the families of these victims.

QUESTION: Do you know if that person died as a result of injuries, or did they die on – at the – on the scene on the night?

MR TONER: It’s a fair question. I’ll look into that. I believe it was during the actual attack.

Thanks, guys.

(The briefing was concluded at 3:01 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 - July 15, 2016

Elizabeth Trudeau

Director, Press Office
Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC

July 15, 2016









Index for Today's Briefing

FRANCE



SOUTH SUDAN



IRAQ/REGION/DEPARTMENT



FRANCE/REGION



SYRIA/REGION



UKRAINE/RUSSIA



DEPARTMENT



SOUTH KOREA/JAPAN/REGION



FRANCE



IRAQ/REGION/DEPARTMENT



EGYPT



INDIA/PAKISTAN



SAUDI ARABIA



DEPARTMENT



SAUDI ARABIA



MIDDLE EAST PEACE



CHINA




TRANSCRIPT:

2:00 p.m. EDT

MS TRUDEAU: Good afternoon, everyone. Thanks for coming. I have a few things at the top. You’ve seen the Secretary’s statement. The United States strongly condemns the attack in Nice. We extend our deepest condolences to the families of the deceased and injured in this senseless attack on innocent people. We can confirm that we are aware of two U.S. citizens, Sean and Brodie Copeland, who where killed in the attack in Nice. We express our condolences to their family and friends. U.S. consulate in Marseille is providing all possible consular assistance. Out of respect for the privacy of the family, I will not comment further on them.

Our consulate in Marseille continues to make every effort to account for U.S. citizens in the city. Privacy considerations also prevent us on speaking more on any specific case absent written authorization. Additional consular officers from U.S. Embassy Paris are en route right now to Nice to provide assistance to U.S. citizens in need. U.S. embassy is operating normally.

U.S. citizens are urged to contact their family members to let them know if they’re okay. U.S. citizens should also minimize their movements around Nice and be vigilant of their surroundings. Continue monitoring local media for updates. Adhere to the instructions of local authorities.

Next, on South Sudan. The situation in Juba remains fluid. Although the events of the last several days have made it more difficult, we believe it is still possible that these longtime political adversaries can still come together in the interests of the South Sudanese people. We condemn all actions by the government to prevent civilians from boarding flights out of Juba or otherwise departing South Sudan. It is unacceptable, given the conditions in Juba, to prevent civilians from freely departing the country.

We are also concerned about the actions by government security forces to beat and temporarily detain transitional government officials affiliated with the SPLM-IO on July 14th. We call on the government to ensure the protection and safety of all members of the transitional government of national unity irrespective of their affiliation in the SPLM-IO or any other party.

Currently, there are no U.S. Government chartered flights scheduled. Commercial airlines, I’d note, have restored flights to and from Juba. U.S. citizens seeking to leave South Sudan are encouraged to use commercial airlines. We are also grateful for the efforts of several foreign governments for their evacuation efforts and support to U.S. citizens.

The U.S. ambassador and emergency personnel remain in the country, engaging diplomatically with leaders in South Sudan and supporting U.S. citizens in the country. USAID personnel also remain in Juba to assess humanitarian impacts of the fighting, to work with partners to meet urgent needs, and continue USAID operations.

We continue to press the leaders of South Sudan to end the fighting. We call on all parties to allow civilian freedom of movement and provide unfettered humanitarian access to all people in need. We also remind the parties the destruction and damage to humanitarian facilities, violence against aid workers is unacceptable and must stop immediately.

And final, a scheduling note. As previously announced, next week the United States will hold a pledging conference in Washington in order to raise support for the humanitarian and stabilization needs of – needs in Iraq. Today, I’d like to welcome the Netherlands as a co-host. The United States is pleased to be co-hosting this important event with Canada, Japan, Germany, and now the Netherlands. The July 20th pledging conference in support of Iraq will provide a unique and important opportunity for the international community to assist in remedying the devastation caused by Daesh to the most vulnerable and give the Iraqi people the means to rebuild their nation.

And with that, Lesley.

QUESTION: Thank you. I just want to come back to the Nice attack.

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah.

QUESTION: How many Americans do you believe that are still around there or that may need assistance?

MS TRUDEAU: So, as you know, U.S. citizens aren’t required to register their presence when they travel overseas. We don’t maintain comprehensive lists of U.S. citizens. Estimates of U.S. citizens in particular countries can vary. We don’t want to offer figures because they’re just not authoritative. Though, I will note, and I’ll take this opportunity – travel.state.gov – for U.S. citizens traveling overseas, please register. We encourage you to do that as you go. For U.S. citizens in Marseille who need immediate assistance, they can contact the U.S. consulate general. The French Government has also set up an emergency line.

QUESTION: Does the United States have any information about this attacker? Was he known in any way to the United States?

MS TRUDEAU: So I know my colleague at the White House spoke a little bit about this. At this – we’re about 18 hours after this attack. I’d say I think a lot of you guys had long nights. We had a long night here at the department as well. We’re going to let the French investigate this. I don’t want to get ahead of this.

QUESTION: So the French – have the French asked for any assistance from the United States?

MS TRUDEAU: So the Department of Justice has reached out to our French counterparts to offer assistance. I don’t have what the French have asked for, but I’d refer you to DOJ to speak to that, because we have offered.

QUESTION: And then lastly on this one. Do you – is there anything that has come up in the U.S.’s monitoring of the situation that would indicate who was – whether he was part of any organization?

MS TRUDEAU: Again, I think it’s too early to get ahead of that. We’re 18 hours out. Let’s let the investigation move forward.

Said.

QUESTION: On the same topic, I mean, while this horrible terrorist attack seems to have been conducted by a lone wolf – the term “lone wolf” and so on – all indications or all information show that the mosques in places like Nice and Marseille and Paris and others that are really funded and supported by many of your allies, mainly in the gulf – they basically sort of instigate that kind of rhetoric and so on. And my question to you that I’ve asked in the past as well: Why can’t the United States get its allies to commit to tone down that kind of rhetoric in these major mosques that really prey on the vulnerable and the weak, on the non-belonging and so on.

MS TRUDEAU: So I’ve – I guess I – sort of three-part answer to that, and hold me accountable for all three, okay. First one: This is not Islam. This is not Muslims. Let’s be very clear on that, and I don’t – I want to put that out point-blank. Whatever motivated this individual to do that attack, it’s not Islam.

Secondly, in terms of our communications – separating it from your question – we do work with our partners and allies around the world on messaging. The Global Engagement Center here at the Department of State works very closely to counter that sort of inflammatory rhetoric and messaging.

And finally, on the last point, it’s too early to talk about motivation here. And out of respect for – it’s almost 100 people now, over 200 injured – let’s let the investigation move forward.

QUESTION: It breaks my heart to be asking these questions and so on, but --

MS TRUDEAU: I know, Said.

QUESTION: -- the truth of the matter – I mean, I understand, and I don’t want to be misconstrued as suggesting that this is Islam or anything like this --

MS TRUDEAU: Of course. No, of course.

QUESTION: -- but in fact, these clerics that are – they compete with one another on who can be more extremist, and they are funded by governments that are close allies of the United States. I’m saying that why can’t this issue be raised, and be raised in public, so they can be held accountable? And you follow the money.

MS TRUDEAU: So we do talk about violent rhetoric. We do talk about the importance of countering messaging, not only online but face to face. I just think – I think it’s too soon to make that link now, okay?

Ma’am.

QUESTION: As you doubtless know, Secretary Kerry spoke about the terror attacks in Nice while he was in Moscow.

MS TRUDEAU: He did.

QUESTION: And he underscored the implications of the attack for the talks that he’s holding there, particularly about coordination in Syria – that the terrorist attack makes such coordination more necessary because Syria is an incubator of terrorists.

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah.

QUESTION: I know this is a little early, but do you have the sense that the Russians view the situation the same way as Secretary Kerry – that is, in this terrible tragedy there could be a silver lining with the implications for better coordination for dealing with the Syrian civil war?

MS TRUDEAU: So thanks for the question. I actually just got off the phone with our colleagues in Moscow. I’m told discussions are ongoing, so I don’t have a readout on outcomes of that meeting. So I’m not going to discuss that.

However, what I would say is we’ve been clear and other members of the ISSG have been clear that ungoverned spaces and Assad’s oppression have been breeders for violent extremism. Linking this to this attack – I’m not going to do that, but the causation is very clear.

Said.

QUESTION: Yeah, I want to just follow up on this point.

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah.

QUESTION: On supposed – the plan, or the much talked-about at this Administration plan to counter ISIS. It talks about cooperation, it talks about creating some sort of a control and command center that will operate together – American-Russian command and control center – center possibly operating out of Jordan and so on. So all these details are out there. Are – has there been any kind of reaction, has there been any agreement, or is that something where we will do this if you do this?

MS TRUDEAU: I’m not going to discuss to what purports to be a leaked document.

QUESTION: Right.

MS TRUDEAU: In terms of the tangible outcomes of that meeting, I just don’t have anything for you right now because the discussions are ongoing.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: Does the --

QUESTION: Because it does speak very clearly – I mean, both the Secretary of State and the foreign minister of Russia and probably the Russian president and our President – they all spoke about there are groups that are on the terrorist list, like Jabhat al-Nusrah, and they are fair game and they ought to be attacked and so on, and there’s going to be some sort of exchange of information on these things. Why must this be held to some sort of if you do this, we will do that? Why can’t they coordinate on this very issue?

MS TRUDEAU: So I would say that the cessation of hostilities – who was included in that and who was excluded from that – that was coordinated. We’ve been very clear Daesh and al-Nusrah are not parties to the cessation of hostilities, but beyond that and talking about coordination or details of that, I’m just not in a position to do that as of right now.

QUESTION: Elizabeth, do you --

MS TRUDEAU: I’m sorry, I’ll get to you.

Lesley.

QUESTION: Just – I wanted to get – the discussions are ongoing with Lavrov?

MS TRUDEAU: The discussions are ongoing in Moscow. I’m not quite sure what configuration they’re happening in now.

QUESTION: Okay. So was it – they met earlier this morning, and then there was a break, and then they’ve gone back in?

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah. I think you saw that they actually went over to the French embassy together.

QUESTION: I did not see any of that stuff. I didn’t get any --

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah, to sign the condolence book. So Foreign Minister Lavrov and Secretary Kerry did.

QUESTION: Are there any indications yet whether there is some sort of agreement --

MS TRUDEAU: Again, discussions are ongoing. I just can’t get into that level --

QUESTION: It’s too early to tell?

MS TRUDEAU: It’s too early, I think, to characterize it.

QUESTION: Could you say the discussions have lasted longer than expected?

MS TRUDEAU: I would say that the discussions are ongoing. And is Moscow plus seven, plus eight?

QUESTION: Yes, seven.

MS TRUDEAU: Plus seven, so it’s past 9 o’clock at night.

QUESTION: The Secretary said that the meeting with President Putin lasted till one in the morning. When did the meeting start?

MS TRUDEAU: To be honest, I don’t have that granularity right now.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS TRUDEAU: So we can check that, Samir.

QUESTION: Okay. Different topic?

MS TRUDEAU: Of course.

QUESTION: No, one sec.

MS TRUDEAU: Oh, I’m sorry, hold on. We’ll get to Tejinder and then we’ll chat.

QUESTION: I have a follow up on the last question.

MS TRUDEAU: Of course.

QUESTION: He did not mention the names. Whenever we hear here, we hear Iran, we hear – but most – the most extremist funding – extremists who come out of funded mosques are from the Wahhabism of Saudi Arabia. So – and they’re our allies. So what exactly is going on? Like, it’s – they have Wahhabis and Saud family have that combination for 4, 500 years. It’s a very tight knit. So can we – do you, this department, this building, reaches out and tells them to tone down? Because what he was trying to say without naming is that there is this money pouring in and there – it – they can be identified on one, two, three, four. You remember 9/11, what happened, so --

MS TRUDEAU: Of course, we remember 9/11, Tejinder.

QUESTION: So --

MS TRUDEAU: I mean, what we would say is that we constantly and continually engage with our partners and allies around the world on the issue of violent extremism, particularly on messaging. As I mentioned to Said, in person, online, written products. We understand – and I think the attacks in Baghdad, the attacks in Saudi, the attack in Bangladesh – terror has no borders, and we’re seeing this increasingly. I think you guys feel this too. It’s just a series of attacks. So this international coordination, and we’re speaking specifically about messaging, but on all of the lines of effort, is – has never been more important, so we are engaged.

Said.

QUESTION: Could I just follow up on this very issue?

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah. And I’m sorry, I will get to you.

QUESTION: Sorry – okay. According to French report, there are 1,200 French citizens who have gone to Syria and back, so there is a real problem with the foreign fighters and so on. Now, most of these people that went across the border into Syria or even on to Iraq, they have gone through the Turkish border. So the Turks conceivably could have lists and so on of all these people that cross their border. Is that something that you would be asking the Turkish to provide – let’s say, if they are German citizens, provide it to Germany; French citizens, provide it to France and so on. Is that something --

MS TRUDEAU: So another complicated question.

QUESTION: Right.

MS TRUDEAU: What I would say is the issue of foreign fighters is something we’re very focused on.

QUESTION: Right.

MS TRUDEAU: I think Brett McGurk has stood up here and has spoken about this.

QUESTION: Right, right.

MS TRUDEAU: And the President has said these lone wolves need to be right once. We all – all of our nations – need to be right 100 percent of the time. We do engage with our partners. Turkey has been very focused on closing that border. In terms of the information-sharing, I’m not at – I’m not going to be able to speak to that, but it is an active conversation that we have with our partners and allies.

Sir.

QUESTION: Yesterday, Secretary Kerry said that he discussed with Mr. Putin Ukrainian issue.

MS TRUDEAU: Yes.

QUESTION: Do you have any details on that? And if no, what is the current position of the United States Administration on Ukrainian issue during this visit of Mr. Kerry to Russia?

MS TRUDEAU: So I think you saw the readout that we did last night. As you note, Secretary Kerry did speak about this. Our position on Ukraine remains the same. Crimea is Ukraine. We have condemned the Russian aggression that continues to be an unhelpful and destabilizing force in Ukraine. We also encourage Ukraine to step forward and continue to make the reforms that are so important for the Ukrainian people. For details on the discussion though I’m going to refer you to the readout that we put out.

Okay, Lesley.

QUESTION: Change of subject. Emails.

MS TRUDEAU: Emails.

QUESTION: Yeah, it’s usually one I don’t bring up, but since my colleague, Matt, is not here – he usually asks about it. I’m trying to get into some more kind of – any update on kind of how you’re going to go about this process?

MS TRUDEAU: I do have an update. It’s quite long, so I’m going to ask you guys to bear with me while I go through this. Okay?

We have additional information to provide about our internal review process. I will not be speaking about any specific case, nor will I be engaging in hypotheticals. As is standard, to protect the integrity of our work we cannot discuss the details of an ongoing review. Just as the FBI did not comment on its investigation, while it is ongoing we will not comment on our review.

That means I cannot confirm for you what specific materials we will consider or what individuals may or may not be evaluated for possible employment or security clearance-related actions. Our policy – so yes, it is --

QUESTION: What can you tell us?

MS TRUDEAU: It is moving. Yes, well, let’s go and I’ll give you exactly what we can.

Our policy is to assess each case on its own merits while taking into account all relative – relevant facts and circumstances. Furthermore, the department cannot comment on the status of any particular individual’s security clearance. Our goal is to complete this process thoroughly and expeditiously, but we will not put arbitrary deadlines on our work.

There is a significant amount of information about our process available to the public online. You’ll like this: For instance, I would point you to our Foreign Affairs Manual, specifically 12 FAM 500 and 230 sections. I’ll do my best to outline this process from the podium, but I cannot speak to every provision in the FAM. I also cannot speak to how the process will be applied to account for any specific circumstances.

In summary – and I still have a lot more to go, so stay with me – Diplomatic Security is responsible for evaluating security incidents and then reviewing them as appropriate for potential security clearance-related actions. Diplomatic Security is also responsible for referring certain incidents to our Bureau of Human Resources for potential employment actions. No matter the individual or conduct involved, the department conducts the review process in a professional, impartial, and fair manner that takes into account all relevant circumstances.

Multiple components within Diplomatic Security are involved in the process, supervised and overseen by the assistant secretary for Diplomatic Security. One component of Diplomatic Security conducts an initial assessment of security incidents and, when appropriate, issues security infractions or security violations. Security clearance reviews are conducted by a different DS component. As with Director Comey at the FBI and Attorney General Lynch at DOJ, it’s standard for our chief law enforcement officer, the assistant secretary for Diplomatic Security, to be involved with high-profile or complex matters, which is certainly the case here.

Assistant Secretary Greg Starr is the person in Diplomatic Security who is ultimately responsible for affirming or rejecting recommendations to revoke an individual’s security clearance. A decision to revoke a security clearance may be appealed to the Security Appeals Panel. Similarly, our human resource process can include multiple components, but ultimately Director General Arnold Chacon is responsible for taking disciplinary actions on an employee. That’s our process.

I know there’s questions about potential outcomes of the process. The short answer is that outcomes for any individual depend on their specific circumstances taking into account all of the relevant facts. This is what our review will determine. Current employees can face a range of employment discipline including reprimand, suspension, and termination. People with security clearances, including former employees, could have those clearances suspended and/or revoked.

We also maintain a security file on all personnel involved in security incidents. For individuals who no longer have a security clearance, the incident information is kept in their security file so it can be considered if they apply for a security clearance in the future. When evaluating whether a person remains eligible for access to classified information, the department follows the whole person approach based on the government-wide adjudication guidelines. Our Foreign Affairs Manual states that, quote, “Each case will be judged on its own merits,” end quote, based on specific, quote, “facts and circumstances,” end quote. Under the guidelines we can look at the severity of an incident, whether the person is a repeat offender, whether the individual is amenable to training or reform, and whether the incident was a technical violation or resulted in actual harm to national security.

As we have said, now that the FBI and DOJ have concluded their investigation, the department intends to conduct a review of Secretary Clinton’s emails according to our well established Security Incident Program. We’re preparing to conduct our review.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS TRUDEAU: So there’s a lot. Thank you for your patience.

QUESTION: Well, I’ve got to digest quite a few.

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah.

QUESTION: But be with me on this, because I’m trying to get my head around it.

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah.

QUESTION: So the question here is: Has the FBI handed over – and how many emails has the FBI handed over to be reviewed?

MS TRUDEAU: At this stage, we have not received any from the FBI.

QUESTION: Have they indicated to you when that’s going to be?

MS TRUDEAU: I have no timeline on that, but we have not received them.

QUESTION: And then on DS, are they the – do they have the final word? Would – does Greg Starr have the – Assistant Secretary Greg Starr have the final word on this? Or can Secretary Kerry or even the President overturn those decisions or have the final say?

MS TRUDEAU: So I said there is – as I mentioned, there is a significant amount of information about our process online. So for this particularly, look at section 230 and 500 of 12-FAM. The 500 section outlines the Security Incident Program, which is handled by the Program Applications Division of Diplomatic Security. The 230 section outlines the security clearance, which is administered by the Office of Personnel Security and Suitability, also within DS. Both components operate under the oversight and supervision of the assistant secretary for Diplomatic Security.

QUESTION: So when it comes to Diplomatic Security, is that withdrawn – as you’re investigating it, is that withdrawn at the end or is it withdrawn at the beginning? Is it frozen? How does that work?

MS TRUDEAU: So the process you’re talking about – and forgive me for the FAM references, but it’s really detailed and really specific. So if people are looking for the details on this, refer to 12-FAM 233.4. I’m going to refer you there. As a general matter, the suspension of a security clearance is available if Diplomatic Security determines it’s appropriate while they carry out their review. However, if you read the FAM, you’ll see it’s not an automatic process; whether or not to suspend a person’s clearance depends on the circumstances. It’s a judgment of the trained professionals in DS.

QUESTION: And then how unusual is it that Diplomatic Security – or how unusual is it that this process – that you use this process?

MS TRUDEAU: So I’m not – it’s – I’m not going to talk sort of precedent, but I would say that there is offices within Diplomatic Security, and this is their mandate. All of us within the department – and we’ve spoken about this; Secretary Kerry has spoken about this – have the obligation to safeguard and correctly handle information.

QUESTION: So would this also include former employees? It includes former employees, right?

MS TRUDEAU: As I’ve said.

QUESTION: As you said. Does it include employees that are not part of the State Department but might also be involved in this – in the emails?

MS TRUDEAU: Okay, I’m not going to speak, as I mentioned, to the specifics of any individual, any case. I just want to outline this broadly, bring you guys up to date on it, and give you the references, because it is such a technical and granular matter.

QUESTION: Yeah. But I mean, as you know, Secretary Kerry – Secretary Clinton has been involved in this, and a lot of people are wondering how this could affect her. So would you be able to make some kind of outcome whether it includes her or whether it includes somebody in a lower position? Is everybody going to be looked at equally?

MS TRUDEAU: Again, I just can’t speak to the specifics on who will be reviewed, what incidents will be reviewed. But I will say the review is taking place.

QUESTION: And you can’t tell us when this review is going to start?

MS TRUDEAU: No. No, they – the idea of projecting a timeline on this – we’ll say they’re committed to a fair, impartial, and absolutely rigorous process.

QUESTION: And when you say – just one more question.

MS TRUDEAU: Sure.

QUESTION: When the FBI says that it’s looking at thousands of withheld emails, that it’s going to give State thousands, you don’t know if it’s going to be thousands or if it’s going to be hundreds? You have no idea?

MS TRUDEAU: I couldn’t speak to the FBI documents.

Abbie, are you good?

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MS TRUDEAU: Oh, I’m sorry. Tejinder, are we doing emails?

QUESTION: No, no, it’s on email.

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah, I’ll come to you, Janne.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: It’s just a technical question.

MS TRUDEAU: Of course.

QUESTION: I’m trying – she actually asked, and the answer – I didn’t understand the answer.

MS TRUDEAU: There’s a lot of words in there.

QUESTION: So the question that I have is that when the FBI was looking at it, they looked at Secretary Clinton, they looked at those – I don’t know, eight, nine, ten people who handled that private server. How many of those people are State Department employees or not employees?

MS TRUDEAU: So this --

QUESTION: And --

MS TRUDEAU: Go ahead, I’m sorry.

QUESTION: Technically, is Secretary Clinton a former employee or she’s above your law?

MS TRUDEAU: Okay. So I’m not going to talk to specific individuals --

QUESTION: Okay.

MS TRUDEAU: -- or specific incidents. Secretary Clinton’s a former employee.

QUESTION: The --

MS TRUDEAU: Are we on emails?

QUESTION: No.

MS TRUDEAU: Okay. Let me go to Janne and then I’ll come over to you, Abigail.

QUESTION: Thank you, Elizabeth. Secretary – Deputy Secretary Blinken called South Korea and Japan deputy foreign minister have a meeting in Hawaii. Do you have anything on this?

MS TRUDEAU: I do. Thanks for the question. Deputy Tony Blinken, the Republic of Korea First Vice Foreign Minister Lim Sung-nam, and Japanese Vice Foreign Minister Shinsuke Sugiyama had productive discussions at yesterday’s trilateral meeting. The three discussed interests of mutual concern, including the DPRK nuclear threat, North Korea’s deplorable human rights situation, maritime security, and they also considered potential actions for increased trilateral cooperation.

QUESTION: Were there any discussion of further Six-Party Talks meeting issues?

MS TRUDEAU: I have nothing to share on that, Janne.

QUESTION: All right. Thank you, ma’am.

MS TRUDEAU: Thanks. I’m going to go to Abbie and then I’ll come over to you, Samir.

QUESTION: And me.

MS TRUDEAU: And Said.

QUESTION: And then me.

MS TRUDEAU: We’ll line it up, and then Tejinder.

QUESTION: I’m actually going back to Nice for a moment.

MS TRUDEAU: Of course, Abbie.

QUESTION: I recognize you can’t speak to specific cases, but are you able to give a general number of Americans who were injured in – within the – from the attack?

MS TRUDEAU: I cannot. No, the Privacy Act, without written authorization, precludes me from speaking about that.

QUESTION: Are you able to say whether there are any Americans who have been injured?

MS TRUDEAU: We are aware of reports that there are U.S. citizens who have been injured.

QUESTION: You’re aware of – okay.

MS TRUDEAU: Okay.

QUESTION: And are you able to say the number of consular officers who have been moved from Paris down there?

MS TRUDEAU: I don’t. I think, actually, to be honest, it’s a surge. It’s very fluid. We’ll meet the need.

Samir.

QUESTION: The Iraq Pledging Conference.

MS TRUDEAU: Yes.

QUESTION: Do you know how many countries will participate, will attend?

MS TRUDEAU: You know what? Let me actually check and see if I’ve got that for you. I don’t. I think, actually, to be honest, we’re still getting invitation numbers. I may have more for you on Monday.

QUESTION: All right.

MS TRUDEAU: Okay? So let me see if I can look into it and then I’ll update you.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS TRUDEAU: Sure. Wait, was it Tejinder or Said?

QUESTION: Pledging conference?

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah. Do you guys mind?

QUESTION: Please.

MS TRUDEAU: Go ahead.

QUESTION: Do you have any information on representation from the KRG in the Iraqi delegation?

MS TRUDEAU: I think we’ve spoken about this quite a bit, Laurie, I think at two briefings this week. Again, we would refer you to the working group to speak about invitations.

QUESTION: I sent them a note. They haven’t responded to me.

MS TRUDEAU: Okay. But they would be the appropriate ones.

Said.

QUESTION: I have a quick question on Egypt. There’s going to be a hearing on Sunday about freezing assets of two major – major human rights activist figures: Hossam Bahgat and Gamal Eid and others. The last time there – and there’s going to be a ruling. The last time this situation was about to happen, Secretary Kerry spoke and apparently put it off. Is he likely to do something like this again or --

MS TRUDEAU: So what I would say is we’re very much aware of Sunday’s --

QUESTION: Hearing.

MS TRUDEAU: -- potential announcement after the hearing.

QUESTION: Right.

MS TRUDEAU: We are monitoring the situation closely. Obviously, as you mentioned, this department has been very engaged in it. We’ll see what the hearing outcome is. I’m not going to get ahead of that, but we are watching the situation very closely.

QUESTION: Because this is part of an ongoing thing that targets American and Egyptian NGOs and groups that deal with human rights issues since 2011.

MS TRUDEAU: I know, and as we’ve spoken about, we’re very concerned with the deteriorating situation there for these NGOs, whose purpose is to help the Egyptian people.

Tejinder.

QUESTION: Yes. You must have seen the reports what’s going on between India and Pakistan. Pakistan has declared July 19 to be observed as black day to express solidarity with people of Kashmir after Indian forces killed the Hizbul commander Burhan Wani. And there’s a lot of back and forth going on. Are you, this department, in touch with them or after this (inaudible)?

MS TRUDEAU: Okay. So I spoke a little bit about this yesterday. Obviously, we’re gravely concerned about this situation. We’re gravely concerned about the violence. In terms of those specific comments, which we are aware of, I’m going to refer you to the government to speak to the words of their own minister. As we’ve said before, it’s a situation where we need all parties to this to reduce the rhetoric, reduce the violence, get back to a situation where they can have dialogue.

QUESTION: But like it’s 15th so on 19 it’ll be observed black day so there’ll be an escalation in tension. And also I wanted to know a technicality of a question. There is a visiting minister from one of the countries and he was expressing some – he expressed some – is that allowed in a way? Like he’s here for a particular reason, and then he’s – his comments against the other country from this soil, does it have a tacit support of your department?

MS TRUDEAU: No, I wouldn’t say that any call for increasing tension or increasing rhetoric is something that we would support. We’ve been very clear on our position on that. But again, it would be the government of that minister to speak to his remarks.

Okay, Said.

QUESTION: Yeah, could I ask you – the Congress just released the 28 pages that linked the Saudis or possible link between the Saudi embassy here in Washington and the 9/11 hijackers and so on. Do you have any comment on that?

MS TRUDEAU: Okay, so --

QUESTION: They just --

MS TRUDEAU: So did they release it? Did they post it online?

QUESTION: They just did.

QUESTION: They just did.

MS TRUDEAU: Okay. I think, actually, Josh Earnest spoke a little bit about this. Obviously, the ODNI had transmitted it to Congress. It’s a congressional report, so Congress had the choice to release this publicly. In terms of the content of the report, it’s a congressional report. In terms of the redactions, that’s a question for ODNI. But if you have specific questions on State Department equities --

QUESTION: Okay. Well, the State Department has expressed the view in the past that making this public will somehow compromise relations or alliances with certain countries and so on. Do you still stand by that position?

MS TRUDEAU: I would say --

QUESTION: Do you believe that releasing these 28 pages in any way will compromise your alliance with Saudi Arabia?

MS TRUDEAU: I wouldn’t characterize that, no. I would say that Saudi Arabia remains one of our most important allies in that region. We have robust cooperation with Saudi on counterterrorism, regional challenges, economics, energy. Our cooperation in those and in other areas will not change.

QUESTION: One sec. You said economic.

MS TRUDEAU: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: When first this report had come out that it will be released, if you remember, they had threatened that they’re going to dump U.S. bonds and things, that it would be how many billions. So do you expect them to carry out any threat?

MS TRUDEAU: I would refer you to the kingdom to speak particularly to those remarks. I would say our close cooperation with Saudi Arabia has not changed.

QUESTION: Can I go over to emails for a second?

MS TRUDEAU: Of course. And then, Abbie, we’ll get to you.

QUESTION: Is Pat Kennedy going to be involved in any of this?

MS TRUDEAU: Okay, so thanks for the question.

QUESTION: I know there’s been some questions about that.

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah. So first, as we’ve said many times, Under Secretary Kennedy did not approve nor was he aware of the extent to which Secretary Clinton was using personal emails. No matter the individual or the conduct involved, the department will conduct and does conduct the security clearance process review in a professional, impartial, and fair manner that takes into account all relevant circumstances.

According to our Foreign Affairs Manual, the Under Secretary for Management Pat Kennedy becomes involved in a security clearance revocation in the event of an appeal. He is a member of a three-person panel that’s at the very end of our process. I’m not going to speculate that it’ll even get that far.

QUESTION: And you said Secretary Kerry is not going to be involved?

MS TRUDEAU: So Secretary Kerry will be informed of the details, the results of the review, after its completion. Again, I’m not going to speculate on outcomes or hypotheticals. As we’ve said many times from this podium, he wants this review done by the book, and the book requires Diplomatic Security lead and conduct this review.

QUESTION: And then just one more small one.

MS TRUDEAU: Sure.

QUESTION: Will the – so FAM is pretty clear that supervisors (inaudible) be held responsible for their subordinates’ actions. How are you going to deal with this? Is this --

MS TRUDEAU: That is – that’s something I think I’m not going to speculate on that. I’m not going – I can’t speak to the details of that. I can’t speak to the review. And honestly, I’m not going to get into hypotheticals on the review.

QUESTION: Yeah. And then are you going to deal it as one big infraction, or are you going to look at several --

MS TRUDEAU: Again --

QUESTION: You don’t know?

MS TRUDEAU: I can’t speak to how they’ll do it – specific incident, individuals. It’s just the review is happening.

QUESTION: Will they --

MS TRUDEAU: We’ll do it by the FAM.

QUESTION: Will they do – okay. But will they be clear about that before it even starts? Because it sounds like it hasn’t even started.

MS TRUDEAU: No, the review is in process. They’re preparing to move forward.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS TRUDEAU: Okay. Abigail.

QUESTION: On the release of the 28 pages, the Saudis put out a statement saying that they hope this cleared up any lingering questions about their actions or intentions. Do you feel like there are any questions that still linger about their actions or intentions? Do you think that this report answers any of those questions – answers those questions?

MS TRUDEAU: So the 9/11 Commission’s report provides the authoritative account of who perpetrated and supported the 9/11 attacks. The 9/11 Commission built on the work of the joint inquiry and fully investigated the allegations in the 28 pages without finding any evidence that the Saudi Government or members of the Saudi royal family knowingly provided support for or had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks.

Yes, Said.

QUESTION: Could I ask you a question on U.S. stated position on the peace process, the Palestinian-Israeli peace process, very quickly?

MS TRUDEAU: Sure.

QUESTION: I know you don’t comment on the campaign and so on, but the GOP’s new platform drops the two-state solution as part of its program and so on, and – which is really a departure from positions taken by both Republican and Democratic administrations. Do you feel that such a thing can complicate your efforts in the future? I mean, it’s not – I know --

MS TRUDEAU: There’s – you’re, like, doing multi-part answers today, Said.

QUESTION: Sorry.

MS TRUDEAU: One, can’t comment on campaign rhetoric. I just won’t do it.

QUESTION: Right, I figured, but it is a departure --

MS TRUDEAU: Secondly, our position on a two-state solution has not changed.

QUESTION: Right.

MR TONER: It is the Administration’s position, it has been several administrations’ position. But beyond that, I’m just not going to comment on platforms that may have been put forward.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS TRUDEAU: Okay.

QUESTION: Can I go back to you on this Chinese – the American businesswoman that’s been charged by China?

MS TRUDEAU: Yes, Sandy Phan-Gillis. Thank you.

QUESTION: So you’ve been – according to reports, you’ve been officially informed of these charges.

MS TRUDEAU: Yes, and thank you for the question. This is an important case. Chinese authorities have informed us they will bring a case against Ms. Phan-Gillis to the Nanning Intermediate People’s Court. We urge China to resolve this case expeditiously and provide a fair and transparent legal process in accordance with local law and in a manner that also respects international human rights. We also ask that China ensure that Ms. Phan-Gillis continues to have full access to an attorney. U.S. consulate is providing consular assistance, including monthly consular visits, to Ms. Phan-Gillis since she was detained on March 20th, 2015. Consular officer last visited Ms. Phan-Gillis on June 20th. We monitor this case very closely.

I’d note one last thing: Senior government officials have raised Ms. Phan-Gillis’s case with senior Chinese Government officials on multiple occasions. We will continue to do so.

QUESTION: How senior? That was going to be my follow-up.

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah, of course.

QUESTION: Has the Secretary taken this up at all?

MS TRUDEAU: I’m not going to speak to the Secretary’s conversations on this, but I will say that it’s not just once. We continue to raise this.

QUESTION: And can you tell us, in what condition is she? You said there’s been some – they’ve – there’s been visits, but is she in good health?

MS TRUDEAU: I don’t believe I can actually speak to that, but we have been providing monthly consular visits. We will continue to that. The safety and – the safety, the health, the well-being of U.S. citizens remains one of our highest priorities.

QUESTION: Do you know what she’s going to be charged with?

MS TRUDEAU: I don’t.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS TRUDEAU: Okay. Thanks, guys.

(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 - July 14, 2016

Elizabeth Trudeau

Director, Press Office
Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC

July 14, 2016









Index for Today's Briefing

LIBERIA



SECRETARY'S TRAVEL/FRANCE/RUSSIA



RUSSIA/SYRIA



TURKEY/SYRIA



RUSSIA/SYRIA



SYRIA



SAUDI ARABIA



CHINA/PHILIPPINES/REGION



EGYPT



INDIA/PAKISTAN/REGION



ISRAEL



IRAN




TRANSCRIPT:

2:03 p.m. EDT

MS TRUDEAU: Hello, everyone. We’ll be as brief as possible today, but I do have a couple things at the top. Today we welcome Liberia as the 163rd member of the World Trade Organization. This is a significant step for Liberia’s economic integration into the global trading system and adds another voice in Africa to this important forum. We applaud Liberia for this significant achievement. We look forward to working together as a – with Liberia as a full member of the WTO.

A note I think most of you are tracking – earlier today Secretary Kerry was in Paris, where he attended the Bastille Day celebrations. He also delivered brief remarks to the press on the one year anniversary of the JCPOA. I think you’ve seen that transcript, as well as the President’s statement on this anniversary. After departing from Paris, the Secretary arrived in Moscow, where he’ll be meeting with President Putin shortly. We expect to offer a readout after that, so I won’t get ahead of this now.

And with that, Matt, over to you.

QUESTION: So you’re going to offer a readout here or there?

MS TRUDEAU: So it’s my understanding we’ll get it there and then you guys will get it here.

QUESTION: All right. So I – this was gone over at great length at the – in the White House briefing, so I’m not going to spend a lot of time on it; I’m not, at least. But on Syria and on Russia and on this proposal that’s being brought, it’s been clear for several years now – or at least more than 18 months – that the U.S. position has steadily – slowly, but steadily – evolved, shifted, coming more in line with the Russian position, which has remained consistent since the very beginning of this conflict.

And I’m just wondering why, if the kind of proposal that’s we’re – that’s being presented or that has been presented is being presented now, why couldn’t it have been presented far earlier in this process, at least after December, when the Secretary went to Moscow and essentially aligned the U.S. position with that of the Russians vis-a-vis Assad. Isn’t it – is it wrong to think that had this proposal been made earlier a lot of lives could have been saved?

MS TRUDEAU: I would dispute the view that our position has moved. Our position has been consistent, which is Assad must go, that there must be space to have discussions to create that area for a political transition to move. I’m not going to comment on the details of documents, as the White House said, that haven’t been approved or agreed to. We have long said that we would welcome Russia’s increased focus on ISIL, on al-Qaida in Syria. Our common view is that these groups pose a threat to not only the people of Syria but to both our nations.

On your question on timing, again, not going to get ahead of discussions that may be happening in Moscow. Hopefully we’ll have more later today.

QUESTION: Well, you say that your position has been consistent, but it hasn’t. It – first it was Assad must go and he must go immediately. Then it was well, maybe he can hang on for a little bit, but in the end he still has to go, but that it’s got to be up to the Syrian people to --

MS TRUDEAU: Well, it’s always got to be up to the Syrian people. That hasn’t changed.

QUESTION: Yeah. But your position on Assad definitely did change in terms of the timing of when he has to go. And now it appears to have changed to the point where you are prepared to accept or agree to joint operations with the Russians, something that they proposed well over – a month or two ago. So the – it may not – on that score, it may not have changed just yet because it hasn’t been agreed to, but you are now open to things that you weren’t open to just several months ago on that, on the military front. And I guess I just – I don’t understand why it’s wrong for people who are critical or critics of the policy, whatever it is, to point out that if you really think that this is going to salvage the ceasefire and lead to transition talks, or think it has a chance to, why wasn’t it – why didn’t you do it earlier?

MS TRUDEAU: Okay.

QUESTION: I mean, a lot – thousands of people have died in the interim.

MS TRUDEAU: We are absolutely aware of that. We have been consistent in calling not only for the cessation of hostilities to continue in Syria but also to push Russia to exert its influence on the Syrian regime to make that possible.

I’m going to unpack your – your questions a little bit. First, on the cooperation, at present, we are not conducting or coordinating military operations with Russia. It’s not clear we’ll reach an agreement to do that. In Moscow, the Secretary will discuss the importance of focusing Russian efforts on ISIL and al-Qaida while emphasizing the urgent need for Russia and the Syrian regime to meet their commitments. That hasn’t changed. We have been consistent all along on that.

And we have also said that we’re not going to commit indefinitely to diplomacy that doesn’t achieve real results. We cannot provide political cover for those seeking to pursue a different agenda. Russia has influence. It has shown it has influence. The Secretary is committed to creating the space for a political transition. Our position on Assad has not changed, Matt.

QUESTION: The point is that it – whether or not you – I mean, you say it’s not clear we will reach an agreement to do – or to conduct or coordinate joint military operations. But the mere fact that you’re considering doing it is a shift.

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah, I would dispute that.

QUESTION: What?

MS TRUDEAU: I would say that it is --

QUESTION: How can you possibly dispute that? It has been the position of the Administration --

MS TRUDEAU: We have always --

QUESTION: -- that you would not – that you would de-conflict – as soon as the Russians sent their planes and people in --

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- back in last September, the position, up until now, has been nothing other than just this de-confliction exercise. Now you are considering, have proposed, or are willing to consider a Russian proposal, but that’s – that in itself is a shift. It is not consistent with your position --

MS TRUDEAU: Our focus --

QUESTION: All right. You’re – obviously, we’re not going to get --

QUESTION: Can I follow up?

QUESTION: I have just one more, and then – and it’s brief. And that is that your colleague at the White House and you also said that it’s time – the Russians have to make a choice.

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah.

QUESTION: That they have to – this is a test. The testing has been going on and on and on and on and on. It seems clear to everybody – except for you guys, apparently – or it seems clear to most people that the Russians have made their choice --

MS TRUDEAU: We --

QUESTION: -- and that it is kind of pointless to keep testing them when it’s clear that they’re not going to budge.

MS TRUDEAU: But we’ve seen repeatedly through the nature of this conflict that Russia does have influence. We saw when the beginning of the cessation of hostilities that they do have the ability to influence the regime. That is our goal here. Our points, our position have been the same all along on this, Matt.

QUESTION: All right.

QUESTION: Elizabeth?

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah.

QUESTION: To follow up, just to be clear, has the Secretary’s – is this proposal coming from the Secretary, or is it an interagency proposal?

MS TRUDEAU: So, again, I’m not going to comment on specifics of any proposal. What I will say is that the interagency, the entire U.S. Government, as we move forward has been having very robust and very vigorous conversations on this. I think my colleague at the White House addressed this. Our position, again, is that we’re looking for a future for the people of Syria.

QUESTION: So in that language, “robust,” does that mean that there are disagreements with – interagency disagreements? There are definitely officials that are coming out, talking about that they don’t think this is going to work.

MS TRUDEAU: I would say in any situation – and Josh addressed this at the White House – in any situation that’s as complex and critical and, frankly, as heartbreaking as the humanitarian situation right now in Syria, raises lot of very strong viewpoints. The conversation within the interagency among our colleagues is very vigorous. But that said, our position as an administration is very focused right now.

QUESTION: So would you say that the Secretary’s trip has the full backing of the White House and of President Obama?

MS TRUDEAU: I am not going to characterize that for the White House, but I would say that the Secretary is going to present and to have discussions in Moscow that present the Administration’s views. I am not going to get ahead of those discussions right now.

QUESTION: Because, I mean, usually when a Secretary of State goes with a proposal like this, it has the backing of the White House. But the White House has not specifically said that. And that’s what this is about.

MS TRUDEAU: Well, because I think the awkward thing is none of us are talking about any proposal right now. What we’re talking about is there’s going to be discussions that happen. They start tonight when the Secretary meets with President Putin. They’ll continue tomorrow as he meets with Foreign Minister Lavrov. Let’s see where they go.

QUESTION: But does – there has to be a proposal. I mean, there – it was published this morning.

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah. But again, we’re not going to talk about the details.

QUESTION: So that’s not a proposal?

MS TRUDEAU: I can’t speak to any specifics of any documents that may have been leaked. You know that, Lesley.

QUESTION: Well, can you at least say that there is a proposal that’s going to be made or discussed?

MS TRUDEAU: What I’ll say is that the Secretary will meet with President Putin tonight. He will certainly be engaging in a very focused conversation on Syria. Those conversations will continue tomorrow with Foreign Minister Lavrov.

QUESTION: Then just something more – very specific on clearing this. What is the aim of these discussions? I mean, both sides have been fighting ISIL. Is the aim here to try to hone in more on these groups like al-Nusrah?

MS TRUDEAU: So what we would say on that is that Russia’s significant military intervention gives it enormous responsibility for Syria’s future. The Secretary will be speaking to Russian leaders about that. We believe that it’s time that Russia decides if it’s serious about advancing its purported goals in Syria.

QUESTION: But that’s the point, though. The Russians have made themselves – have made it clear that they are serious and that they believe that what they’re doing now is advancing their goals.

MS TRUDEAU: And as we said, Matt, we have talked about times where the Russians have been helpful on this.

QUESTION: Yeah, but in pursuit --

MS TRUDEAU: I can’t speak to the Russians and what their decisions --

QUESTION: I know, but in pursuit of their objectives. And that when you say it’s time for the Russians to stand up and make a choice, well, why isn’t it clear to you guys that the Russians have made their choice? It’s been --

MS TRUDEAU: We --

QUESTION: It’s been – their position has not changed in four years, more than four years.

MS TRUDEAU: We think Russia has influence. We think that they need to use it.

Samir. No? We’ll go back. Hey, Oren. Nice to see you.

QUESTION: Hi, thanks. So the State Department spokespeople have been saying from the podium for a long time now – complaining about Russian airstrikes on members of the opposition and asking the Russians to refrain from striking on groups that are intermingled with al-Nusrah. Has that position changed?

MS TRUDEAU: No.

QUESTION: Is that going to change?

MS TRUDEAU: I’m not going to – I – no.

Laurie.

QUESTION: Yes. Turkey’s prime minister yesterday talked about returning ties with Syria, quote, “to normal.” That’s caused great concern among the Syrian opposition. Does the United States share that concern, and has it tried to clarify what the prime minister meant by those remarks?

MS TRUDEAU: Well, I’d refer you to the Turks to speak to their comments. I believe the foreign minister also spoke about it today. Our position is very clear. Turkey is an important partner in the fight against ISIL, against Daesh, continues to stand strongly with the United States and other members of the coalition. And also, let’s remember Turkey has been an extraordinary host to hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees who – they’re hosting on their own land. So I would refer you to the Turks on any clarification you’re seeking on that.

QUESTION: And does the State Department feel the need to clarify that statement with the Turkish --

MS TRUDEAU: I’d refer you to what the Turks themselves have said on this, okay?

QUESTION: Well, have you asked?

MS TRUDEAU: So we engage regularly with the Turks on this one.

QUESTION: Yeah, on this.

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah, so --

QUESTION: You did? You asked him what he meant by that?

MS TRUDEAU: So we have --

QUESTION: Or you asked them?

MS TRUDEAU: We have discussed this with our Turkish allies and friends.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: And did – what did they tell you when you discussed it?

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah, I’m not going to read out that conversation, but I would refer you to them. I believe that they’ve spoken about that, okay?

Hi.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) Al Jazeera Arabic. Thanks for the opportunity. So in terms of timing, can you speak to why there’s optimism this time around? Obviously, the Secretary last week met with his Saudi counterpart and he’s in Moscow today. What makes you so certain that this time around there will be more success on something long-lasting, some kind of commitment that all sides can abide by?

MS TRUDEAU: So we’ve spoken about this at length from this podium. The Secretary has spoken about this as well. I’m not going to get ahead, as I’ve said to Matt and Lesley, of the discussions that are happening right now, actually, in Moscow, nor the discussions that’ll happen tomorrow. Our position has been clear on this. There’s got to be a future for the Syrian people. That’s what the international community is focused on.

In terms of your question, if we’re optimistic, I would say we’re very pragmatic on this. This has been a humanitarian toll that is devastating. That said, that there’s no excuse not to work on every possible track towards a solution, okay?

Hi, Nick.

QUESTION: Can I move to Saudi Arabia?

MS TRUDEAU: Are you good, Matt?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MS TRUDEAU: Okay. Saudi.

QUESTION: I have another one on Syria.

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah, go ahead. We’ll come to you, Nick.

QUESTION: Sorry. Kind of a follow-up to my previous question: Are Ahrar al-Sham and Jaysh al-Islam considered part of Nusrah or part of the opposition?

MS TRUDEAU: So our position on Nusrah, which is part of the UN-designated group, is that they are not party to the cessation of hostilities. Jaysh al-Islam – they are not designated on that UN group.

Nick.

QUESTION: On the 28-page --

QUESTION: Let me just make a point. Why are they not on that UN list? Why are they not on that UN list?

MS TRUDEAU: Because they have not been so designated by that UN group.

QUESTION: And the United States supports or opposes putting them on that list?

MS TRUDEAU: I think we’ve talked about this at length, Matt.

QUESTION: But again, so you go back to the point where you’re saying, well, they’re not covered – or they are covered by the cessation of hostilities because they’re not on that UN list. But the reason that they’re not on that UN list is that you oppose them being on that UN list.

MS TRUDEAU: We have also talked about the importance of groups like this to disassociate themselves --

QUESTION: Right.

MS TRUDEAU: -- to move apart, to not intermingle, to not be aligned there.

QUESTION: And in – right, okay.

MS TRUDEAU: And that’s something we continue to have these very robust conversations --

QUESTION: And some of the opposition commanders today, in response to reports about the proposal, have said that they’re not going to disassociate themselves with Nusrah, because Nusrah is a formidable or a credible fighting force. So clearly, I mean, you’ve been talking to them about – and their direct sponsors for months about disassociating themselves and getting themselves away, and they haven’t done it and they won’t – they say they won’t do it. So what --

MS TRUDEAU: I guess our focus is that these two particular groups are not our biggest focus on this. We understand. We understand there’s intermingling. We understand, because we’ve spoken to them. We will continue. We’re not saying no, it’s not a problem. But we’re also very focused on the situation in the ground right now in Syria.

QUESTION: All right.

MS TRUDEAU: Nick.

QUESTION: So the House Intelligence Committee is saying it may release the 28 pages from the 9/11 report, those classified 28 pages, as early as today or tomorrow. Have you spoken with the Saudis on what may – what’s in those 28 pages? Are you concerned about the effect that this may have on U.S.-Saudi relations and have you spoken with the House Intelligence Committee?

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah. So I have no timing to announce on that. That would be, obviously, for Congress. Or I would also actually specifically refer you to ODNI to speak about their timing on that. I’m not going to get ahead of any release of any report by Congress nor detail diplomatic relations on a timeline that we’re just not aware of.

QUESTION: But have you spoken with the Saudis ahead of this to sort of --

MS TRUDEAU: Okay. Again, the timing on the release of that report, that would be a question for ODNI, and then ultimately, Congress, because that report does belong to Congress.

QUESTION: I mean, just timing aside, are you sort of laying the groundwork with the Saudis on what --

MS TRUDEAU: We’ve had multiple conversations with the Saudis about this. In terms of specific readouts or anything specifically on this, I have nothing – nothing to offer.

Yeah.

QUESTION: On the South China Sea, I wonder if --

MS TRUDEAU: Of course. Do we really have anything more we can say about South China Sea? (Laughter.)

QUESTION: First of all, do you have a response to Philippines proposed that they may send an envoy to China to discuss the arbitration?

MS TRUDEAU: Our focus, as we’ve said repeatedly from the podium, is that we encourage all claimants to avoid provocative actions and rhetoric. We would welcome any discussion among claimants. We hope that all claimants take advantage of this opportunity that the arbitration decision provided to work together and manage these disputes.

QUESTION: And secondly, could you please confirm, is there the office in the State Department called the Office of Geographer? Are they responsible for those maps that United States Government use or any official maps for the government? And what’s their responsibility?

MS TRUDEAU: Okay. So we’re talking about the rock, island thing, correct?

QUESTION: Yes.

MS TRUDEAU: Okay. So let me answer the question you’re actually asking. The United States does not take a position on whether other’s small islands around the world are rocks for the purposes of Article 1213. The terms “island” and “rock” are not mutually exclusive categories under international Law of the Sea. Under Article 1213 of the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention, islands are, quote, “rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.” I know we owed you that from yesterday, so I wanted to make sure you got that.

In terms of if there’s an Office of the Geographer in the State Department --

QUESTION: Yeah, I couldn’t find the website.

MS TRUDEAU: I can actually check. I’m not aware of one. It doesn’t mean there’s not one. So let me find out.

QUESTION: So does the State Department send your own researcher and officers --

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah, why don’t I take a look at it? Because I’m not aware of any office, but that doesn’t mean there’s not one, because there’s a lot of offices I’m not aware of. Okay.

QUESTION: And some point you mentioned the UNCLOS definition of the island. So China is challenging the court decision. It’s from the Permanent Court of Arbitration instead of the ICJ, because the example that Spokesman John Kirby reached* the other day, the case between United States and Canada, actually it’s ruled by the ICJ instead of this permanent court. So why do you think the ruling is legally binding?

MS TRUDEAU: Because both claimants agreed to a legally binding decision when they joined that --

QUESTION: No, China didn’t agree with that.

MS TRUDEAU: When they joined, they did.

QUESTION: But even the United Nations came out to say that court, the PCA, Permanent Court of Arbitration, is not connected to UN.

MS TRUDEAU: So you’re asking about the Canada or you’re asking about this decision?

QUESTION: I’m asking about this decision from this Permanent Court of Arbitration, why it’s legally binding, because the example that spokesman give me the other day, it’s a decision from the ICJ, not the same court.

MS TRUDEAU: No, it’s the Law of the Sea Convention. The tribunal’s decision in this case is legally binding on both the Philippines and China.

QUESTION: Yeah, that’s my question. Why this court decision is binding --

MS TRUDEAU: It’s provided in the Law of the Sea Convention, knowing, of course, that the United States is not a signatory but these groups are. Okay.

QUESTION: But wait. I just wanted to ask --

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah.

QUESTION: The rock island thing.

MS TRUDEAU: Yes.

QUESTION: And you mentioned a citation of a number.

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah.

QUESTION: That – what – where is that from? Is that your own definition or is that Paul Simon’s definition or is it the UNCLOS definition?

MS TRUDEAU: I would sing it for you but you don’t want me to do that. It’s the Law of the Sea Convention on the definition of island and not.

QUESTION: So you guys, even though you’re not members of it, you accept their definition of the --

MS TRUDEAU: Yes.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: But why on the map you released in 2010 says that Taiping Island – you actually --

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah. I – again, I think we went through this yesterday a bit. So what I would say is under the Law of the Sea Convention, that’s how it’s defined. In terms of the State Department’s map, again, I don’t even know if we have an office. I’ll look and see if we have an office on that. But it’s the Law of the Sea Convention and this arbitration decision. Pulling in a random U.S. map from a website is not going to influence that.

Okay. Al Jazeera.

QUESTION: Thank you. If I can change the subject to Egypt. Have you been in touch with the Egyptian authorities on the case of Aya Hijazi, a U.S. citizen? She’s been imprisoned without trial for over 800 days?

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah. So we are aware that Ms. Hijazi – let me just go here – has been detained in Egypt for more than two years and is currently on trial. We continue to call for an expeditious resolution to the case and a fair and transparent legal process, in accordance with local law and in a manner that also respects international human rights. We continue to provide all possible consular assistance to Ms. Hijazi. We meet with her frequently, and we also attended her last court hearing, which was May 21st. We will attend all upcoming hearings and continue to provide that consular assistance.

QUESTION: Can I ask about --

MS TRUDEAU: Of course.

QUESTION: -- a general question, which is the issue of – it’s been brought up by groups such as Amnesty International, the issue of forced disappearances --

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- in Egypt. Amnesty has a report where they’re saying there’s an average of four forced disappearances per day and they’re asking countries such as – in EU but also on the U.S. to pressure Egypt to stop those practices. Do you agree with the Amnesty report or do you think Egypt’s --

MS TRUDEAU: So we read the report. We think that the allegations in the report are deeply concerning. We urge all authorities in Egypt to investigate all allegations of abuse by the security forces. As we’ve said repeatedly, we’re concerned by the deterioration in the human rights environment in Egypt. We believe all Egyptians are entitled to receive equal and fair treatment before the law. They have a right to due process.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS TRUDEAU: This is the shortest ever.

QUESTION: No, no. I got a couple.

MS TRUDEAU: Of course, Matt.

QUESTION: Where to begin? Oh, right. So I’m just going to try and clear something up that’s come up for the first three – the briefings – every briefing this week.

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah.

QUESTION: And that is – this has to do with Kashmir --

MS TRUDEAU: Yes.

QUESTION: -- and the violence there.

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah.

QUESTION: So on Monday and then again on Tuesday, Kirby – basically he said the same thing, that you’ve seen the reports of the violence --

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- you’re concerned by it, but then referred questions to the Indian Government about it.

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah.

QUESTION: So he said the same thing Monday and Tuesday.

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah.

QUESTION: And then Toner was asked yesterday, and he basically referred back to what Kirby has said. This statement that – referring questions back to the Indian Government has been interpreted by India and – but also by others as meaning that the U.S. Government believes this is purely an internal Indian matter and that they should be – basically the United States is minding its own business and won’t get involved. Is that a correct interpretation?

MS TRUDEAU: No, I would say we’d have – we’ve had discussions with both India and Pakistan on this issue.

QUESTION: On the current – or the recent --

MS TRUDEAU: On a range of issues, but including Kashmir, yes.

QUESTION: No, no. On this specific – these specific recent outbreaks of violence.

MS TRUDEAU: Yes.

QUESTION: You have? Okay. There’s also been the question raised of why you’ve said that you’re concerned about the violence but you haven’t condemned the deaths of civilian --

MS TRUDEAU: So we are very concerned about the deaths of the protesters. I understand it’s over 30 now; that’s of grave concern to us. We continue to be in touch with the Government of India. We’ve been in discussions with the Government of Pakistan as well.

QUESTION: Okay. But is this something that the United States would condemn?

MS TRUDEAU: Well, we’d encourage all sides to make efforts to finding a peaceful resolution. The situation on the ground from what we understand is very complex, it remains fluid. In terms of clarity on what’s going on, in terms of the protests as well as the security force reaction, we’re still trying to get it.

QUESTION: All right. And then – but just in terms of this being an internal matter for India, while it may be taking place on territory that India claims or administers --

MS TRUDEAU: Exactly.

QUESTION: -- do you – I mean, does that absolve it of any kind of criticism for any abuses that may or may not take – that may take place?

MS TRUDEAU: Well, we take – as we said and as both Kirby and Toner did say, we’re very concerned about this latest outbreak of violence on that.

QUESTION: All right. And then somewhat related to that, the head of – the leader of Lashkar-e Tayyiba is a man who you guys have put a Rewards for Justice bounty, to loosely use the word “bounty,” of $10 million. This has been an issue that’s been raised before. He is basically walking around in Pakistan openly with not a problem giving interviews, whatever. He has said that the United States, by taking the position that – or not taking any position – condemnation on the deaths in the recent violence, that you’re basically giving India a free hand or you’re encouraging them to use harsh tactics against demonstrators. Is he correct in saying that?

MS TRUDEAU: Okay. Of course not. I mean, we’ve seen the statements. We – as we’ve said from this podium many times, we remain concerned about his activities. He’s listed by UN Security Council 1267 al-Qaida Sanctions Committee. As you note, he’s also on the Rewards for Justice Program. Both LET and Saeed are designated by the U.S. Government. We would – we’re not going to respond to every statement like that. Obviously we disagree with his premise, but we’ve also been very clear with the Government of Pakistan that they must target and root out these extremist groups, all militant groups and Taliban. And I believe Toner referenced yesterday the very helpful comments from General Sharif on this.

QUESTION: Right. Is it a concern to you that this guy who has been designated by the UN and then by the U.S. is just – seems to be going about his day-to-day things?

MS TRUDEAU: Well, we remain very concerned by his activities as well as the statement, as you’ve highlighted.

QUESTION: Have you – and you have raised this with Pakistani authorities?

MS TRUDEAU: We have been very clear.

QUESTION: All right, on Israel briefly --

MS TRUDEAU: Yep.

QUESTION: -- unless anyone has more on that – I asked a question yesterday about the guy who’s been named the chief rabbi of the IDF and has --

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah.

QUESTION: Did you get a response on that?

MS TRUDEAU: So we have. We understand their concerns with some of the comments that this individual made in the past. While we won’t respond to every comment, obviously there’s no justification for rape.

QUESTION: He’s made some other comments as well. Are those the only ones you’re referring to?

MS TRUDEAU: The ones that I’m tracking are the ones I’m referring to.

QUESTION: All right. And then lastly, as you began with the Iran – the Iran-iversary as some people are calling it --

MS TRUDEAU: Hashtag.

QUESTION: Yeah, in a – yeah, but I don’t think these people are supporters of the deal calling it Iran-iversary. But anyway, Foreign Minister Zarif in his comments marking the anniversary of the deal basically complained again that you guys in particular – the U.S. but also the other members of the P5+1 – have not been living up to your end of the deal and that you need to do more in terms of sanctions relief. Is that a valid complaint?

MS TRUDEAU: We would disagree. We’ve made clear that the United States will continue to live up to its commitments under the Iran deal as Iran lives up to its own commitments.

QUESTION: So there is no – the Iranian officials have said for some time that if they’re not getting the relief that they think that they’re – or that they are owed under this deal, they’re going to walk away from their part of the bargain. That – on the first-year anniversary, you would say that they do not have any cause to do that?

MS TRUDEAU: I would say that we believe that the United States is living up to its commitments. We continue to have discussions not only with our international partners but also with the Iranians on this. This is – it was certainly not a simple deal. I think you --

QUESTION: Oh, yeah.

MS TRUDEAU: -- 18 days in Vienna remember the negotiations that led to this. But we believe, yes, we are.

QUESTION: Okay, thank you.

MS TRUDEAU: Great. Thanks, guys.

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

DPB # 124

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 - July 11, 2016

John Kirby

Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC

July 11, 2016









Index for Today's Briefing

SOUTH SUDAN



PAKISTAN



SECRETARY'S TRAVEL



SOUTH SUDAN



SYRIA/REGION



IRAQ



IRAN



JAPAN



NORTH KOREA



CHINA/PHILIPPINES/REGION



NORTH KOREA



CHINA/REGION



JAPAN



SYRIA/REGION



IRAQ



SYRIA/TURKEY



TURKEY



SOUTH AFRICA



UNITED KINGDOM



INDIA



AFGHANISTAN/PAKISTAN



SECRETARY'S TRAVEL



DEPARTMENT




TRANSCRIPT:

2:11 p.m. EDT

MR KIRBY: Good afternoon, everybody.

QUESTION: Hello.

MR KIRBY: Okay, a couple of things at the top. On South Sudan. In response to the sudden and serious decline in the security situation in South Sudan, we released statements on the 9th and the 10th of July condemning the latest outbreak of violence and calling on President Kiir and first president – I’m sorry, First Vice President Machar and their political allies to immediately restrain their forces from fighting.

Our ambassador, Ambassador Phee, has spoken repeatedly with senior officials on both sides, and today we welcome the presidential decree declaring a unilateral ceasefire to take effect at 6 o’clock. We also welcome the commitment conveyed by First Vice President Machar to reciprocate with the unilateral ceasefire for opposition forces.

The United Nations Security Council, the African Union, and regional partners have been actively engaged in calling on the leaders in South Sudan to commit to the full and immediate implementation of the peace agreement, including the permanent ceasefire.

We strongly urge that the two leaders do everything in their power to ensure these decrees will be fully respected and unfettered humanitarian assistance will be provided to those affected by the violence. And I also want to add our condolences, thoughts, and prayers to all those who have been affected by the violence, the families of those killed, and of course those who have been wounded and hurt.

The Secretary remains, for his part, very engaged. He spoke yesterday with Prime Minister Hailemariam and President Kenyatta regarding a coordinated regional response to the unrest. The UN Security Council yesterday discussed as well how to enhance the UN mission in South Sudan – otherwise known as UNMIS; I think you guys are familiar with that acronym – to better enable the mission to prevent and respond to violence. We are in active communication with partners on appropriate next steps.

In addition, we are moving out on all fronts to reduce the number of staff by implementing an ordered departure from our post. That is our focus right now – an ordered departure. We are adjusting – are simply adjusting our footprint in response to the deterioration in the security situation. We are also in constant communication with U.S. citizens in Juba, and we released a Travel Warning yesterday evening protecting American citizens and ending the fighting are our – remain our top priorities in South Sudan, and we are working closely with senior leaders, the African Union, and regional partners to do so.

A note on Pakistan. We are deeply saddened by the passing of Pakistani philanthropist Abdul Sattar Edhi on the 8th of July – one of the world’s great humanitarians. Edhi’s compassion, dignity, and humility serve as an example to us all. He led a life dedicated to serving others regardless of religion, class, nationality, or ethnicity. We offer our deepest condolences to his wife and his children, the millions that he personally touched, and of course to the people of Pakistan on this sad occasion.

Finally, a programming note. Secretary Kerry will travel this week – starting this week. He’ll travel to Paris at the invitation of President Hollande to attend Bastille Day celebrations. He will – the travel starts Wednesday. The Bastille Day celebrations are obviously on the 14th. Later that evening on the 14th, he’ll travel to Moscow where he will begin a series of meetings with senior Russian officials to discuss Syria, Ukraine, Nagorno-Karabakh, among other issues. He’ll then travel to Luxembourg City, Luxembourg, on the 15th of July, where he will meet with the Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Jean Asselborn to discuss a range of bilateral issues, the transatlantic relationship, and a variety of other issues of mutual interest to us both.

The Secretary will then travel to Brussels from July 17th to the 18th where he will meet with EU member-state foreign ministers and EU High Representative Federica Mogherini ahead of the Foreign Affairs Council, and there to discuss of course key foreign policy priorities across the continent.

Next, the Secretary will travel to London on the 18th and the 19th, where he will attend multilateral meetings on Yemen and on Syria.

So with that, Dave, do you want to kick us off?

QUESTION: Yes. Let’s start with the South Sudan since you did. Can you – what’s the situation now in terms of the departure of the Americans from your mission?

MR KIRBY: Well, we don’t – for security purposes, we don’t detail specific numbers, but the ordered departure is in place. It’s not an evacuation, it’s an ordered departure. And we’re working through effecting that even today, but I just don’t have and I won’t have on a daily basis any kind of an update.

QUESTION: Is the end state to have zero staff in country?

MR KIRBY: I beg your pardon?

QUESTION: Is the end state everybody gone?

MR KIRBY: No. It’s an ordered departure, a steady ordered departure of staff. So, again, I just don’t have an update for you.

QUESTION: Okay. And is – are all U.S. personnel that you’re aware of accounted for and safe?

MR KIRBY: All chief of mission under people – people under the authority of the chief of mission have all been accounted for. We obviously are in touch with – as best we can with other American citizens who are in Juba. It’s, as you know, difficult for us to say with 100 percent certainty that we know of every American citizen that is there, but we are trying to stay in communication with them as best we can.

QUESTION: And are you able to remain in communication with the two camps, with the president and vice president of --

MR KIRBY: We have. We have. Our ambassador has, yes.

QUESTION: Okay. Well, I have some on Syria as well, but if anyone wants to continue on Sudan --

MR KIRBY: Anything more on South Sudan?

QUESTION: I just want to make sure I understand. When you are through with – when this ordered departure comes to an end, there will be staff of some number at the embassy; is that correct?

MR KIRBY: It’s an ordered departure adjusting the footprint in response to the deterioration. I’m not going to be able to say with great specificity what the end state of that’s going to be in terms of presence there. As I said to Dave, we’re not talking about evacuating the embassy. It’s an ordered departure. Okay? Go ahead, Dave.

QUESTION: So Syria. The Syrian army has renewed a 72-hour ceasefire that they themselves declared. Obviously, last week when we were traveling, Secretary Kerry welcomed in principle the 72-hour Eid holiday ceasefire.

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: Obviously, the United States would rather there was a nationwide permanent cessation, but that was what was on the table. However, it seems to have been breached, and today we have reports that there’s a rebel offensive underway to try and break the siege of Aleppo. So do you regard the Syrian ceasefire as being in place, or is that gone now? And how – what’s the state of the cessation that has obviously been partially honored up to now?

MR KIRBY: Well, as you rightly said, the regime extended it for an additional 72 hours which was ending today. But even as recently as yesterday, Syrian regime forces continue to conduct ground and aerial operations in Aleppo in violation of both the nationwide cessation of hostilities, which was called for in the UN Security Council resolution, but also the Eid period of calm which they themselves announced. We’ve also seen disturbing reports of regime advances in Daraya, which is a suburb of Damascus.

That said, the cessation has largely held in other parts of the country, and we continue to urge all parties for complete compliance with the nationwide cessation of hostilities. The regime needs to do – and we’ve said this before, Dave – they need to do what it committed to do, which is to end the indiscriminate use of weapons, including the targeting of civilians and civilian authorities, and including medical ones. And we look to the Russians to make a greater use of the influence that we know that they have to make that happen.

QUESTION: You know whether the Russians were involved in the prolongation of 72 hours, or was that a Syrian --

MR KIRBY: I don’t know. I honestly don’t know the degree to which they influenced the extension, but clearly there is not enough influence being applied, or that influence is being ignored, because we continue to see violations even shortly after they announced an extension.

QUESTION: And when was the last time Secretary Kerry spoke to Lavrov or anyone --

MR KIRBY: I don’t have an update for you since he spoke on the 5th of July.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Do you expect the Secretary to discuss the new proposal with the Russians on cooperation to focus on fighting ISIL and Jabhat al-Nusrah?

MR KIRBY: Well, as I said, we expect the discussions in Moscow to range across many issues. Syria will be front and center; there’s no question about that. And I – without getting ahead of an agenda or discussions that haven’t happened, I can assure you that one of the key topics the Secretary is going to want to cover with Russian officials is reduction in violence, the cessation of hostilities – getting that applied as it should have been applied, nationwide and in enduring way; a political transition; and of course, they will – I have no doubt that they’ll continue to discuss the humanitarian situation on the ground and the need for better and more sustained, more unimpeded access to so many millions of Syrians in need. I fully expect that this will be front and center on the agenda, and the Secretary will make clear that we expect – as we have – Russia to use the influence that we know it has on the Assad regime to get the situation in better control.

QUESTION: Can I move to Iraq?

MR KIRBY: Sure.

QUESTION: Thank you. So about the additional 560 troops that Secretary Carter announced today --

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- did that come in response to a request from the Iraqi Government, or was it your assessment that you need to send these troops?

MR KIRBY: I’m going to point you to what Secretary Carter said when he announced it and he made it clear that this was done in full consultation with Prime Minister Abadi’s government in Baghdad.

QUESTION: Did they request it, or you thought, like, that there needs to be additional U.S. troops?

MR KIRBY: It was done in full consultation and coordination with the Iraqi Government. All of our troops in Iraq are there at the invitation and the support of the Iraqi Government. That won’t change with this additional deployment.

QUESTION: What do you say to critics who are saying this is definitely mission creep? Because – and what kind of role? I know you might refer me to the Pentagon – what might – what kind of role they might play in the (inaudible)?

MR KIRBY: You’re right, I’m going to refer you to the Pentagon. But listen, it ain’t mission creep if the mission ain’t changing, and the mission’s not changing in Iraq with respect to what U.S. troops are doing in a train, advise, and assist capacity. And then, of course, our airmen are very much engaged in air operations, as they have been inside the coalition.

QUESTION: Thanks.

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: On July 20, you’ll be hosting a humanitarian pledging conference for Iraq.

MR KIRBY: Yes, I announced it.

QUESTION: Okay. (Laughter.) So there’s an issue with the participation of the Kurdistan Regional Government that’s in northern Iraq. It got a huge number of refugees that they’re hosting – nearly 2 million – but generally they don’t get to attend these conferences, because the U.S. leaves it up to Baghdad whether to include the Kurdish representatives or not and Baghdad doesn’t include the Kurdish representatives.

So my question is: This time, will you press Baghdad to make sure that representatives of the KRG include – are included? The British have done that in the past and it’s worked. Or, alternatively, might you invite representatives of the Kurdistan Regional Government directly to attend this conference?

MR KIRBY: Well, first of all, I want to talk about the importance of the conference, and the Secretary is very much looking forward to it. It is – it’s going to be an important gathering for an important purpose: to further encourage international community support for the very real financial challenges that Iraq still faces as they are trying to enact reforms, political and economic; as they are fighting a very lethal enemy still on their soil. So there’s a lot of work to be done on that day, and the Secretary looks forward to rolling up his sleeves and getting at that work.

I don’t have an update for you on invitations or the process itself. The only thing I would say is that, as we have made clear in the past, the support that the United States is providing to Iraq in this time of great need is being done as – and it will continue to be done – through the Abadi government in Baghdad. Again, I will take the question for you in terms of any more specificity on the invitation process. I just don’t have that level of information right now. But I do want to stress that we continue to manage the support that we’re providing through Baghdad.

QUESTION: Well, it seems that given the critical role that the Kurdish Peshmerga play in fighting ISIS and the great generosity that they’ve shown all these refugees and displaced persons, that they really merit the attention of the United States, and if they’re not getting from Baghdad a reasonable share of this aid, that the United States should really consider stepping in and addressing this issue.

MR KIRBY: Well, I would take issue with the notion that we haven’t. I’m not going to get ahead of pledges or what size, scope, and character they’re going to be or how they’re going to be distributed inside Iraq. But you raise a good point, and one I neglected in my first reply to you, and that’s that we obviously recognize the service, the sacrifice, the courage, the bravery, the skill on the battlefield that the Peshmerga have demonstrated every single day.

And we’re mindful of the toll that this fight has taken up in the north and the significant role that the Kurdish Regional Government has played in terms of trying to deal with it as well. That’s why, when you see Brett McGurk traveling to the region, he never fails to stop in Erbil and have discussions with KRG representatives. And so has, in fact, Secretary Kerry in his most recent trip to Iraq made the effort to meet with them – now, it was in Baghdad, but he made the effort to meet with them. So we’re mindful of that. We’re mindful of the role they’re playing and the skill that they are demonstrating, but I just won’t get ahead of specifics in terms of pledging contributions by any one state or how they might be distributed.

QUESTION: Or invitations?

MR KIRBY: Well, as I said, I will see if I can find out more information about the invitation process, the protocol element of this. I don’t know how much information I’m going to be able to provide this far out, but I’ll take the question and we’ll see what we can do in terms of getting you a better reply.

QUESTION: Thank you very much.

MR KIRBY: Yeah. Carol.

QUESTION: John, do you have any reaction to the indictments in Tehran today of the three dual nationals, including an American and a Lebanese man who was working on contract for the State Department?

MR KIRBY: I do, Carol. We’ve seen the reports of unspecified indictments announced by Iran against U.S. citizen Siamak Namazi and a U.S. legal permanent resident named Nizar Zakka, as well as other non-U.S. citizen dual nationals. As we’ve said before, we continue to believe that if the reports are true, both are being unjustly detained and should be released as soon as possible. We don’t have any further information to provide on these announcements and we’re continuing to make all appropriate efforts on these cases and any other cases of U.S. citizens detained or missing in Iran.

QUESTION: Are you taking it upon yourself to try to work for the release of the Lebanese citizen who is a resident of the United States?

MR KIRBY: Well, again, we – for privacy reasons, Carol, we’re not going to comment on efforts that we make on behalf of specific U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents overseas without their written consent. What I can tell you is that we continue to use all the means at our disposal to advocate for U.S. citizens who need our assistance. That’s really as far as I can go on that.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Do you have a response to the Japanese elections yesterday?

MR KIRBY: The – certainly we saw the elections and the preliminary results. I would refer you to Japanese authorities to speak to their elections. Japan is obviously a close friend and an ally and certainly a democracy in their own right. And we look forward to continuing that very close association, that very close friendship, that very close partnership, and we’ll continue to work with all the elected members in Japan’s government. But I’m not going to make a characterization or a comment one way or the other on an internal election.

QUESTION: North Korea --

QUESTION: Specifically – sorry, one more.

QUESTION: Sorry, go ahead.

QUESTION: Just specifically, they elected more than two-thirds of the ruling majority party, which means that they could potentially create changes to the pacifist constitution. Do you have any comment on (inaudible)?

MR KIRBY: I absolutely would not get ahead of issues like that. As I said, Japan is a close ally and a friend and a partner and we look forward to continuing that very close association with them going forward. I’m not going to speculate one way or another about policy changes that this election may or may not infuse into the system. That would be inappropriate at this time.

QUESTION: So North Korea says they’ve broken ties – well, de facto ties that they had through the mission at the UN in New York to the United States. To what extent can you break that tie since it’s – it was informal, I understand, but what’s your reaction to that?

MR KIRBY: I would say our reaction is essentially that, again, we call on North Korea to refrain from actions and rhetoric that only further raise tensions in the region. I’m not going to share the details of diplomatic exchanges one way or the other, but none of the rhetoric we’ve seen of late is doing anything to increase security and stability on the peninsula. And the DPRK knows very well what its international obligations are and should know very well what their obligations are to their own people in terms of the proper kinds of decisions and choices that they need to make going forward.

QUESTION: Syria --

QUESTION: Is there going to be – just on the same issue, is there going to be any negative consequences to not having that diplomatic channel, especially as the military drills are scheduled for August?

MR KIRBY: Again, I’m not going to get into the details of diplomatic exchanges one way or another. As you know, we don’t have formal diplomatic relations with the DPRK. And as for their exercises – is that what you’re referring to?

QUESTION: The joint U.S.-South Korean exercises for August/September.

MR KIRBY: Is there going to be an impact on that?

QUESTION: Well, if there’s – yeah, I mean, if there’s no – that traditionally, there’s a rise of tensions in advance and surrounding those, and if there’s not a diplomatic channel through New York, there’s concerns that that could make things even worse.

MR KIRBY: Well, let me back up a little bit. First of all, I’ll point you to DOD to speak to specific training exercises, timing, scope, character. That’s not for us to speak to. But we have significant security commitments with the Republic of Korea, alliance commitments that we intend to continue to meet. And a key component of meeting those commitments is military readiness, and a key way to assure military – ensure military readiness is to exercise, is to train together. And I can assure you that here at the State Department we fully support efforts by the two militaries to do just that, and I don’t see any impact on the requirements to stay militarily ready and therefore the obligations to train and to exercise going forward. And given the threats both rhetorically and actually that have come from Pyongyang of late, we certainly believe all the more strongly that a proper readiness posture is warranted there in the South.

QUESTION: Syria and Iraq?

MR KIRBY: Okay.

QUESTION: Can I do one more follow-up on this?

MR KIRBY: Yeah, let’s stay in the region.

QUESTION: And do you have any concerns on American detainees in North Korea? They said now that they would treat them with wartime law.

MR KIRBY: Yeah, again, we’ve seen the comments, again, not – I’m not going to – I’m not going to comment on every utterance that comes out of Pyongyang. But clearly, rhetoric such as that obviously is not doing anything to ease tensions. As we’ve said before, the welfare and safety of U.S. citizens abroad is one of the highest priorities of the State Department. That’s not going to change, and we continue to call on the North to cease what is obviously an improper and unjust detention of these individuals.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Can we stay in the region?

MR KIRBY: Sure.

QUESTION: South China Sea. I wonder if you have any response to last Friday’s briefing you were asked about if the United States welcomed the remarks by Philippine’s officials that they are open towards discussions of a joint exploration of resources in the South China Sea. Does the United States welcome it?

MR KIRBY: The – welcome the – I’m sorry.

QUESTION: Welcome the proposal by the Philippines that they are willing – they are open to discussion for a joint exploration of natural resources in the South China Sea with China.

MR KIRBY: Those are sovereign issues that – and decisions that leaders of nations are entitled and in fact have a responsibility to make. We’ve seen those comments. But again, this is – these are issues for the Philippines and China to discuss, and the United States isn’t – doesn’t have an official reaction to those particular statements.

QUESTION: With the ruling of tomorrow’s Hague tribunal coming up soon, do you think is that opened up an opportunity for discussions for joint resource management?

MR KIRBY: Look, let’s not get ahead of a tribunal decision that hasn’t been rendered. We – our position has all along been that we want all claimants to resolve disputes peacefully and in accordance with international law. We don’t take a position on claims. We do take a position on coercion; we want these things resolved in accordance with rule of law. And as I said to your last question, if there are bilateral arrangements that can be had to do just that short of having to take it to some – to a higher level, as long as it’s done peacefully and in accordance with international law, the United States isn’t going to certainly interfere with that. But I just don’t want to get ahead of a decision that hasn’t been rendered.

On your question on the Americans, I want to go back. There’s one point I want to make. We continue to urge Pyongyang to adhere to its commitment to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and grant consular access to any detained U.S. citizens without delay. I had forgot to mention that and wanted to put that in there, so I apologize for coming back to you.

We still in the region? Yes? No?

QUESTION: South China Sea, South China Sea.

MR KIRBY: Okay, you both have your hands up. We’ll go – you go first.

QUESTION: Okay. Do U.S. official plan to communicate with their Chinese counterpart after South China Sea arbitration? Result comes out tomorrow.

MR KIRBY: Well, again, I’m not going to get ahead of this decision. We need to see what the tribunal comes back with. As I’ve – that said, as I’ve said here from the podium and as Secretary Kerry stressed in a recent conversation with Foreign Minister Wang Yi, that whatever the decision is, we urge all sides, all claimants, to show restraint, to show respect for the rule of law, and to not allow – again, whatever this decision is – to not allow for increased tensions and increased instability in the South China Sea area.

QUESTION: Is there any established communication mechanism between the U.S. and China to effectively control the possible conflicts caused by the arbitration?

MR KIRBY: Well, it’s not about controlling conflict. And you – there are many levels of communication that we have with Chinese officials. DOD has several in place at various levels in the military chain of command, and of course, the Secretary has a very forthright relationship with his counterpart, and I suspect that that will continue. There are many ways in which we can communicate with China to effect our mutual interests in the region and around the world. And it’s in no one’s interests to see the tensions in the South China Sea rise, to see insecurity fomented. And again, that was the message that the Secretary delivered in his conversation just recently with the foreign minister and it will – it will be – consistently will be our message. I just – I’m not going to get ahead of, again, a decision that hasn’t been made yet. Okay?

Yeah.

QUESTION: A question about the Japan upper house election. And Japanese Minister for Okinawa Affairs Shimajiri lost her upper house seat to challenger backed by the Okinawa governor and coalition of the activists opposed to the Futenma relocation plan. So the Okinawa election result was the symbol that the people of Okinawa showed their will to oppose the Futenma relocation plan. So do you have any comment about the result of the Okinawa election, and does U.S. States Government give up the calling for Futenma relocation plan?

MR KIRBY: Again, I’m not going to comment on internal elections which just occurred. I think I’ve addressed that in my previous answer. And on the Futenma replacement facility, as we’ve said, we – we’ll continue to work with the Government of Japan for the Futenma replacement facility and that project and moving forward with it. We’re mindful, of course, of the concerns by many residents of Okinawa. We have been mindful of their concerns, and that’s not going to change. I can assure you Ambassador Kennedy is engaged on this very closely. But we still believe that moving forward on the replacement facility is in the best interest not just of the U.S. military and our security commitments in the region, but our security commitments to Japan, to the Japanese people. And so I don’t have – I don’t have nor would I expect any changes to our commitment to that going forward.

Yes.

QUESTION: Back to Syria and Iraq.

MR KIRBY: Okay. I wasn’t looking at you, but that’s okay; you’ve been patient. So we’re going to go to him – I tell you, I’ll go him, you, and then you. How’s that? All right, go ahead.

QUESTION: Right. And just following up on the earlier question, I mean --

MR KIRBY: Who are you?

QUESTION: Ryan Browne, CNN. Sorry.

MR KIRBY: Okay.

QUESTION: So just to go back to the earlier question about the Russian conversation, you mentioned a range of issues that they were going to talk about pertaining to Syria, but not specifically a potential military cooperation on ISIS and al-Nusrah?

MR KIRBY: Well, we – first of all, there is no – other than a channel that has been opened up between DOD and the Russian military to de-conflict for safety of operations purposes, there is no U.S. military coordination with the Russian military inside Syria. But the Secretary – as we’ve said before, we continue to explore options and alternatives and proposals with respect to the fight against Nusrah and Daesh in Syria. And as I said, the degree to which the Russian military is willing to be committed to the fight against those two groups and exclusively those two groups, well, that’s a conversation that we’re willing to have. I just don’t have any developments to speak to today, and obviously I wouldn’t speak for the Defense Department anyway. But there’s no military coordination going on now.

We have and will continue to explore options and alternatives going forward to try to get the cessation of hostilities better applied and enforced; to try to increase pressure on Nusrah and Daesh across the country; and, again, while with an eye to trying to get at a political transition, because, as we’ve seen, prior talks between the opposition and the regime haven’t gone so well, and one reason for that is that they were being bombed at the same time they were sitting down trying to have a conversation about a political future. So we know that this is a key component in terms of achieving any success on the political front, and I suspect that the Secretary will spend quite a bit of time in his discussions in Moscow on that issue.

QUESTION: Then just quickly on Iraq, as the forces – a new set of U.S. troops are bound to go in and they just recaptured a major base near Mosul. Can you talk a little bit about kind of the Iraqi Government’s vision for Mosul and kind of – not necessarily a timeline, but how important politically is that for the Iraqi Government under Abadi?

MR KIRBY: Well, I’m loath to talk for another government. But I mean, broadly speaking, we all know how important Mosul is, and we’ve known that for quite some time. And there is an Iraqi strategy; there is a campaign plan to retake Mosul. It’s their plan. Obviously, the United States and coalition members will support as necessary; but it’s their plan, it’s their strategy, and they have to speak for it and they have to execute it. And I think as you heard Secretary Carter speak to today out in Baghdad, that these additional troops in part will help with logistical needs and logistical capabilities in terms of supporting any future advances on Mosul. And the capture of Qayyarah – the base in Qayyarah, which is 40, 50 miles south of Mosul – that’s an important step in the continued progress to retake Mosul.

To restate your question, I certainly wouldn’t speculate from here one way or another when that would happen or the manner in which it would begin specifically in terms of Mosul proper. But we’ve said all along and for many months now that shaping operations have already occurred in terms of trying to soften up Daesh positions around Mosul. So this has been a continuing process, this has been a continued focus of the coalition and of the Iraqi Government, and we’re going to continue to look for ways to support them in their efforts to retake Mosul.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Thank you, John. I got Turkey-related questions today for --

MR KIRBY: I’m shocked.

QUESTION: First from --

MR KIRBY: Totally shocked.

QUESTION: First one Syria, Syria/Turkey. Today, Turkish Prime Minister Binali Yildirim stated that there are actually not many reasons for Turkey to fight with Syria; on the opposite, actually there are many reasons for Turkey to have good relations with Syria, which – assuming he intends to say Syrian regime. How do you see these signs coming from Ankara that may be another rapprochement between Ankara and Damascus?

MR KIRBY: Well, I’ll let Turkish officials speak to those comments. I mean, I’ve seen them, but they should have to characterize those comments. What I will say is Turkey is a NATO ally, Turkey’s a key partner in the coalition, Turkey has been cooperative and helpful with respect to going after Daesh inside Syria materially and in many other ways. They also continue to have a very tough refugee problem on their side of the border – more than 2 million that they are caring for and have done so nobly. And I would add that they are – they continue to make efforts to shut down the flow of foreign fighters across their borders. So Turkey’s engaged. Turkey’s involved. This isn’t – as I said, it’s not a theoretical exercise for them. It’s real and it’s right on their border.

So we would look, for our part, for that cooperation to continue. We would look for Turkey to continue to contribute to coalition efforts. And we are in constant communication with Turkish officials about how to better effect that kind of coordination and how to better make those improvements and how to improve the way that together we’re all going against a common enemy.

QUESTION: Over the weekend, there was a news that one of the PKK leaders got hit in northern Syria, which is within the Syrian part of the – Kurdish part of Syria. Have you had any kind of confirmation on that? Bahoz Erdal is the name of the PKK leader.

MR KIRBY: I do not.

QUESTION: Okay, one within Turkey. Just today, Human Rights Watch released a report and saying that Turkey is blocking investigations demand from UN – United Nations official of High Commissioner for Human Rights as well as from the human rights groups into the displacements and the unlawful killings of civilians. These are the alleged abuses that are made by this – the Turkish Government within the last months, which the people could number about half a million Kurds within Turkey forced to leave their places. Do you have any comment on that one?

MR KIRBY: We’re only just now aware of this human rights report. We’re working our way through it. I don’t have specific opinions to render on any of these findings. Obviously, these are serious issues. These raise serious concerns. But until we’ve had a chance to go through the Human Rights Watch report it would be, I think, imprudent for me to comment one way or another with respect to the findings.

Obviously, broadly speaking, we take all allegations of mistreatment of refugees or innocent civilians very, very seriously. And to the degree any such charges are true, we’d like to see them fully investigated, fully and transparently investigated, and those responsible be held to account. But that’s broadly speaking. I don’t have specific things to address with this particular report.

QUESTION: A final one. These allegations about --

MR KIRBY: Are you sure? (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Yes.

MR KIRBY: Okay.

QUESTION: These allegations about the treatment of the Turkish Government in the southeast of Turkey have been going on for months, since last summer, and these questions have been asked to you many, many times.

MR KIRBY: As I said, we take these kinds of allegations very, very seriously. Nobody wants to see those things occur. And we continue to urge Turkey to fully investigate and to examine these. But you asked me a specific question about a report that just got issued, and we’re still working our way through that. But again, broadly speaking, we take this very, very seriously.

Yeah, in the back there.

QUESTION: Thank you. Kevin (inaudible), South Africa Broadcasting. I was just wondering if you had any official comment on the charges that were brought by South African authorities involving a plot to attack the U.S. Embassy in Pretoria.

MR KIRBY: So a couple of thoughts on that. First of all, we applaud the work of the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation, I guess otherwise known as the Hawks, in making these arrests. And we have full confidence in the South African judicial system to handle this case according to internationally accepted best practices for terrorism cases. I would refer you to South African authorities for more details on their arrests.

QUESTION: Just one more. In light of this event, these suspects, they’re not only looking to attack the U.S. embassy but also to head to Syria to join ISIS. Are you concerned about the security level and measures in southern Africa at the moment, especially in light of the safety of U.S. citizens?

MR KIRBY: Well, we’re always concerned about the safety and security of our personnel and our facilities and American citizens overseas. I can tell you that we regularly engage South African authorities with respect to that. As you know, we’ve issued security messages in the past. We’ll continue to do that as needed. And this is something we’re constantly monitoring and we’re constantly working with South African authorities on it. But in general, of course, we’re always concerned about that.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Is there any comment on Theresa May, who is poised to become the next prime minister of Britain?

MR KIRBY: We look forward, as I said before, to working with ever – whoever the next prime minister of Great Britain is. But obviously, that decision is up to the British people.

Yeah.

QUESTION: The New York Times reported about two hours ago that Indian authorities in Kashmir have killed about 30 people. Is there any condemnation from the State Department with regard to this? These people have been killed in the last three days and the numbers continue to rise.

MR KIRBY: Yeah. We also have seen reports of the clashes between protesters and Indian forces in Kashmir. Obviously, we’re concerned about the violence. We encourage all sides to make efforts towards finding a peaceful resolution. This is really a matter for the Government of India to speak to specifically, and I’d refer you to them for more comment.

QUESTION: One more thing. A few months ago, I had asked you about the Durand Line issue, and you had said that the U.S. recognized Durand Line as a permanent border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. And then a few weeks ago there were the skirmishes between the Pakistani forces and the Afghan forces and you gave a statement about that as well. But then there are formal ambassadors of U.S., such as Zalmay Khalilzad – he mentions in his book that the Durand Line is a disputed territory. Does the U.S. --

MR KIRBY: I’m not going to re-draw the map today between Afghanistan and Pakistan. I don’t have anything additional to add to what we’ve said here.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR KIRBY: But, look, broadly speaking, I’m not going to get into a topographical discussion with you today. We understand that the border region is still a safe haven for many terrorist groups. That’s point one.

Point two: We understand that the governments in Afghanistan and Pakistan know this themselves and have made efforts in the past to work together to try to address that threat. That’s point two.

Point three: We understand that that effort also has not always gone smoothly, and we continue to urge those two governments to work together along that spine to eliminate the safe haven that so many groups there still enjoy, because those groups are targeting both Afghan and Pakistani civilians – innocent people that continue to die and be maimed by these groups. So there’s a shared interest there, and that’s what we’re focused on. And we’re not focused on lines on the map; we’re focused on lines of effort to go after these groups by both governments. Okay?

QUESTION: Can I just move from the Durand Line to Broadway? (Laughter.) Secretary of State Kerry left the NATO Summit earlier than his – than the President or Secretary Carter or indeed Secretary Nuland, and many of the other principles from other NATO allies, and then on Saturday night he attended a production of Hamilton on Broadway. Did he leave early to go to the theater?

MR KIRBY: Well, a couple of things on this, Dave. I think, number one, it’s important to note that he had a very full schedule, very comprehensive agenda in Warsaw – actually the entire week, but certainly at Warsaw.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR KIRBY: And he completed all his commitments at the Warsaw Summit before departing, each and every one of them, and no event that happened the day following involved leaders at the foreign minister level. It was a heads of state day, basically, of topics. So he worked very hard in Warsaw. He completed all the meetings and discussions that he had intended to complete, but yes, he did depart before the President, and he departed because he had committed to attend the wedding of the son of a very dear, close, personal friend of his back in New England. That is the reason why he left Warsaw a little early. But again, I would stress that even if he had stayed, he would have already completed his entire agenda. So I think press reporting and speculation out there that he left Warsaw to attend a play is just patently false.

QUESTION: But the play didn’t appear on his public schedule.

MR KIRBY: He did go to the musical on Saturday night. That is a fact. He did, as a private endeavor, something that he wanted to do with his daughter. So he did attend. But that had nothing to do with his Warsaw agenda whatsoever and it had no effect whatsoever on the work that he was able to get done in Warsaw.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Can we go to Secretary Clinton’s email server? Has the State Department started the process of reviewing the security clearances of former Secretary of State Clinton’s aides?

MR KIRBY: There’s, I think, a little bit of a flaw in your question. The internal review that we are going to conduct is not about reviewing security clearances. It’s about reviewing the specific handling of sensitive and classified information, as we said we would a few months ago. So we’re now going to start that effort now that the FBI has completed their investigation. There are and could be administrative outcomes as a result of this review, but I’m not going to prejudge that or get ahead of it.

We are still – as I talked about Friday, we are still organizing the effort in terms of scope and character, and I just don’t have an update for you today on that.

QUESTION: I’m sure you’re aware that today, in addition to the proposed legislation from the Senate, some members of Congress have also – of the House have also introduced legislation to revoke the security clearances of Clinton’s aides. I know you just mentioned that there could be administrative actions, but is the State Department looking at similar actions like the legislation that they’re proposing?

MR KIRBY: Well, again, that question gets to the review itself, which hasn’t begun. I mean, we’re still organizing the effort. And the review will be – it’s all about looking at the degree to which information was classified at the time it was sent and then the handling of it.

As a result of this, as I said before, there are numerous administrative outcomes that could occur and some of those outcomes could affect security clearances, but again, I don’t want to speculate because we haven’t begun the work. So – and I’m certainly not going to talk about proposed legislation. I’m aware of it but I’m not going to – that’s for members of Congress to speak to. Our focus, and where Secretary Kerry wants the State Department focus, is on conducting this review in an efficient, effective, as expeditious as possible manner. And when we get to the end and we can share information with you, we will. We’ll try to be as transparent as possible, but as I also said last week, there’s going to be some legal restraints, most likely, on the level of specificity that we can go into because this is an administrative, not a criminal, process. Okay?

QUESTION: Do you know of a situation where a State Department employee or a DOD employee has kept their security clearance if they were exercising extreme carelessness in handling classified information?

MR KIRBY: What I can tell you is we take the handling of classified and sensitive information very seriously here. You’ve heard me say that even in recent days. It’s something that we’re always trying to improve. We’re certainly open to ideas and efforts to do just that. I don’t have the litany of history here in front of me in terms of the degree to which people have been impacted in that way as a result of not handling things well. But again, we’re not going to prejudge outcomes here. We’re going to do this review fairly and efficiently and effectively, we’re going to focus on doing it the right way, and then we’ll let what is learned guide decisions and recommendations going forward. I’m just not going to get ahead of that.

Okay. Thanks, everybody. Have a great day.

(The briefing was concluded at 3:00 p.m.)

DPB # 121

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.