U.S. Department of State's Blog, page 14

Daily Press Briefings : Daily Press Briefing - May 25, 2016

Mark C. Toner

Deputy Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC

May 25, 2016









Index for Today's Briefing

DEPARTMENT



LIBERIA



DEPARTMENT



RUSSIA/UKRAINE



AFGHANISTAN



AZERBAIJAN



JAPAN



ISRAEL




TRANSCRIPT:

2:07 p.m. EDT

MR TONER: Hi, guys. Welcome to the State Department. Just a couple of things at the top and then I’ll turn to your questions.

First of all, today I’m pleased to announce we’re releasing the first-ever joint USAID-State Department Strategy on Preventing and Countering Violent Extremism, continuing to build on the efforts launched at the February 2015 White House summit. This strategy provides a roadmap with five strategic objectives to meet the challenge of radicalization, to violence, and as well as terrorist recruitment.

State and USAID will work together closely with other U.S. Government and key international partners to advance all five of these strategic objectives using the full range of diplomatic, development, and foreign assistance tools. Both the strategy itself and the fact sheet will be available after today’s briefing. In addition, the Bureau of Counterterrorism has formally transitioned to the Bureau of Counterterrorism and Countering Violent Extremism.

Secretary Kerry is empowering the newly renamed bureau to serve as the lead for coordinating the State Department’s CVE engagement and assistance. The bureau’s expanded CVE office will continue to work closely with U.S. Government partners, CVE partners including USAID, the interagency Global Engagement Center, and others. USAID is also increasing its focus on CVE by establishing a secretariat to coordinate its programming and to ensure collaboration with other governmental departments and development institutions.

And just a final note here: The State Department’s Acting Counterterrorism Coordinator Justin Siberell will be speaking about this new approach in a speech today at the George Washington Program on Countering Violent Extremism.

And also, turning to Liberia, today in New York, the UN Security Council adopted a resolution that ends the UN arms embargo on Liberia. This step reflects the significant and steady advances by the people and the Government of Liberia towards restoring peace and security for all Liberians. More than 12 years after the end of Liberia’s brutal civil war and the Council’s imposition of sanctions, the people of Liberia have made important progress in building democratic institutions and healing the wounds of the past. Today’s resolution is a notable example of how multilateral tools such as sanctions are an effective means of encouraging the kind of progress we’ve seen over the past decade in Liberia.

First question. I went Reuters yesterday. I’ll go AP today and then – go ahead.

QUESTION: All right. Can I start with the IG report on email practices?

MR TONER: Okay.

QUESTION: Do you agree with what seems to be the essential conclusion regarding specifically past Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s email practices that she essentially played by her own rules?

MR TONER: Well, Brad, so I’ll try to address your questions, but I’m at a bit of a disadvantage, and the reason why is that, as often happens in Washington, D.C. – but this report is not due for public release until tomorrow, and so I know that some of the – some in the media did receive leaked copies of the report. And so I’m somewhat limited into the extent I can go into because I don’t want to talk about the report’s conclusions in great detail until that report’s been released publicly.

But what we have been saying in general about the OIG report and the process is that that was something that Secretary Kerry asked the OIG to do, he – undertake this review. They have made recommendations. We’ve already complied with many of those recommendations in the report that you’ll see, and that it does – the report – highlight the challenges that the State Department, but also as well as other federal agencies, are facing in trying to ensure proper recordkeeping and accountability for email traffic.

QUESTION: So, wait.

MR TONER: Yes, sir.

QUESTION: Can I ask my question now that you’ve gone through all of that?

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: And since you briefed – you gave a background briefing, which I guess was anonymous spin, I don’t see why you can’t address something at a open press briefing.

MR TONER: Well, again, I’ll – you can try your question again, but I’m limited.

QUESTION: You said you would address the question.

MR TONER: Here’s the problem, Brad, and we have precedent here. We don’t talk about leaked documents. We don’t often address them, and we do this across the board.

QUESTION: But you did this morning in a conference call.

MR TONER: Well, we had to address through a background briefing, and I take objection to your allegation that it’s some kind of spin effort. We were simply trying to get out there on background to talk about some of the allegations or the – some of the findings, rather, in this report, since it was out in public.

QUESTION: So can I follow up on that, please?

MR TONER: Yeah, sure.

QUESTION: And I understand you have some limitations, but I think that there are institutional questions that ought to be addressed.

MR TONER: Okay.

QUESTION: One of the findings in the report was that the – Secretary Clinton – or the OIG found no evidence that Secretary Clinton ever sought approval for her use of a private server. And it also quotes the Chief Information Officer – who I believe is part of IRM, right? – and the Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security as saying that they believed that she had an obligation to ask them and that if they had been asked, they would have declined it – declined to approve it.

The report also explicitly states that the Undersecretary of Management discussed the issue with some of the secretary’s top staff. The Undersecretary of Management is directly responsible for the bureaus – for IRM, correct? Yes? I mean, people can’t see your nod in the --

MR TONER: I’m sorry. (Laughter.) I said – I’m following your question.

QUESTION: Is the Undersecretary of Management responsible for IRM and for DS? Do they not both report to him or her?

MR TONER: Yes, that’s correct.

QUESTION: Yeah. Why didn’t the Undersecretary of Management, who is responsible for the two bureaus that complained that they should have been asked but weren’t to approve this – why didn’t he raise it?

MR TONER: So let me try to broadly answer your – the points you’ve raised or the issues you’ve raised. First of all, about whether Secretary Clinton was required to seek approval – and we’ve talked about this in the past, so I feel like I can speak about it on the record now – is that while not necessarily encouraged, there was no prohibition on using personal email. The only requirement is that – and regulations do state this – that these records need to be preserved. And I would say, looking back with 20/20 hindsight, we do now have records management and cyber security policies that would make it hard to approve this kind of outside system to replace your official email.

And Secretary Clinton has said publicly she didn’t – or she would not make the same choice again. She’s also said she did not seek a specific approval for this system. And I am aware that senior State Department officials noted in the report said they wouldn’t have approved her exclusive reliance on a personal email to conduct official business. I’m not going to challenge that assertion – those assertions. As I said, she herself has said she would not have done it the same way or made the same choice again. But I don’t want to re-litigate all of that, and frankly, I’m not sure that the report gets into the – into assigning blame on that.

QUESTION: It said she had no obligation to discuss it.

QUESTION: But Mark, here – one thing here, I mean, the report says – you state that there was no absolute prohibition on the use of personal email, which is true.

MR TONER: Correct.

QUESTION: However, beginning in late 2005 and continuing through 2011, the Department revised the Foreign Affairs Manual and issued various memoranda specifically discussing the obligation to use Department systems in most circumstances. So there was an obligation to use Department systems in most circumstances, correct?

MR TONER: Again, I don’t --

QUESTION: Are you disputing that?

MR TONER: I mean, I don’t – if you’re quoting me chapter and verse, I’m not going to dispute that, but it wasn’t prohibited. Yeah.

QUESTION: In occasional circumstances, but it was prohibited in – to do it in every circumstance, because the obligation here is that in most circumstances, you have to use the Department systems. So when you say it’s not absolutely prohibited, you are right, but you’re not right if you use that statement to suggest that it was acceptable to use it in most circumstances – because Secretary Clinton used it in every circumstance, correct?

MR TONER: But again, and in answer to your second question, while people were aware of her use of personal email, no one had a full and complete understanding of to the extent.

QUESTION: Well, let me go to the next --

MR TONER: Yeah, sure.

QUESTION: Some people did have a full and complete understanding of the extent, like she did, right?

MR TONER: Well, again, that’s something --

QUESTION: She understood that, right?

MR TONER: And that’s a question for her and her team to answer to that.

QUESTION: Right, but there is a reason I’m raising this --

MR TONER: Yeah, sure.

QUESTION: -- and it’s an institutional question because you guys – you have an interest, it would seem to me, in securing the communications of this --

MR TONER: Yes, we do.

QUESTION: -- of the top diplomat, right? And therefore, it’s not just for her to ask, but surely isn’t it for the people around her, including the Undersecretary of Management who did discuss this issue with her top aides, to raise these issues? And so I want to go back to --

MR TONER: I’m not sure what you’re – I apologize. I’m not sure what you’re referring specifically about he did discuss these issues.

QUESTION: So on page 38 it says, “In August 2011, the Executive Secretary, the Undersecretary for Management and Secretary Clinton’s Chief of Staff and Deputy Chief of Staff, in a response to the Secretary’s request, discussed via email providing her with a Department BlackBerry to replace her personal BlackBerry, which was malfunctioning, possibly because,” quote – and this email has been released – her – quote, “her personal email server is down.” So the Undersecretary of Management, the Chief of Staff, an unidentified Deputy Chief of Staff all discussed this issue via email. The Undersecretary of Management is responsible for the two bureaus, IRM and DS, who say that they believe the Secretary had an obligation to ask for permission, ask for approval to use this, and who say that if they had been asked, they would have said no. And I don’t understand why their boss wouldn’t have addressed this issue, because he’s responsible for both of them and he discussed it with the top officials in the Department, including the Chief of Staff.

MR TONER: It is our understanding, Arshad, that the full extent of her use of private email was not clear to senior staff. Now, what you’re referring to is the two --

QUESTION: “Senior staff” meaning who? Her deputy – her Chief of Staff didn’t know this?

MR TONER: Her – again, people were aware she was using it. I can’t speak to that specifically. You’re talking about Undersecretary for Management.

QUESTION: Right.

MR TONER: All --

QUESTION: And maybe he didn’t know, but --

MR TONER: All I can say is --

QUESTION: But --

MR TONER: And so just to finish my response, I think what you’re referring to is knowing in, to use an expression, 20/20 hindsight that these two senior State Department officials then said they would not have approved of this. Again, I don’t – I think Secretary Clinton has said as much, that she, looking back, would not have done the same – the same course of action. I also want to say – sorry --

QUESTION: But why didn’t the Department make an effort – because some people did know it.

MR TONER: But --

QUESTION: She knew it, her Chief of Staff knew it, and her Undersecretary for Management to some degree was aware that she had a personal email and it was --

MR TONER: But I do think we – so --

QUESTION: -- and knew that there was a discussion of replacing it and knew that that was ultimately rejected. So I don’t get why the Department, understanding it has such an obligation to secure her communications, would not, at a senior level responsible both for information technology and Diplomatic Security, wouldn’t have raised this and flagged it as an issue so you would be in keeping with your own rules.

MR TONER: So again, without wading too much into the details of this, which I’m uncomfortable doing given that it’s not gone public yet, but a couple of things. One is, we have said in the past and continue to say that our recordkeeping – we could have done a better job at preserving emails and records of secretaries of state and their senior staff going back, frankly, several administrations – so back to before Secretary Clinton. We recognize that. I will also make the point that the fact that she turned over some 52,000 pages of her emails – and I think the OIG recognized that – in some ways mitigated those past preservation problems. You’re talking about – and I get your question, which is: Was there knowledge; if there was knowledge, why weren’t steps taken? I’m not going to re-litigate that, I just am not. The OIG report has its conclusions, has its recommendations. We’ve worked to address those recommendations. We acknowledge that we need to do a better job with our recordkeeping. We believe we’ve – we’re doing such. We have taken steps to meet all of the recommendations that the OIG report has made and, in fact, the OIG has said that we are in compliance or has – rather, that they consider all eight recommendations --

QUESTION: They didn’t say you were in compliance.

MR TONER: I apologize, I apologize – that all eight recommendations have been resolved.

QUESTION: Yep. I’ve got one more sets of issues on this.

MR TONER: Yeah, sure.

QUESTION: So in the background briefing, one official said repeatedly that the report says that “we didn’t do a great job.” The phrase “great job” and “didn’t do a great job” appear nowhere in the report. The report’s conclusion states, “The Department generally and the Office of the Secretary in particular have been slow to recognize and to manage effectively the legal requirements and cybersecurity risks associated with electronic data communications.” And in its opening one-page summary, it says, “Management weaknesses at the Department have contributed to the loss or removal of email records, particularly records created by the Office of the Secretary. These weaknesses include a limited ability to retrieve email records, inaccessibility of electronic files, failure to comply with the requirements for departing employees, and a general lack of oversight.”

Do you believe that the official was truthful in stating “we didn’t do a great job?” Because great job – he said that the report says that over and over again. The phrase is not there, and what it says is that there were systemic weaknesses and management weaknesses and a general lack of oversight. And I ask this because the briefing was on background and I believe people should be accountable for what they say and the accuracy of it, and I don’t see why an official would say “we didn’t do a great job” – that the report says that when that’s not actually what the report says. The report says there were systemic failures and management weaknesses and a general lack of oversight. That’s not “we didn’t do a great job.” That’s, you had – why – do you believe that official was correct in making that statement?

MR TONER: Look, I’m not going to parse the expression he used to acknowledge the fact that we, like many federal agencies, were not doing enough to meet the requirements of records management and preservation. I think we’ve acknowledged that. I’ve acknowledged it just now on the record. And yet, moving forward, we believe we have set in place at the direction or under the direction of Secretary Kerry efforts to fully comply and meet and improve our records management and preservations system here at the State Department.

And I mean, again, I don’t mean to broaden the lens here, but agencies across the federal government have been working to adapt to, unbelievably enough, the – because emails have been around for a while, but the fact that we live in an email-dominated business environment these days, and yet we still were relying up to a few years ago on this print and file system, which is inadequate. We recognize that and we have set in motion – so I’m – your question or your allegation notwithstanding, we acknowledge that.

QUESTION: It’s a question whether the guy was truthful. It’s a question whether the guy was truthful in that statement --

MR TONER: No, but we have – right, but we have --

QUESTION: -- and I don’t think the cloak of anonymity should be sufficient for not telling the truth about what a report says.

MR TONER: I don’t think it was – I don’t – so – sorry, Brad, I’ll get to you in a second. So with all due respect, Arshad, the quote-unquote “cloak of anonymity” – it was a background briefing that we set up, which is a common practice. All of you know in this room, we do background briefings all the time in order to add a little bit more depth and context than we might add regularly on the record for a lot of obvious reasons – so we can give you guys more information or share some of the inner workings. I’m going to finish on this. There’s not any effort to spin this; there’s not any effort to hide or obfuscate about what the information is.

But I will also acknowledge that one of the reasons we did this on background, acknowledging the fact that other people who were privy to this report before it was publicly released, chose to leak it to members of the media. So you see the dynamic here, and we’re – none of us are clean on this, so to speak, in the sense that you guys all got the report leaked to you, or many of you did, but not all of you did. And in an attempt to address that, we held this background telephone press conference to try to address some of your questions. We had no choice, but it is always our preference that this stuff is released publicly, and then we can discuss it publicly.

QUESTION: Can I ask some very targeted questions?

MR TONER: Yeah. Go ahead, Brad. Sure.

QUESTION: The implication on the call was that the Department didn’t educate people enough. Wouldn’t Clinton, as the head of the entire Department – isn’t that her responsibility and not the Department’s responsibility to her? That’s the first one.

MR TONER: I mean, show – first of all, you are right in that we have said that we did not do a good enough job in in-processing and out-processing, to put it in a bureaucratic way, our senior officials, but even as an institution so that people were aware of what the regulations were.

Brad, I would only say that a lot of these regulations have only kind of been thought about and formulated since she left office. In 2013 specifically was when NARA came out with kind of new and improved recommendations and looked at this.

QUESTION: Okay. I mean --

MR TONER: So --

QUESTION: -- the report says the guidance – the guidance was considerably more detailed and sophisticated by Clinton’s tenure and her security practices should be evaluated accordingly, but be that as it may --

MR TONER: Yep.

QUESTION: -- you reference again that not everyone knew that the past secretary only used private email. Wasn’t that her responsibility to let them know, in fact?

MR TONER: Well, I think --

QUESTION: There is no other way they would have known, correct?

MR TONER: Well, not – that’s not necessarily true. But as an institution, again, we acknowledge that we could have done more to --

QUESTION: But that’s her responsibility, isn’t it? It even says here Secretary Clinton had an obligation to discuss using her personal email account to conduct official business with their offices, not they had an obligation to learn independently about her email --

MR TONER: You’re talking about her – I’m sorry, I thought you were talking about just – apologies if I misunderstood.

QUESTION: Her using private email on a private server.

MR TONER: I thought you were talking about her – that it was her responsibility to inform the Department about regulations or – sorry, I misunderstood the question.

QUESTION: No, I’m talking about her using a private email and private server.

MR TONER: Again, I’ll just go back to what I said before, which is that it wasn’t encouraged, but it was not prohibited.

QUESTION: There were hack attempts on her server. How did that not bring the reassessment that maybe this isn’t – and then I – apparently, it just got plugged back in. How did that not bring a reassessment that maybe this wasn’t the best strategy?

MR TONER: Well, I don’t know – again, I – I don’t know if the OIG specifically addresses the security of her system.

QUESTION: Well, he says that she never told anybody about it, so --

MR TONER: I do know there were hack attempts or that – but none of them were successful.

QUESTION: How do you know that none of them were successful?

MR TONER: But I would just have to refer you to the --

QUESTION: How do you know that? Because the report does not say that none of them were successful.

MR TONER: I apologize, actually. I misspoke.

QUESTION: All right.

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: All right.

MR TONER: But I will say – but I – but I just would refer you to Secretary Clinton’s team to – for questions about the security of her system.

QUESTION: Mark, can you clarify --

MR TONER: Yeah, Carol.

QUESTION: Okay --

MR TONER: Let’s go to Carol, and then I’ll go to you, Justin. I apologize.

QUESTION: Mark, this morning on the call there was a fair amount of discussion about the fact that when there was a comparison made with the three secretaries who used it almost exclusively, and in that section that Brad just quoted, they said specifically that the rules were clearly in line – were clearly in place by the time the Secretary came in, they were much more sophisticated. So when you compare what Secretary Powell did and what Secretary Clinton did, even though this morning many people said – or it was said repeatedly that this was a problem going back several administrations, do you not see a difference between what Secretary Powell did and what Secretary Clinton did?

MR TONER: Again, I’m not going to litigate from this podium or compare and contrast. I think that what we’ve said is that the policies, the regulations regarding the use of private email have only really been clarified in the past several years – up until that point, again, understanding that it was not encouraged to use personal email, but it was not prohibited. And I think that this is an evolving process in the sense that – not exclusively to the State Department, I might add – in the sense that many agencies are struggling with how to preserve and manage records-keeping for email use, official emails versus personal emails. Again, I mean, there are circumstances – and we’ve talked about this before – where senior officials sometimes do have to use personal email.

QUESTION: But it was repeatedly said that this was a problem going back several administrations. The only --

MR TONER: I recognize that.

QUESTION: -- example given in the report was Secretary Powell. So – but it would seem that they – they seem to go out of their way to try to distinguish between the two. Do you not see a difference?

MR TONER: They – I’m sorry, “they” the – in the report, you mean?

QUESTION: The report.

MR TONER: Seem to distinguish between --

QUESTION: Between the circumstances in the sense – in that section that Brad just quoted.

MR TONER: Well, I think – again, I would only say that it’s been an evolving understanding of the – some of the challenges in records-keeping involving personal email, but also in the sense that we’ve also been – and I mentioned this to Brad – how we need to do a better job, and we believe we are doing a better job at onboarding, out-processing senior officials so that they understand the constraints and the rules and the regulations surrounding use of personal email versus official.

QUESTION: Do you believe Secretary Powell acted improperly?

MR TONER: I’m not going to make that judgment.

QUESTION: What’s your reaction to the recent swap between Kyiv and Moscow?

QUESTION: I’m sorry --

MR TONER: Can I stay here? I’ll go back. Justin, Justin, your turn. Sorry.

QUESTION: All right. Sorry. So I had one about the emails as well.

MR TONER: Please.

QUESTION: And --

MR TONER: Sorry, we’ll get to you; I promise. We just – how we normally do is we run through, so --

QUESTION: So this may already be known and I might have missed this, but are we or am I wrong to have assumed that all of the emails in the State – all of Secretary Clinton’s emails in the State Department’s possession would have been released to the public via the FOIA page? Or do you in fact have a number of emails that didn’t meet those standards for – that weren’t involved in the FOIA requests and therefore you’re holding a number of her emails that we haven’t seen?

MR TONER: So what we have released through our monthly FOIA process that all of you love so much was approximately 55,000 pages of emails that Secretary Clinton provided to the Department. I think at the time she said she does not have – that she does not have access to any work-related emails beyond those that she turned over to the Department. So --

QUESTION: I think she said she did not keep them.

MR TONER: She did not keep, rather. Thank you. She did not keep work-related emails beyond those she turned over to the Department. So in answer to your question, we’ve – what we’ve done through the FOIA process is turn over all of the emails that she turned over to the State Department.

QUESTION: If --

MR TONER: And we have found additional things – I’m not saying that – when you have replies and other that there are additional emails out there. And this case is, I think, a case of such an example.

QUESTION: How many do you estimate that you have that have not been made public?

MR TONER: I don’t think we have an estimate, and I don’t think it’s a large number. I just think that there are stray examples like this.

QUESTION: Okay. Because some of them seem to be quite relevant, as in this November 2010 email in which she’s – one of her chief – deputy chiefs of staff suggests she set up a state.gov account.

MR TONER: Relevant to what? I mean, the FOIA request --

QUESTION: Her use --

MR TONER: What was the FOIA request? It was about --

QUESTION: But --

MR TONER: What?

QUESTION: -- it wasn’t a request, it was an offer.

MR TONER: What?

QUESTION: It was an offer by her to release all her work-related emails.

MR TONER: Correct. That’s right.

QUESTION: Well, whatever the case may be, the – some of the emails that you still have in your possession seemed relevant to her decision to keep a private email rather than use a state.gov one, which is essentially the entire question. So I’m just wondering if you are interested in releasing any of those emails relevant to this whole discussion about her email --

MR TONER: I can’t speak to that. We certainly – if there’s additional FOIA requests, we would --

QUESTION: Okay. There may be, if there aren’t already.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) follow up on --

QUESTION: If she had written --

MR TONER: I’ll get to you.

QUESTION: -- all of these emails on a state.gov account, would it have been for the State Department lawyers to decide which ones were personal and which ones were official, or would it still have been her team that decided which ones that she would offer through the FOIA process? Because the ones you’ve released are ones that she decided were relevant.

MR TONER: Deemed or decided.

QUESTION: If she had sent them originally through an official account, would she have had the right to choose which ones were official?

MR TONER: It’s a good question. I don’t know when – whether --

QUESTION: Can you take that one?

MR TONER: I can look into it, certainly, because --

QUESTION: And --

MR TONER: And the reason I ask is I don’t know if, for example, I was FOIA’d, whether I would have kind of first right to say here is all my official emails or not, and then they would then be vetted properly. I just don’t have the answer for you. I don’t know enough about the process.

QUESTION: Okay. Can you take that one and then just --

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: -- one simple follow-up: What is Secretary Kerry’s system for receiving and sending emails?

MR TONER: Well, Secretary Kerry relies primarily on his state.gov account for work, and the emails on his state.gov account are automatically archived – and this is an improvement; this is part of the advancements that we’ve made – so any email that he sends is automatically copied and remotely saved electronically. And again, this speaks to the fact that we are now complying – this automatic archiving approach does comply with the Federal Records Act as well as email records management requirements, so --

QUESTION: And he sends and receives that through a computer here in the building, or does he have access to a mobile device with state.gov on it?

MR TONER: Both, I believe.

QUESTION: Mark, just to go back to Justin’s question, has the State Department released all the emails that Secretary Clinton turned over?

MR TONER: Yes.

QUESTION: Then why on the background call was there a discussion of an email that an official admitted was not released to the public?

MR TONER: Because it wasn’t part of that tranche of emails that she turned over. And I just – if I explained that poorly, I apologize. There are other emails out there, and she has said that she only turned over what she still had in her possession. So that does not exclude the fact that there are other responses, replies – you know how email works – where there is the body of an email from her that was not reflected in the amount of emails she turned over.

QUESTION: So there could be other emails from Secretary Clinton.

MR TONER: There can be, and I just don’t have an accurate – I just don’t have a --

QUESTION: It’s not a large number, though?

MR TONER: I will double-check. I don’t know that we’ve even looked or – as these things turn up, but it’s not like there’s some huge cache, no.

QUESTION: Did the State Department mislead the American public when it came to Secretary Clinton’s emails in the past year?

MR TONER: No, I don’t believe so at all. In fact, we’ve always said that we were simply going through – and we’ve been very clear about this, almost tediously so when we talk to you guys about it – is that systematically every month we went through this 55,000 pages of emails that she gave to us. Through the FOIA process, we edited, upgraded them as necessary before we released them publicly, but we only dealt with what we received from Secretary Clinton.

QUESTION: But today the IG is saying that Secretary Clinton was not in compliance with State Department email policy, yet for the past year all we’ve been hearing about from that podium is that the secretary was in compliance.

MR TONER: We haven’t said that either. What we said is that – and I believe – and I’m – Brad can yell at me because I’m wading into the – (laughter) – into the report’s findings, but they did say that the fact that she did turn over this large tranche of emails and made an effort to do so mitigated the lack of compliance previously.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: Mitigate doesn’t mean negate.

MR TONER: I get it. I said mitigate,

QUESTION: It actually implies the opposite of what you’re saying, that she did do something wrong and that this mitigates – it lessens, it dampens – the effect of that wrongdoing. It doesn’t even out. If you steal – if you rob a bank and you return the money, it’s a mitigating aspect, but it doesn’t mean you didn’t rob the bank.

MR TONER: Well, first of all --

QUESTION: Not that this is necessarily --

MR TONER: First of all – yeah, let me just back away from that claim right there.

QUESTION: I mean, just basic grammar here, Mark.

MR TONER: No, I mean, we didn’t say that. But what – look, and I can’t say this enough: We had – we have to do and we are doing a better job at in-processing senior officials. We’re doing a better job at making sure that from the top on down that people understand the importance of records, recordkeeping and management. And all we can do is be forward-looking and try to improve and correct the system that we have.

QUESTION: One --

QUESTION: Mark, did Secretary Clinton --

MR TONER: Yeah, yeah.

QUESTION: -- break – violate the law?

MR TONER: No, because – and we said this – there was no restriction, there was no regulation that said she could not use personal email.

QUESTION: But you admit she made mistakes?

QUESTION: Isn’t the question of whether or not the Secretary – former Secretary Clinton would have violated the law a matter for the FBI investigation to decide whether they’re going to bring any charges ultimately for the judicial process?

MR TONER: Well, there are other – yeah, I mean, there are other – there are other – thank you for – there are other reviews out there that we can’t speak to, but legitimate – or a legitimate plan.

QUESTION: Okay. One other question. I want to follow up on Brad’s question. You – with regard to hacking attempts, you have previously confirmed, have you not, that there were efforts to hack into the Secretary’s email?

MR TONER: I think we have, yeah, but I’m not 100 percent sure.

QUESTION: Okay. So --

MR TONER: But, I mean, hack in – yeah, I mean, right, but none of them – that’s why I believe that none of them were successful. We have, I think, addressed that before but I’ll double-check.

QUESTION: So here’s my next question, then --

MR TONER: Yes.

QUESTION: -- because you – then Brad asked you, “How do you know that they weren’t successful?” And you said, “I misspoke. I apologize.” And I just want to understand --

MR TONER: Well --

QUESTION: -- do you have any reason to think that there was a successful attempt?

MR TONER: No, no, no. What I – and Brad pointed out was the OIG report – when I was saying I misspoke, it was the – thank you for giving me the chance to clarify – the OIG report doesn’t address specifically the security of her system, including whether or not any of the reported attempted hacks were successful. And for that, I would just have to refer you to her team to talk about whether there were and whether any were successful.

QUESTION: But to your knowledge --

MR TONER: To our knowledge, they were not, but I don’t know that it’s a comprehensive knowledge.

QUESTION: Fine. Thanks.

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: Mark --

MR TONER: Guys, I apologize for this, I have to leave soon. So if there’s any – if we’ve exhausted the --

QUESTION: Just two very quick questions. One is --

MR TONER: I’ll get to you. I promise.

QUESTION: -- about the technicality that whenever a embargoed report gets leaked or somebody breaks the embargo, usually the organization lifts the embargo.

MR TONER: But it’s not our --

QUESTION: The similar way – the similar way --

MR TONER: It’s – go ahead.

QUESTION: -- you – the report is everywhere. And why are you still keeping it? Why don’t you release? That’s one.

MR TONER: And I would refer you – and I would refer you to the Office of the Inspector General for that because --

QUESTION: Yeah. The statement – this --

MR TONER: No, let me finish, Tejinder – because they are not under the State Department’s authorization. They are a separate entity, and so they’re the ones who will release the report.

QUESTION: And the second, you mentioned about the NARA. Jason Baron, the former Director of NARA, spoke at --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- the National Press Club last year and hosted that – before experts. And they clarified that all the secretaries still today, since emails came into being, have been using – not using state.gov, that Secretary Kerry is the first one using it.

MR TONER: I think it’s been a mixture, yeah.

QUESTION: Yeah. And then – but so this is not the technicality. The point, as I said, that the NARA has put into place when Secretary Clinton was – some sort of procedure that was not followed. Like, by 2016, 2019, you have a deadline to put everything on the web. There won’t be any – you won’t have copies of the – all the archives will be on the web. So that something where – and also, what about those 30,000 emails that she deleted? Or did she keep them for – even if you have personal emails, you don’t delete them; you keep them for your private – can you --

MR TONER: Yeah, I can’t speak to that. You’ll have to direct that question to her. Please, I want to move on to a couple of other --

QUESTION: Okay.

MR TONER: I apologize, Tejinder, but --

QUESTION: So what is your reaction to the recent swap deal between Kyiv and Moscow?

MR TONER: Well, first of all, we welcome today’s news about Nadiya Savchenko and the fact that she was returned to Ukraine. And as you note, the Government of Ukraine did make the humanitarian decision to also release two Russian service members who were captured on Ukrainian soil. We’re delighted that she’s home. She was captured, as we all know, in combat in eastern Ukraine, taken against her will into Russia, and we believe her release and this exchange is an important opportunity, and it’s an opportunity for all sides, especially Russia, to fulfill its commitments under Minsk – under the Minsk agreements, and we think that it sets the right stage now and should provide the impetus for a complete implementation. So moving forward, we want to see a sustained, credible ceasefire. We want to see full access for the OSCE. We want to see elections under Ukrainian law that meet OSCE standards. And we also want to see the withdrawal of foreign forces and equipment, and finally the return to Ukraine of full control of its international borders. These are the steps that need to be taken.

Please.

QUESTION: Are you then concerned that in his speech, President Poroshenko said he intends to return Donetsk and Crimea the same way he brought back Savchenko? I mean, are you concerned about that?

MR TONER: I’m unclear what that – in the same way that he would – what’s the implication there?

QUESTION: Well, in his statements, when he says he wants to bring back Crimea and Donetsk in the way they brought Savchenko --

MR TONER: Well --

QUESTION: Now, Savchenko herself has said she intends to return to combat missions.

MR TONER: Well, first of all – first of all, let’s – again, let’s take a step back here.

QUESTION: Sure.

MR TONER: I mean, it was Russia who occupied illegally and remains in Crimea, so we do believe that Crimea should be returned to its rightful owner, if you will, which is Ukraine. In terms of eastern Ukraine, we’ve been very clear that Russia and the separatists that it backs actively in eastern Ukraine need to comply with the commitments that they made under Minsk, which provides a path towards resolution of this ongoing conflict.

As to Nadiya Savchenko’s future plans, hopefully she’ll spend time reconnecting with her family and taking some well-earned rest.

QUESTION: What she said was, “I am ready to once again sacrifice my life on the battlefield for Ukraine.” Are you concerned about the country being put into conflict once again?

MR TONER: Well, look, I mean, she was a soldier who was imprisoned while in combat in eastern Ukraine fighting separatists, fighting Russian troops on the ground at the time. I don’t know what her military future holds, but I think she’s speaking from that perspective.

QUESTION: Can I ask (inaudible) --

MR TONER: Please, in the back, Lalit.

QUESTION: -- on Taliban?

QUESTION: Can I ask --

MR TONER: Really quickly. Two more questions, guys. I apologize.

QUESTION: Yeah, I have one quick question on the new Taliban leader --

MR TONER: Yep.

QUESTION: -- Mullah Haibatullah. I wanted to check with you, is he any kind of a terrorist designated list under the U.S.?

MR TONER: He’s not.

QUESTION: He’s not?

MR TONER: No, he’s not. You said – asked if he was on the terrorist – designated terrorist? He’s not.

QUESTION: And how do you react that he has rejected the peace process?

MR TONER: He has rejected the peace process?

QUESTION: Yes. The Taliban has rejected the peace process.

MR TONER: Well, look, I mean, just to – we would hope that he would seize the opportunity. He does have an opportunity in front of him to choose peace and to work towards a negotiated solution. We hope that he makes that choice now.

QUESTION: He – they have met --

MR TONER: Nike, real quick. I’ve got to move quickly. I’m sorry.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) me for being – ask so bluntly. I’m just asking for – as a matter of fact. Is he going to be your next target if he object the peace process?

MR TONER: I’m not going to predict who we might target in the national security interests of the United States.

QUESTION: A quick follow-up?

QUESTION: Another one on Azerbaijan. Another --

MR TONER: Azerbaijan.

QUESTION: -- prisoner of conscience released today is Azerbaijan journalist Khadija Ismayilova. Do you have anything on that?

MR TONER: We’ve seen those reports. We will have more to say later. We do welcome her release.

QUESTION: Just a quick one.

QUESTION: Does the Department have any reaction --

MR TONER: I’ll get to you.

QUESTION: -- to Prime Minister Abe saying he will not visit Pearl Harbor?

MR TONER: President Abe [1]QUESTION: Yeah, just a quick one; you can dispense with it fast --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- and it’s – I know it’s like the fifth day in a row, but at least it’s now formally been announced that Avigdor Lieberman is to be Israel’s defense minister. Do you have any comment on the new Israeli government and his appointment to that job in particular?

MR TONER: I do. We have seen reports an agreement’s been reached to expand the coalition.

QUESTION: You’ve seen reports.

MR TONER: We’ve also seen reports from Israel describing it as the most right-wing coalition in Israel’s history. And we also know that many of its ministers have said they opposed a two-state solution. This raises legitimate questions about the direction it may be headed in – headed in, rather – and what kind of policies it may adopt, but ultimately we’re going to judge this government based on its actions. We’re going to work with this government as we have with every Israeli government that preceded it, with the goal of strengthening our cooperation, and we remain steadfast in our commitment to the security of Israel, and in our commitment to working towards a two-state solution.

Thanks, guys.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:53 p.m.)

[1] Prime Minister Abe

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 - May 23, 2016

Mark C. Toner

Deputy Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC

May 23, 2016









Index for Today's Briefing

SOUTH ASIA REGION



SOMALIA



DEPARTMENT



SYRIA/REGION



VIETNAM/CHINA



SOUTH SUDAN



PAKISTAN/AFGHANISTAN



MIDDLE EAST PEACE



SYRIA



UNITED ARAB EMIRATES



IRAN



BAHRAIN



JAPAN




TRANSCRIPT:

1:49 p.m. EDT

MR TONER: Hello, sorry to be a little late. Happy Monday to everyone. That’s an oxymoron.

QUESTION: That was a long --

MR TONER: What’s that?

QUESTION: Long two minutes.

MR TONER: I said – I came out and owned it.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR TONER: But good to see you, Arshad. Some new faces here from Bloomberg; is that correct? Welcome.

Well, welcome to the State Department, everybody. And also we have some interns. Is that what we have in the back? Great, welcome to the State Department. Just a couple of things briefly at the top.

First of all, the United States extends its deepest condolences to the people of South Asia, who are still recovering from the significant flooding and landslides caused by Cyclone Roanu. Our hearts go out to the victims and families of this natural disaster, and we applaud those assisting recovery and relief for the victims.

The United States Government is in touch with local and regional disaster relief services, local militaries, and international aid partners to coordinate the donation of most urgently needed items, and we’re going to continue to work with our partners in the region to help strengthen local disaster preparedness and mitigation capacities.

Switching to Somalia, the United States fully supports Somali President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud’s May 21st presidential decree on the 2016 Somali electoral process. This decree implements the April 12th electoral model that was unanimously endorsed by the speaker of parliament, the president, the prime minister, and the participants of the national leadership forum after months of consultations. This decree does set in motion technical preparations that will enable a timely political transition this year in line with the constitutional mandates and timeframes for the legislator – the legislature and the executive.

The United States urges all Somalis to unite and work together to implement the presidential decree. We stand ready to help facilitate implementation of a transparent electoral process without further delay.

And lastly, I wanted to just mention something we call the Consular Fellows Program. And this being May, college graduation season is upon us, and new graduates may want to check out a special public service opportunity at the Department of State. It’s called our Consular Fellows Program. The Consular Fellows Program offers candidates a unique opportunity to serve their country for up to five years, utilize their foreign language skills, and develop valuable skills and experience. They will gain exposure to the world of diplomacy, serve U.S. citizens abroad, and foster U.S. border security and international travel and exchanges. Foreign Service Consular Fellows serve at our U.S. embassies and consulates overseas and work side by side with career diplomats and other members of our missions. Benefits include salary, housing, educational allowances for eligible family members, and also they also qualify for recruitment incentive and may qualify for a student loan program – repayment program.

That’s it. I’ll take your questions.

QUESTION: Can we go to one thing you didn’t discuss, which is Syria?

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: And the statement that you’ve just put out?

MR TONER: Sure thing.

QUESTION: What makes you – you say that the Secretary urged Foreign Minister Lavrov in a phone call today to put pressure on the Syrian Government to cease its offensive attacks on civilians. What makes you think they’re – that the Russians are (a) actually going to do that today, and (b) that it would actually have any effect on the Syrians if they did?

MR TONER: Well, it’s a fair question, Arshad. Also, as you noted, we’ve seen a deterioration over this weekend, and as we mentioned in our statement, given the Assad regime’s attempt to seize territory in the besieged Damascus suburb of Darayya. As we came out of the ISSG last week, Russia was there, obviously, and signed onto what was among all the members of the ISSG a reaffirmation and agreement to strengthen and put in place the cessation of hostilities.

And by doing that – and we’ve talked about this a lot – and all of this, what happens in – happened in Vienna last week was only words on paper, but where the rubber hits the road is their ability to influence the parties on the ground. It’s incumbent on us and others, parts of the ISSG, to put that pressure on the opposition forces. But it’s incumbent on Russia and to a certain extent Iran to put that pressure on the regime, and we haven’t seen it. And we’re very concerned that we’ve, frankly, if anything, seen an uptick in violence over the weekend, and we’re fully aware of the fragility of the cessation of hostilities. And frankly, we’re working and engaging with Russia to try to reinforce it and try to put it back in place.

QUESTION: But what makes you think – since you said that we haven’t seen it, and clearly, when you say we haven’t seen “it,” you’re referring to Russian pressure on the Syrian Government, correct?

MR TONER: Or, rather – or –I mean, there’s two parts to that. There’s (a) whether Russia is applying the kind of pressure necessary and (b) whether the regime is even listening.

QUESTION: Are they applying pressure, to your knowledge?

MR TONER: They have conveyed that they are. And again, I don’t want to speak for – on behalf of the Russian Government. That’s for them to speak to. But again, they were in Vienna last week. They took part in the ISSG. They even took part – Foreign Minister Lavrov – in a joint press avail with Secretary Kerry. In all of that they expressed their commitment to implementing this.

QUESTION: Well, I saw that, and I read the transcripts and so on. But what I don’t understand is you can’t say yes they’re applying pressure. You say they say that they have. Why do you think that they are likely to apply pressure now in response to your call and the Secretary’s literal phone call? What makes you think they’re going to do that?

MR TONER: I’m sorry, what makes us think today’s any different is what you’re saying?

QUESTION: Yes, right.

MR TONER: Or why they’ll change their pattern? Look, I think what we’re seeing on the ground – and I am hesitant to wade too much into operational details, but clearly what we’re seeing is an attempt by the Assad regime to gain tactical advantage. That they’re doing it with airstrikes, that they’re attacking civilians in the process is, frankly, barbaric, but we believe that that’s what they’re doing.

And so what we’re looking to is to see whether Russia is able to, again, provide the necessary pressure, influence, whatever you want to say or however you want to call it, in order to get them to reconsider the fact that, if this keeps up, we may be looking at a complete breakdown of the cessation. And I think all sides will agree that the cessation of hostilities did bring about a credible reduction in the level of violence, allowed humanitarian assistance to get into all besieged areas – or not all besieged areas, some besieged areas; let me rephrase that – and frankly, as we’ve said many times, sets the kind of environment we need in order for negotiations to begin again in Geneva.

QUESTION: Just one last one from me on this.

MR TONER: Yeah, sure.

QUESTION: You said, “If this keeps up, we may be looking at a complete breakdown of the cessation” of hostilities. When you say “this,” you’re referring specifically to --

MR TONER: Continued attacks and violations by the Assad regime of the ceasefire, or the cessation.

QUESTION: Mark?

MR TONER: Please.

QUESTION: The Russian readout said that you guys discussed joint operations. Is that true?

MR TONER: Kirby spoke to this. There are no – we’re not talking about --

QUESTION: This happened today, so Kirby did not speak to it.

MR TONER: No, no, I understand that. But he spoke about – what he spoke about was joint operations and the fact we’re not looking at joint operations. What we’re looking at – I mean there’s no agreement, and that’s what the Russians had said previously and what they – what their readout also stressed today, to conduct joint airstrikes with the Russians.

QUESTION: Did you – so did you discuss joint operation – did the Secretary discuss --

MR TONER: What we’re discussing them is – are proposals for sustainable mechanisms to better monitor, enforce the cessation of hostilities. We’re not talking about joint operations.

QUESTION: The Russian statement also said you spoke about the ways that the United States would exert pressure on rebel groups to separate themselves from Nusrah. Is that correct?

MR TONER: Yes. I mean, I don’t – honestly, I’m fairly aware that that came up in the call today – I’m fairly certain, rather, not aware. But that’s been an ongoing commitment of ours. I mean, we’ve talked about that a lot, is that it’s incumbent on us to exert that kind of influence on the opposition groups on the ground to – not to affiliate themselves with – and we’ve talked a lot about the intermingling or however you want to talk about it on the ground.

QUESTION: Why haven’t you been able to stop that?

MR TONER: It’s a challenge. And that’s one of the reasons, coming out of the ISSG, the language in the communique talked about the facts that – the fact that if certain opposition groups continue to take part in repeated violations or affiliate themselves with groups that continually violate the cessation of hostilities, then they run the risk of being excluded from the protection provided by that.

QUESTION: Would you say that Nusrah is more embedded with other opposition groups at this point than at any other point in the civil war?

MR TONER: Boy, I just don’t want to make that – I can’t --

QUESTION: Can you name any time at all where you thought, ooh, it’s even worse than it is now?

MR TONER: I’ll just say that certainly in and around Aleppo especially – and we’ve talked about this – is that there is a certain amount of overlap, commingling, whatever the heck you want to call it, among these groups; and it’s incumbent on them and absolutely vital that they separate themselves so that we can clearly delineate where Nusrah is and where the credible opposition is.

QUESTION: Do you think as long as they’re commingled Russia should not and Syria as well should not strike at Nusrah because they should get a free pass or something because they’re mixed in with others?

MR TONER: Well, this is part of the ongoing debate. They continue to carry out these strikes and we continue to say you’re hitting opposition forces.

QUESTION: Right.

MR TONER: I would say it’s a --

QUESTION: But it sounds like you’re admitting as well that you’re failing. That’s partly your problem because you haven’t been able to separate them.

MR TONER: I would say it’s our challenge, and we recognize it’s a challenge that – and we’re working to meet and address that challenge.

QUESTION: But how do you --

QUESTION: Mark.

QUESTION: How do you effectively combat Nusrah, which is a U.S. designated foreign terrorist organization --

MR TONER: Right.

QUESTION: -- if you’re saying not to strike them when they mingle with other groups that are involved in the violence?

MR TONER: So a couple of thoughts on that. One of the things or one point is to – what we’ve seen over the weekend is deliberate attacks in and around Damascus and elsewhere that were targeting, we believe, the opposition as well as civilian populations. And that’s another thing: we recognize that as vile as Nusrah is and as much as they should be targeted legitimately by Russia, by everyone, and they do represent a terrorist organization, we do have to be mindful of civilian populations, we do have to be mindful of – frankly, of overlap. But again, it is our challenge and I accept that.

QUESTION: I’m not asking about the hospital strikes, I’m asking about when --

MR TONER: Yeah, you’re talking about the comingling, yes, or whatever.

QUESTION: Yes. I’m talking about various militant groups.

MR TONER: I mean, again, ultimately it’s going to be incumbent on these groups to separate themselves from Nusrah. All we can do is deliver that message.

QUESTION: Mark.

MR TONER: Yes, sir.

QUESTION: I just want to – I haven’t heard you mention anything about the attack in Tartus and Latakia today. I mean, like, maybe 200 people were killed during --

MR TONER: I apologize. I apologize. That was in the statement. So we released – I released a statement just before coming here and I’m happy to --

QUESTION: If you could from the podium.

MR TONER: I’m happy to condemn it from the podium as well. We do strongly --

QUESTION: Okay. Do you think, in your opinion, that ought to give the regime forces and the Syrian army sort of the leverage to strike back at these – at the sources of this terrorism?

MR TONER: Well, again, the --

QUESTION: Shouldn’t that be the case in any – like, in any other country in the world?

MR TONER: Well, again, Said, so we did obviously strongly condemn Daesh’s horrific attacks today in the towns of Tartus, as you noted, and Jabla, which are in the northwest province of Latakia, and I think some 60 civilians were killed in these attacks, multiple bombings that have targeted bus stations and included a hospital. We’re obviously going to continue efforts to destroy Daesh in the region. We understand that Daesh represents a threat that is palpable to all in Syria and in Iraq. And it – I think what it highlights, frankly, Said, is the need – urgent need to get a political process moving forward that can resolve the civil war in Syria so that all parties can turn their attention to Daesh and destroying Daesh.

QUESTION: Yeah, but that is related to the point that Brad was raising. I mean, this sort of intermingling and giving a pause, so to speak, and being targeted and being struck by forces, be it Syrian or Russian and so on, gives them a great deal of latitude to commit to that kind of – I mean, to move around and be able to have access to towns and villages and so on under regime control and to strike such as this. So why not, in this case, should not let’s say be – should not the Syrian regime have that ability to strike and continue striking these groups --

MR TONER: So a couple of thoughts on that --

QUESTION: -- with intermingling notwithstanding?

MR TONER: Sure, couple of thoughts on that. One is, we have been working hard, and we’ve talked about the fact that we beefed up our operation in Geneva in order to provide around-the-clock monitoring of the cessation of hostilities and really look at working with Russia, working with other members of the ISSG but primarily Russia, in trying to delineate who is where. That process continues. We get that it’s a hard process to do. It’s hard to map these out – which group is where in Aleppo. Again, that’s primarily our challenge and other members of the ISSG’s challenge to address that. It’s also incumbent on the – for the groups on the ground to also disassociate themselves with Nusrah. We get that. But again, what we’ve seen repeatedly by the regime are attacks on supply lines, on other tactical pieces or parts of the opposition, tactical strikes to gain the advantage, strategic advantage on the ground not necessarily aimed at Nusrah.

QUESTION: And my last question on this issue.

MR TONER: Yes, sir.

QUESTION: Should there be, like, a deadline for these groups to separate themselves from Nusrah or ISIS?

MR TONER: Well, we’ve talked about that and that was one of the things in the ISSG’s communique is that – well, there was no deadline, but what we talked about was if groups are repeatedly violating the cessation of hostilities, then basically they are selecting themselves to no longer be a part of that.

Please, Pam.

QUESTION: On that subject.

MR TONER: Yeah, please.

QUESTION: On that very subject.

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: McClatchy wrote that the group’s – Ahrar al-Sham group’s foreign affairs director, Labib al Nahhas, was allowed into the United States for a brief visit six months ago. The outlet cites four people with direct knowledge of his visit to Washington, D.C. Were U.S. officials aware of this visit?

MR TONER: I’m not sure that we were aware of it. I don’t believe he had any meetings here, certainly, but – and I can’t speak to visa records. It’s a privacy consideration, so I don’t have much detail I can share with you regarding whether he received a visa to come here. But I can look into it. I just don’t have any more detail to --

QUESTION: But one of the leaders of a group with known ties to al-Qaida comes to the United States and you can’t say anything about it?

MR TONER: Again, I don’t have the details in front of me. I just don’t have – if I get more information, I’ll share it with you.

QUESTION: Just a few more about this group. Does the U.S. apply pressure on Ahrar al-Sham to adhere to cessation of hostilities?

MR TONER: Do we what? I’m sorry, I --

QUESTION: Apply pressure to this group, Ahrar al-Sham, to adhere to the cessation of hostilities?

MR TONER: We apply pressure on all members of the credible, vetted opposition, and that’s part of the HNC group that was --

QUESTION: Do you consider Ahrar al-Sham a vetted opposition group?

MR TONER: Again, we consider – well, we apply pressure on all members of the HNC to adhere to the cessation of hostilities that exists right now. Whether they do or not, that’s self-selecting.

QUESTION: But what do you think about this particular group?

MR TONER: I – I don’t have any information to share with you about – what are you looking for exactly?

QUESTION: Well, to what extent they care about the cessation of hostilities? Two weeks ago, when they attacked an Alawite village of al-Zahraa, a photo emerged in social media that showed militants from this group standing above – actually stepping on – corpses of several women. The group later said that the women were killed in combat, but they were attacked in their homes. And I wonder, to – do you think this group cares much about the cessation of hostilities?

MR TONER: I don’t know about that particular incident. I can look into it. What I would say, again, is we support those members of the HNC who have been vetted by the Saudis in large part, who are part of the negotiating a political process, and we’ve also said very clearly who we believe to be part of or be terrorist organizations, which is Daesh and al-Nusrah and a couple of others that have been identified by the UN.

QUESTION: Mark?

MR TONER: Please, yeah.

QUESTION: Just on a slightly different topic --

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: -- in Syria. After the CENTCOM commander’s visit to Syria, there are – there’s a lot of reporting and commentary that Raqqa could be the priority of the United States, not Mosul, for now. So my question is: On principle, does the United States believe that Kurdish forces are a credible partner to retake Raqqa?

MR TONER: Again, I just would say, first of all, I don’t have a priority list in front of me. I mean, this is in part – you saw that there’s – they’ve begun an offensive today, the Iraqi Government announced, to retake Fallujah. Obviously, Mosul is also a priority as well. I think we have every confidence in the Kurdish forces’ ability to be an effective partner in the battlefield and to be able to defeat ISIL forces. They’ve been – they’ve proven that time and again as a part of the Iraqi military and under Iraqi Government command and control.

QUESTION: In Syria, the Kurdish force in Syria – do you depend on them – to what degree, would you depend on them to retake the predominantly Arab city of Raqqa?

MR TONER: Well, with regard to the Kurdish forces in northern Syria, we’ve worked with a variety of groups and we’ve talked a lot about the YPG and the other – and the Kurdish forces on the ground, and they’ve been effective partners in going after and, frankly, dislodging Daesh from many parts of northern Syria. That cooperation continues. It’s also – we provide the same assistance to other groups, Syrian Turkmen and Syrian Arabs who are also on the ground fighting Daesh in parts of northern Syria.

QUESTION: Even if that alienates Turkey, your major ally in the region? Because all assessment says or points to these groups --

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: -- to be able to attack Raqqa rather than go ahead and start the process all over again, which would take years to --

MR TONER: So – yeah. So we’ve talked about this a lot. We obviously are in close dialogue with Turkey. We understand their concerns regarding Kurdish forces in northern Syria. And we’ve also made it clear to these Kurdish forces as well that they should not seek to create autonomous, semi-autonomous zones, that they should not seek to retain the territory that they liberate, rather that they should make sure it’s returned to whatever civilian authorities there are and able to – so that all displaced people can return there. This is – but we also recognize the fact that these are effective fighting forces and that they are willing to take on and dislodge Daesh.

QUESTION: But while you’re saying that you don’t recognize their autonomy, one could say in practice you kind of have recognized it. For example, Brett McGurk has visited Kobani and met with the leaders of those autonomous government – that autonomous government for the Kurds. And now we have the CENTCOM commander also visiting Kobani and other Kurdish cities meeting with the leaders of that autonomous government. Isn’t that in practice a recognition of that government?

MR TONER: I don’t believe so. I mean, it’s a recognition that we want to cooperate with these forces and see, obviously, through close contact that we can get an assessment – their assessment for a first hand of what their needs are and what their challenges are on the ground. I think it’s part of our ongoing cooperation, but it’s not to imply any kind of recognition of their sovereignty or whatever.

Please, Pam.

QUESTION: I have a couple on different issues.

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: First, Vietnam.

MR TONER: Okay.

QUESTION: Concerning the U.S. arms agreement with Vietnam, is there State Department concern that this new agreement could essentially end up straining U.S. relations with China, especially considering the tensions surrounding the South China Sea.

MR TONER: No, I – look, the President addressed this today in Vietnam. It was not based on any kind of effort to apply pressure on China or to send a message to China. It was simply based on our desire to normalize relations with Vietnam and, frankly, a reflection of our changing and evolving relationship with Vietnam.

QUESTION: I know it wasn’t directed at China, but is there concern that as a consequence of this there could be strained relations with China?

MR TONER: I think so. And look, we support close relations between China and Vietnam and all of its neighbors, frankly. I mean, this isn’t about trying to apply, as I said – or send a message – apply pressure on China. This is about deepening our overall relationship with Vietnam and certainly our security relationship with Vietnam.

QUESTION: You said “I think so,” or “I don’t think so?”

MR TONER: I can’t remember what I – (laughter) – sorry.

QUESTION: You said “I think so.”

QUESTION: I think you said “I think so,” but then your answer seemed to say the opposite, so --

MR TONER: I apologize if I – I’m not sure what I said. I – what I was – I think I said what – “I don’t think so.” (Laughter.) I’ll have to go back and look at the transcript.

QUESTION: But bottom line is to just clarify --

MR TONER: Anyway, my bottom line is --

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR TONER: -- that it’s not meant to send any kind of message to China. It’s not meant to do anything towards China at all. It’s simply to deepen our relationship bilaterally with Vietnam.

Thanks.

QUESTION: Can I ask you --

MR TONER: One more – yeah, and then we’ll --

QUESTION: Yes. On a different topic, on South Sudan.

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: President Bashir, of course, has applied for a U.S. visa to attend the UN General Assembly. Where is State on his visa request? Are you considering it? Is it something that has a possibility of being granted, first of all?

MR TONER: Well, this is something we – this is kind of an annual rite of passage where he puts out this announcement that he’s going to apply or is about to apply for a visa to attend the UN General Assembly in September. The United Nations, as we all know, does extend an invitation to heads of state and government annually. I’d refer you to them for more details about who they send to.

Obviously, there’s a number of considerations at play when we look at these kinds of requests, and we’re going to act consistently with our relevant legal obligations. We can’t talk about the details of any individual visa cases, as you know. But we strongly support – even though we’re not members of – party to the Rome Statute of the ICC, we do strongly support its efforts to hold those accountable – excuse me, hold accountable those responsible for war crimes, especially crimes against humanity in – and genocide in Darfur.

So we’ve seen this happen before, this threat or this gesture, that he’s going to apply for a visa. We’ll look at it, obviously, and address it within our legal obligations.

QUESTION: Is there – you can’t talk about individual requests, but is there any reason to believe that the outcome will be any different this time around?

MR TONER: Well, again, we’ve never – he’s never actually attempted to arrive in – as far as I know, in New York. I think we’re just going to – we’re going to take it one step at a time. We do believe he should be held accountable for his crimes, though.

QUESTION: If he did --

QUESTION: Can I ask you one more on a related --

MR TONER: Sure, and then I’ll get to you.

QUESTION: No, please. No, go ahead.

MR TONER: Thanks.

QUESTION: A related issue and --

MR TONER: Please.

QUESTION: If the – if --

QUESTION: Well, if he --

QUESTION: If he did – if he did actually go through with it, would you grant him --

QUESTION: No. Well, my question was different. My question was --

QUESTION: Yeah.

QUESTION: If he arrived in New York, would you feel obliged to arrest him --

QUESTION: Arrest him --

QUESTION: -- even though you are not signatories to the Rome Statute?

QUESTION: I was getting there.

MR TONER: So there are – (laughter). So there are --

QUESTION: You started the line of questioning.

MR TONER: There are also – how do I put it? There’s also legal obligations that we take on as host country to --

QUESTION: Right.

MR TONER: -- the United Nations. I’ll just say we’ll look at a variety of considerations and act consistently with our obligations – our legal obligations. I don’t want to --

QUESTION: They really tied you – they really didn’t give you much on this one, did they? (Laughter.)

MR TONER: I don’t want to – well, Arshad, look, I mean, this is – look, I mean, this is what it is. I mean, it’s like every year we face this and we face this with a variety of bad actors around the world, not just Bashir. Again, we’ll do what we have to do if he actually follows through.

QUESTION: But this case is slightly – you’ve had other state sponsors, the heads of government, State Sponsors of Terrorism.

MR TONER: Right. This – I understand that.

QUESTION: Isn’t the United States --

MR TONER: I understand the distinction.

QUESTION: In this, you have a difference because of the charges of crimes against humanity --

MR TONER: I understand the distinction. No, I understand the distinction. Look, we take our – this is – this is a complex legal situation because we do, as I said, have certain obligations, responsibilities, as a host country to United Nations. So watch this space.

QUESTION: Can I ask --

QUESTION: Sorry.

QUESTION: -- one more on the same topic? There are also reports that Bashir has been deliberately starving people in the Nuba Mountains region, possibly as a tactic to suppress the insurgency in that region against him. First of all, is the U.S. aware of this, and then if so, what is the U.S. response?

MR TONER: Pam, we may very well be aware of it. I’m not aware of it, so let me try to get more information about that and get back to you, okay?

Lalit.

QUESTION: On the attack – airstrike on the Taliban leader --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- has Pakistan officially responded or protested to the U.S. on the strike?

MR TONER: Has – I’m sorry, I missed your last part of your question.

QUESTION: Has Pakistan officially responded or protested against this strike – against this strike on the Taliban leader inside Pakistan?

MR TONER: Right. Well, again, I’d refer you to the Pakistani Government to tell – to say whether they responded or not. I don’t have any readout to provide or anything like that.

QUESTION: Pakistan says that by doing so, U.S. has violated Pakistan’s sovereignty and also has violated the respected UN Charter.

MR TONER: So a couple things about that. First of all, this was a strike directed against this individual, Mansour, in the Afghan-Pakistan border region. We certainly do respect Pakistan’s territorial integrity, but as we’ve said before, we will carry out strikes to remove terrorists who are actively pursuing and planning and directing attacks against U.S. forces.

QUESTION: One question that falls from that, if I may.

MR TONER: Yeah, sure. Sure.

QUESTION: Was that the motive of this attack or did it perhaps also have a political motive to try to influence the lack of peace talks?

MR TONER: Well, I think – I mean, that’s – it can be – there can be multiple reasons for it, but I think the primary, and the President spoke to this earlier today when he confirmed the success of this strike, that this is about removing someone who was actively pursuing, planning, carrying out attacks against U.S. and Afghan forces in the region.

QUESTION: And then one other one.

MR TONER: But also – I’m sorry, just to finish – it also sends a clear message that those who target our people and the Afghan people are not going to be given a safe haven, and then also that it – that there’s only one option for the Taliban, and that is a – to pursue a peaceful resolution to the conflict. So, sorry.

QUESTION: No, no. There are reports that – that – and they’re not definitive as far as I can see, but that a passport was found near his body but in someone else’s name, and that that passport had been used to travel into Iran. Do you know if Mullah Mansour traveled to Iran, and if so, do you have any idea why?

MR TONER: I don’t. I’ve seen those reports, but no further clarification, no further information, about that.

QUESTION: Mark, can --

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: One more. You said that – when he mentioned Pakistan’s complaints about violation of sovereignty, you said it happened in the Af-Pak border region.

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: Are you denying that it happened on Pakistani territory?

MR TONER: I don’t have any more clarity of where the actual strike took place. What I can say was in that border region. I just can’t say on which side of the border it was.

QUESTION: So you don’t know if – so are you doubting the claim from Pakistan that it was in their territory?

MR TONER: I’m not going to speak – I mean, the Pakistani Government is able to speak on behalf of itself. I’m not going to doubt its claim. I’m just saying the information that we have right – are able to share.

QUESTION: But this was a – this is a --

QUESTION: So you don’t know where you targeted him? You just guessed? I mean, how could you fire something out of the sky and blow something up and kill people and not know what country it’s in? Come on.

MR TONER: I understand what – your question, Brad. All I’m saying is what we’re able – I said what we’re willing to share is that it was in --

QUESTION: You check these things before you fire, usually, right?

MR TONER: -- the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region. We certainly do.

QUESTION: On that, what impact this has on the Taliban itself? Can you say it’s defeated now?

MR TONER: No, by any means I wouldn’t say that, and I don’t mean to imply that if I said that. What I think it does send is a clear message, as I said, that if you’re going to carry out attacks, if you’re going to lead attacks against our forces and against Afghan’s forces – Afghanistan’s forces – then you’re going to be targeted and you’re not going to have safe haven. And I also think that it sends the message that the Taliban must decide what its future is going to be and whether it’s going to be part of a peaceful political future for Afghanistan. And there is a path towards that. They can sit down with the Afghan Government and begin negotiations and talks. We’ve encouraged that; we support an Afghan-owned, Afghan-led process.

QUESTION: But how can you expect someone to come to peace talks when you have just killed their supreme leader?

MR TONER: Well, again, I think it presents them with a clear choice. And Lalit, you know that there’s ways to engage and identify the fact that you’re willing to engage in a peaceful way. And, frankly, Mansour showed no – absolutely no predilection towards engaging in any kind of peaceful political process.

QUESTION: From the public statements that’s coming from Pakistan, it’s very much evident that they are very upset with your action. Do you see any kind of retaliatory measures coming out of Pakistan?

MR TONER: No, we – look, Lalit – I mean, I’m – again, I’m not going to speak on behalf of the Pakistani Government, what they may or may not do. We have been in touch with them, obviously. We’ve talked about this airstrike. We continue to talk to them about how we can collaborate and cooperate on rooting out these terrorist organizations and these organizations or these groups that continue to use Pakistanis – Pakistan’s territory to carry out attacks.

QUESTION: Can we move on to --

QUESTION: One more quickly. Was --

MR TONER: One more and then – okay.

QUESTION: Was Mullah Mansour on the terrorist designated list, the --

MR TONER: I don’t believe he was, no.

QUESTION: He was not.

QUESTION: Can we move on?

MR TONER: Yeah, and then I’ll get to you. Please.

QUESTION: Okay. Very quickly to the Palestinian-Israeli issue.

MR TONER: Oh, sure, yeah. Please.

QUESTION: I have a couple of quick questions. First of all, on – last week Secretary of State Kerry said that he is going to go to the meeting in Paris on June 3rd. Well, the prime minister of Israel in his meeting with the prime minister of France, Manuel Valls, said that – rejected the idea. Did that cast any doubt on the Secretary’s plans to attend this meeting?

MR TONER: I’ve seen his comments – Prime Minister Netanyahu’s comments. I don’t have any more details about what he may be proposing. I know he talked about --

QUESTION: I understand. I’m saying --

MR TONER: No, we’re – look, we’ve committed, and the Secretary spoke about it last week in Brussels. He plans to attend the French conference – the French ministerial, rather – on June 3rd. And I think, as he expressed very clearly in the press conference at NATO when he got the question, he wants to work with the French, he wants to work with other partners in the coming days to ensure that this is as productive and constructive a process as possible.

QUESTION: Mm-hmm. So would this – from the Secretary’s point of view, would this be like an alternative to past efforts on the sort of bilateral talks between the Palestinians and the Israelis? Is there something – an alternative to that in his mind?

MR TONER: I think what we’re trying to do is – and what the Secretary is certainly engaged on – is setting the right conditions. Look, we’ve all said we – and we haven’t changed our position, which is that ultimately we want to see direct negotiations that results in a two-state solution. That has not changed. We don’t want to see negotiations for the sake of negotiations. We want a clear path forward, and we need the – set the right climate or right environment for those negotiations to proceed. And we want – if direct talks were to proceed, we’d want to see both sides come to the table – and again, Secretary Kerry spoke to this – ready to really talk about the tough issues and address those issues and reach consensus. And so if they’re willing to do that, then certainly we’re not going to stand in the way, but we believe that there’s got to be more groundwork laid before that process can go forward.

QUESTION: Let me ask you just one more question on the Palestinian-Israeli issue.

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: Yesterday, Israeli settler bulldozer and bulldozed an agricultural area. They have been doing it for the past week. They leveled agricultural area in the village of Jaloud and the villagers or the – in the surrounding villages as well the farmers have received notices from the Israeli Government over the past – since April that roughly about 1,500 acres have been taken away or designated as government land.

MR TONER: You’re talking in the West Bank?

QUESTION: Right. In the northern West Bank.

MR TONER: Yeah. I mean, Said, our position on settlements hasn’t changed. We strongly oppose all settlement activity. We think it’s corrosive to the cause of peace. We continue to look to both sides, frankly, to demonstrate with actions and policies a genuine commitment to a two-state solution, and actions like this, frankly, just do the opposite.

QUESTION: I have a couple on various --

MR TONER: Sure. I’m so sorry, I did say you were next. Can I get back to you, Brad? And then I – Brad is the last question because I’ve got to run. Please (inaudible), I apologize.

QUESTION: Well, sir, I know you said that you don’t know much about Ahrar al-Sham and what they did in al-Zahraa. I have the photograph that I mentioned. I was reluctant to show it because of how graphic it was, but now I think I will do so and maybe this will prompt you to look into this group. And I want to ask you why should this group have protection under the cessation of hostilities when they clearly don’t care about cessation of hostilities?

MR TONER: Look, I’m just not aware of this incident. I’m not – I was not casting doubt or not trying to – I just am not aware of it. That said, we hold all parties, whether they’re parties to the cessation of hostilities or not, accountable for actions that target civilian populations, and frankly, are barbaric acts against civilians. I just don’t have the specifics in this particular incident. I’m not trying to say in any way that it’s not true or it didn’t happen. I just don’t have on my end the information.

QUESTION: I have a couple. They’re really quick.

MR TONER: Please. Yeah, sure.

QUESTION: I have one really quick one.

MR TONER: Okay, let’s go.

QUESTION: The case of Kamal and Mohamed Eldarat in the United Arab Emirates – both of them are U.S. citizens. I think a final decision expected on the 30th. Has there been any high-level contact between American and Emirati officials?

MR TONER: I think we – that remains – I don’t know if there’s been any recent contact, but I think certainly that we’ve been following this case quite closely, as you know. We’re concerned about several aspects of it – their health, their prior lack of access to legal representation, the absence of formal charges against them in their first hearing, and frankly, the lack of consular access. So we continue to raise all these issues with the UAE Government.

QUESTION: Okay. And then --

MR TONER: I don’t have any – I don’t have anything – any update to provide.

QUESTION: Well, we’ll have a couple days to readdress this one.

MR TONER: Exactly, exactly.

QUESTION: U.S. permanent resident Nizar Zakka in Iran – apparently, a judicial official said something about speeding up the proceedings. Do you see that as good or bad in that case?

MR TONER: Well, again, we’re very concerned about reports of – that Nizar Zakka is being unjustly held in Iran since 2015. We don’t provide, as I think we’ve made clear, consular assistance to non-U.S. citizens; however, we would ask for any effort to speed up and provide him with a free and fair trial, if that’s the case.

QUESTION: And then Zainab al-Khawaja in Bahrain – if you remember, she’s imprisoned with her, I think, one-year-old daughter.

MR TONER: Yeah, I’m aware of the case. I don’t --

QUESTION: And it was about, I don’t know, five weeks ago the Secretary stood on the stage with the Bahraini foreign minister and he promised that he would release her. She is not released and, apparently, she’s sick and her family can’t get the one-year-old out of prison. Is this an issue, or is that okay with you guys?

MR TONER: Well --

QUESTION: It’s been a lot of weeks.

MR TONER: I understand that. I understand that, Brad.

QUESTION: You got this promise and you hailed him, I think, at the time for this.

MR TONER: I understand that. And of course it’s --

QUESTION: So it’s a little silly at some point.

MR TONER: Of course it’s an issue, and let me see if I can get an update for you on that.

QUESTION: That was – that was my question, Zainab al-Khawaja.

MR TONER: Okay.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.) On Okinawa, according to the U.S. Embassy, Ambassador Kennedy is considering going to Okinawa. We were wondering if she will go, when, as well as if the purpose will be to address the recent incident and if she’ll meet with the governor of Okinawa.

MR TONER: I don’t have any information on Ambassador Kennedy’s travel plans, so I’ll have to take that question. As we – I think John mentioned this last week, our heartfelt sympathy and condolences go out to the family and friends of this victim of this terrible attack on Okinawa.

Thanks, everybody.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:31 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 - May 19, 2016

John Kirby

Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC

May 19, 2016









Index for Today's Briefing

EGYPT



ISRAEL/PALESTINIAN TERRITORIES



IRAQ



JAPAN



CHINA



EGYPT



SUDAN/REGION



TAIWAN



NEPAL



BANGLADESH



SYRIA



VENEZUELA



NICARAGUA




TRANSCRIPT:

1:39 p.m. EDT

MR KIRBY: Hello, everybody. I do not have – I guess for the second straight day, maybe the third, I don’t have any opening statements, so we’ll get right at it.

QUESTION: Can we start with – and I know this has already been addressed from the White House podium, but – the EgyptAir crash?

MR KIRBY: Sure.

QUESTION: Can you confirm that there were no U.S. citizens or dual U.S. citizens on board? Do you have any information about the kind of help the U.S. Government has offered for the investigation? And have you had any communications from the Egyptians requesting assistance?

MR KIRBY: Okay. There’s a lot there. So we still don’t have any indications at all that there were American citizens on board. Obviously, we’re still working our way through this, but at this time, we know of no American citizens that were on board the plane.

As for help, I think my colleagues at the Defense Department have already spoken to the fact that they have helped with respect to maritime patrol aircraft to help in the search for wreckage and potentially survivors. And as for investigative help, I’m not aware of any specific investigative help that’s being provided. Now that said, we have made it very clear that the United States stands willing to do that. But I’m not aware of any specific investigative help right now.

QUESTION: And are you aware of any acceptance – I mean, even if they accepted it, there might be a little bit of a delay between --

MR KIRBY: Sure.

QUESTION: -- when you could – the investigators get there. Have they accepted your offers?

MR KIRBY: I’m not, honestly, aware of any specific requests for investigative assistance by Egyptian authorities. But again, we’ve made it clear that we, certainly, are willing to provide that. You might want to check in with the FBI or NTSB later today. I’m just not aware.

QUESTION: And just on the – I’m blanking on what I wanted to ask you. I apologize.

MR KIRBY: Nic. Yeah.

QUESTION: Okay. I know that it’s difficult to say, it’s maybe too early to say, but do you have reasons to believe that it could be a terror attack or that it could be an accident?

MR KIRBY: It’s just too soon to know. It really is. Investigators are just getting to work on this. And I don’t think it would be prudent for us to speculate one way or the other right now.

QUESTION: Sorry. I remember what it was.

MR KIRBY: Okay.

QUESTION: Regarding the DOD’s offer of – I think it was EP-3 or P-3 aircraft to look for survivors --

MR KIRBY: Right.

QUESTION: -- has there been any – and I know this is their question, but it wasn’t clear to me from what I saw out of them whether those aircraft might have, for example, have had surveillance of the area when the crash occurred.

MR KIRBY: Yeah. We are not aware that there was – we’re not aware that there was any recognition or received transmission of any indications at the time of the accident in terms of what might have happened. So I’m not aware of any sensors that the U.S. military has or deploys – air or maritime – that picked anything up on this.

QUESTION: Can we move on?

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR KIRBY: Well, wait, I think Arshad’s got one.

QUESTION: Sorry.

QUESTION: Sure, sure.

QUESTION: Just one on this. Just leaving aside sensors picking up communications --

MR KIRBY: Or --

QUESTION: -- or video or anything else --

MR KIRBY: -- video or – I’m not aware of any capturing through electronic means – let me try to be as expansive as I can – any capturing through electronic means of either imagery, audio, or any other electronic transmissions that would lead us to have any greater clarity about what happened.

QUESTION: Does that include satellites, and actual technical readings?

MR KIRBY: As far as I know, it includes --

QUESTION: Everything?

MR KIRBY: -- everything. We don’t have --

QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.

MR KIRBY: Now, but that said, Arshad, again, this just happened this morning. And so I would refer you to DOD for more detail about that. But just before coming out here – because I asked – I’m not aware that we have – that we recorded, saw, photographed, or have possession of any electronic indications about what happened. So again, it’s just now getting started, but I would – DOD would probably be a better place to go.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Can we go to the Palestinian-Israeli peace process?

MR KIRBY: Sure.

QUESTION: Can I have one more on Egypt?

QUESTION: Because the Secretary just issued a – on EgyptAir?

QUESTION: Sorry. Can I have one more on Egypt?

QUESTION: Sure. Yes, absolutely.

QUESTION: Just a quick follow-up.

MR KIRBY: He’s being such a gentleman today.

QUESTION: I’m always a gentleman. (Laughter.)

MR KIRBY: You are.

QUESTION: I really appreciate that.

MR KIRBY: You are. I apologize.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR KIRBY: You are. You are. We’ll give you credit for that.

Go ahead, Nike.

QUESTION: Yes. Will today’s incident be taken into consideration for the travel alert to Egypt by the State Department?

MR KIRBY: I’m not aware of any – again, this just happened. So there’s been no updates that we’ve issued in terms of a travel alert. I’m not aware of any intention to do so right now. But we’re going to, obviously, follow the investigation as closely as we can. And if we feel there’s a need in the future, we’ll certainly do that. But I’m not aware of any intention to do so right now. Okay?

QUESTION: Yeah. I want to move to the Palestinian-Israeli peace process. Because the Secretary just gave a statement saying that he would attend the ministerial meeting in Paris, France, apparently, on June 3rd. He said I don’t know whether it’s June 3rd or when, but he will attend. My question is will the Secretary go in there to explore or would you go there with certain ideas that have accumulated over, let’s say, your past efforts or as a result of your past efforts? Because he did acknowledge that – in his statement, he says we made a great deal of effort, we made some progress, and so on. So will you go in with some sort of parameters or certain ideas and so on?

MR KIRBY: Well, I can assure that the Secretary’s not going to attend the meeting with the expectation that he’s just going to be in the audience. He certainly fully expects to be a participant in these discussions. And as he has said many times, and I think said it again today, we’re not going to close down any good ideas that can help try to create the conditions for the leadership there, by the parties, to get to a two-state solution. So I would fully anticipate that the Secretary’s participation will be very active and energetic, as it has been.

QUESTION: Now he – when he was asked about the failure of the U.S. policies, he says we have not failed, the countries have failed. Now is he suggesting that the Palestinians are a country that have failed or is it just Israel in this case?

MR KIRBY: He was talking – no. No.

QUESTION: Or was he talking about recently?

MR KIRBY: No. He was talking about the international community together has got to continue to do more.

QUESTION: Okay, let me ask you a couple questions on other issues. The Israelis have added more restrictions on Palestinian passages and checkpoints, added many checkpoints and so on. It is becoming really very difficult for them to traverse an already sort of burdened geography. Do you have any comment on that? Would you call on the Israelis to sort of maybe ease the restriction rather than increase them?

MR KIRBY: I don’t have – I’m not going to comment on specific measures that the Israeli Government may or may not be putting into place. So I’m going to refrain from commenting on that specifically. That said, in general, as you know, we continue to support freedom of movement in general.

QUESTION: Okay. And also the Palestinians have arrested a student today because he – the Palestinian Authority – because he posted on Facebook a comment stating that – or expressing his opinion about the Palestinian Authority being corrupt. Now the Palestinian Authority is one of – you are its largest benefactor. These kind of abuses go on day in and day out, the human rights abuses. They arrest people at will; they do all kinds of things. Will you raise this issue with the Palestinian Authority? Would you raise this issue with the Palestinian Authority?

MR KIRBY: I’m not aware of this particular incident, so I can’t affirmatively say that we will, in fact, raise it, but we’ll obviously follow it as best we can. And just what I would say writ large is we’re going to continue to stress to leaders of both sides here to take the necessary actions to reduce the tensions. And obviously, when it comes to expression, you know where we are in terms of our belief in the freedom of expression.

QUESTION: But this is not the first time, John, that the Palestinian Authority has taken very draconian measures against journalists, people who are Palestinian journalists, people who are expressing --

MR KIRBY: Right.

QUESTION: -- their point of view and so on. They are being arrested at will and so – and the United States seems to be looking the other way, because --

MR KIRBY: No, no. I totally disagree with that. We’re not looking the other way. I mean, we routinely – publicly and privately – raise our concerns about freedom of expression and freedom of the press in particular. And you know that better than anybody, sitting here every day as you do. This is not something that we’re turning a blind eye to. And we – we’re not bashful. No matter who it is, or in what country it is, we’re never bashful about raising these concerns, and we’ll continue to do so. I just don’t have any specific information about this incident. You have information I don’t have, but I can tell you that we routinely raise our concerns there and elsewhere around the world.

QUESTION: And my final question: A group of Belgian parliamentarians want to – they’re gathering support and some sort of signatures to offer the peace prize to a Palestinian political parliamentarian who is in prison, who’s been in prison for a dozen years – Marwan Barghouti. Is that something that you would not look too kindly on, would you support, or anything like this? Or would you rather wait until this comes to light, this issue?

MR KIRBY: I’ve not heard about this particular decision or this group’s desire to nominate this individual. So I think I’m going to refrain from commenting on that until we can get a little bit more information about it. I just have not heard about it, Said.

QUESTION: Iraq?

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: Thank you. So the governor of --

QUESTION: Can we stick with Israel and Palestine? Sorry. Just to get it out of the way. I realize that Prime Minister Netanyahu has not yet formally formed his governing coalition or his new governing coalition. But it seems fairly clear that Avigdor Lieberman is going to be in the cabinet. Do you have – and likely as defense minister. Do you have any comment on this expected coalition formation and whether it is likely to be even further to the right than the existing one?

MR KIRBY: Well, I think it won’t come as a surprise to you that because this – there’s been no formal formation, we’re going to refrain from commenting at this time, particularly on a – what’s an internal Israeli political matter. That said, as we say elsewhere, we look forward to working with the prime minister’s government no matter who he selects, and to looking for ways to continue to deepen the very close, very strong bilateral relationship that we have with Israel. And I’m quite confident that we’ll be able to do that.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Thank you. So the governor of Kirkuk, Najmiddin Karim, is in – has been in Washington for a few days. Has he met anybody at the State Department?

MR KIRBY: I’m not aware of it.

QUESTION: And he has talked in the media calling for more autonomy for his governorate, for the province of Kirkuk. And do you – does the United States support autonomy for that province?

MR KIRBY: We support the central government in Baghdad and Prime Minister Abadi and his efforts to continue to govern Iraq through a unity government, and that support and that policy is not going to change.

QUESTION: Okay, and just one more question. The Kurdish members of parliament in Iraq, they haven’t been back to the parliament since the protesters stormed the parliament building, and that’s led to the virtual dysfunctional – dysfunctioning of the parliament. Do you call on the members of parliament to go back to their normal duties?

MR KIRBY: Look, these are individual decisions that these members are making. What we are going to do is continue to support the Iraqi Government – the central government in Baghdad – as it, under Prime Minister Abadi’s leadership, continues to make the reforms they know they need to make to move Iraq forward. And some of those include, obviously, the security sector, and so we’re going to remain committed to our mission of trying to improve the competency and capability of the Iraqi Security Forces.

Yeah.

QUESTION: On Japan, do you have any comment on the murder case in Okinawa, where a former U.S. Marine employed at Kadena Air Force Base was arrested?

MR KIRBY: Yes, I do, if I could just get to it here.

We’re aware of the arrest of a U.S. citizen civilian – in Okinawa and we’re obviously following the case very closely. As Ambassador Kennedy has indicated earlier, our heartfelt sympathy and deepest condolences go out to the family and the friends of the victim, Rina Shimabukuro. This is a terrible tragedy and it’s obviously an outrage. We’re treating this situation with the utmost seriousness, and the United States military is cooperating fully with local authorities in their investigation. And for more details on that, I’d refer you to DOD.

QUESTION: Are there any concerns that – given the timing that this might have a negative effect on the – next week’s G7 summit?

MR KIRBY: Well, I know that we very much look forward to the G7 summit – the United States does – to participating. And as you know, the President will be going. There is an awful lot to discuss, a lot of very significant business before the G7, and we look forward to participating in that. And I can’t tell you to the degree to which – that this will be brought up or discussed, but as I said earlier, we take it very, very seriously and so does the Department of Defense. And nothing’s going to change about the gravity with which we move forward on this case and do whatever we need to do to help local authorities as they investigate it.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: A follow-up question. Do you think that this – this matters angers Okinawa people really now, and so do you think that --

MR KIRBY: It angers us.

QUESTION: Yeah. Now, do you think that this fear influence to the Futenma relocation plan? And also, do you think – Okinawa governor want to be reversed the SOFA, so do you think it – United States is think about that changing to the SOFA (inaudible)?

MR KIRBY: I would refer you to DOD for discussions about the Status of Forces Agreement. That is for them to speak to. But did I understand your first question to be about the impact on the Futenma replacement facility?

QUESTION: Yeah, Futenma plan, replacement plan. Yes.

MR KIRBY: Look, nothing’s changed about our commitment to moving forward on the Futenma replacement facility, and nothing’s changed about the Japanese Government’s commitment to that. And we’re going to continue to work towards that end. As dreadful and as tragic as that – as this is, it’s not going to change our commitment with the Government of Japan to moving forward with the FRF. As I said, we’re going to work as closely as we can – and I’d refer you to the military for more details – with local authorities as they investigate this horrible crime.

QUESTION: Can we stay in China?

MR KIRBY: China?

QUESTION: In Asia. Do you have anything on the – what DOD claimed to be unsafe intercept of a U.S. military aircraft by two Chinese flight – fighter jets over the South China Sea? Has there been any diplomatic communications between these two countries after this incident?

MR KIRBY: I’m not aware of any specific communications about this incident. This was a – obviously, we share the concerns that were expressed by the Defense Department over these unsafe maneuvers. They’re not doing anything to lessen tensions and to decrease – to do anything to decrease the possibility for miscalculations and perhaps put people in real harm’s way. So we absolutely share the concerns that were expressed by Defense Department leaders about these maneuvers. I just don’t have any specific diplomatic conversations to read out. This is something that we routinely have raised in the past when it’s happened, and I’m quite certain that we’ll continue to raise our concerns about this going forward.

QUESTION: Could you give us a sense of the current mechanism between these two countries to prevent miscalculation or incidents like this?

MR KIRBY: I’m sorry, say that again?

QUESTION: The current mechanism between U.S. and China to prevent incidents like this and to prevent miscalculation.

MR KIRBY: Well, again, I’d refer you to DOD to talk about specific mechanisms. But this is not a military with which we don’t have a relationship. It’s not a military in which we don’t have avenues for communications. We do routinely on many, many levels. So there’s certainly plenty of vehicles available for the United States military and the PLA to have appropriate communications on these kinds of incidents. That’s not the problem. The problem isn’t are you talking or not. The problem is this kind of behavior, this very unsafe, dangerous behavior in the air, which puts people’s lives at risk unnecessarily.

QUESTION: John?

MR KIRBY: Samir.

QUESTION: Did the Secretary talk to any Egyptian officials today about --

MR KIRBY: I don’t have any conversations with Egyptian officials by the Secretary to read out to you, but if that changes I’ll let you know.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: Can we stay in the same region, Sudan?

MR KIRBY: Sure. Sudan.

QUESTION: Sudan. Yes, sir.

MR KIRBY: Go ahead.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.) Today The Washington Times quotes the Sudanese ambassador to Washington, Maowia Osman Khalid, as having said that the United States, that his country and the United States are cooperating in the fight against ISIL and that they provide intelligence, they do all kinds of things, and they are willing to do more – in fact, give some sort of, I guess, base or something to – in the fight against ISIS in exchange for the lessening of the sanctions and so on. Is that something that would be considered by this Administration?

MR KIRBY: You’re going to have to let me take that. I haven’t seen those – I haven’t seen those comments and so I’m not --

QUESTION: Okay, it’s in The Washington Times and if you take the question --

MR KIRBY: Yeah, I haven’t seen those comments.

QUESTION: But generally --

MR KIRBY: I’m reticent to speculate about --

QUESTION: Right.

MR KIRBY: -- what we will or will not do. Obviously, there’s a shared threat of terrorism there --

QUESTION: Right.

MR KIRBY: -- in the region. And we are working with many governments in the region to help them deal with this threat. I don’t have anything specific with respect to Sudan.

QUESTION: Well, he was quite forward or – in his explanation that they can cooperate on Somalia, on --

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- on Libya and many others. They are --

MR KIRBY: The other – so let me take the question, Said. I just don’t have any details on what we may or may not be willing to do going forward. I suspect part of the answer to you will be to consult with DOD since it is DOD that really manages government-to-government relations with respect to specific counterterrorism activities.

Yeah.

QUESTION: On Taiwan, Tsai Ing-wen will take office as the new president of Taiwan tonight. What are the U.S. comments on her presidency?

MR KIRBY: What I can tell you is that the American Institute in Taiwan has announced that it has organized a delegation representing the American people to attend the inauguration. The lead will be former United States Trade Representative Ron Kirk. He’ll be joined by Ambassador John Negroponte, AIT Chairman Ambassador Raymond Burghardt, and AIT Director Kin Moy, and Mr. Alan Romberg. Okay, so we’ll have a delegation there.

QUESTION: I would like to follow up on Taiwan. When Tsai Ing-wen, before she got elected, she was visiting Washington, D.C., and met with Deputy Secretary of State Tony Blinken. Was there any plan – is there any plan for him to issue maybe a phone call or congratulation or a letter, like that?

MR KIRBY: I’m not aware of any, and we – and if we have further comment on it, we’ll let you know, but I’m not aware of any right now.

QUESTION: The fact that she is the first female president of Taiwan, what does that say to the democracy in Asia? Is that a good example?

MR KIRBY: Well, I think, look, we’re going to – the delegation will congratulate the president-elect on her inauguration and reiterate our strong support for Taiwan’s vibrant democracy, the importance the United States places on its relationship with the people of Taiwan, and our strong interest in continued cross-strait peace and stability.

Okay? Yeah, ahead.

QUESTION: In light of the investigation that the U.S. opened into Russian officials and athletes believed to have been involved in doping, I want to ask you if other countries should expect that their athletes can be prosecuted by the United States if there is evidence of doping and if they competed in the U.S.

MR KIRBY: That’s a great question for the Justice Department.

QUESTION: But that involves – I ask you – I just --

MR KIRBY: Goyal.

QUESTION: That involves foreign nationals, and also the question is what other countries should expect.

MR KIRBY: I understand. I understand that your question involves other foreign nationals, but you’re asking about a law enforcement investigation for which I won’t speak. And it’s really a question better placed to the Justice Department.

Goyal.

QUESTION: Thank you, sir. Two questions. One, as far as U.S. and Nepal relations are concerned, recently Nepal’s deputy prime minister was here across the street at the U.S.-India – the USIP, and he was talking about that the international community and the U.S. should help more after one year of earthquake in Nepal, and people are still waiting for shelter, food, medicine, and so forth. But some of the NGOs that I were talking in the same audience are saying that most of the money going from the U.S. or donations from the international community, much of it goes in the pockets of the corrupt politicians, not reaching to the people.

MR KIRBY: Well, I think our longstanding position about corruption is well known and the Secretary has spoken very firmly about this, as recently as just a couple of weeks ago in Oxford about the corrosive effect that corruption can have on entire societies, if not regions, and certainly across the world. So without speaking to specifics on these incidents you’re talking about in terms – in Nepal, I mean, this is something that we routinely discuss with our counterparts around the world about the need for governing structures to be accountable to the people that they represent and to marshal their resources and their behavior to comport with those responsibilities. So it’s something we take very, very seriously.

QUESTION: Is the U.S. – moreover is happy with the current government in Nepal?

MR KIRBY: Well, we’re watching the situation there. We’ve talked about this before. We’re certainly watching that closely and we continue to have frank and honest discussions with leaders in Nepal about the responsibilities of governance, of good governance.

QUESTION: One on Bangladesh, please. As far as Bangladesh, much is going on there after the attacks and – against the minorities and including LGBT and the U.S. also – this official there. There was a demonstration at Dupont Circle by the minorities – a vigil, actually, it was a candle vigil also standing by with the minorities and also against – and against the attacks – minorities in Bangladesh. And there was a official from the Bangladesh embassy also. He said that the Bangladesh Government is doing the best and also bringing to justice those in 1971 and other terrorists and they are standing and need U.S. help.

So what sort of help they are seeking, or what’s going on between U.S. and Bangladesh as far as stopping all these attacks against the minorities, including Hindus, Christians, LGBTs, and others?

MR KIRBY: Well, obviously, we’re deeply concerned by this violence, Goyal. We’re very troubled by this. They appear to be carried out by a small group of terrorists who seek to stifle independent thought and to attack violently anyone who disagrees with them and their thoughts. We’re pretty confident – no, not pretty confident – we are confident that these attacks do not represent the views of and are rejected as abhorrent by the overwhelming majority of people in Bangladesh. Bangladesh, as you know, has a proud tradition of being a pluralistic society that values diversity, welcomes the free exchange of ideas, and these are the values that these violent extremists are ultimately attacking.

QUESTION: Thank you, sir.

QUESTION: Can I have a quick one on Syria?

MR KIRBY: Got time for just a couple more.

QUESTION: Really quick, just give us an update of what’s going on, I mean, with the – there seems to be a total absence of clarity on what is happening on Syria and --

MR KIRBY: Oh, on Syria.

QUESTION: Right, regarding Syria on the talks, on the --

MR KIRBY: Well, I don't know if I --

QUESTION: -- the ceasefire status and so on. You’re --

MR KIRBY: I don’t think I agree that there’s been a total absence of clarity. I mean, the Secretary addressed some of this today in Brussels at his press conference and then he, of course, addressed the international community after the ISSG meeting in Vienna.

Look, what’s going on is the ISSG – now up to 24, 25 different nations, so four more nations added – has come together yet again in Vienna – and I encourage you to look at the communique – reaffirmed that what we’re trying to get is a transformation from cessation of hostilities that tend to be in localized areas to a nationwide ceasefire. And everybody signed up to that.

Number two, that for those parties who show a persistent reluctance to participate actively in abiding by the cessation, that they will no longer be allowed to be considered parties to it.

Number three, that humanitarian access, though it has improved, is still woefully behind the need, and that if things don’t get better by the 1st of June, the ISSG will urge the World Food Program to conduct more airdrops to places in need, and that the ISSG will support those efforts.

And number – and number four, and not inconsequentially, is a strong affirmation by the ISSG about the need to get the political talks back on track and resumed. And Special Envoy de Mistura said himself that he recognizes the clock is ticking here. We’ve got Ramadan coming up in the first week of June and he’s mindful of the calendar, and he’s also mindful of the need to get the parties back together to resume the very necessary, very important political dialogue that has to occur to try to get to this transitional governing body. You know well that in three sets of meetings – or three meetings, there hasn’t been as much progress made towards that as anybody would like, and Special Envoy de Mistura knows that he has to do that.

So there was a very substantive set of discussions on Vienna. Did it solve every problem? No. But it did advance a set of common concerns. It did provide more structure and I think a heightened sense of urgency about certainly the humanitarian access and violations of the cessation that I think speak clearly and affirmatively about the concern that the international community continues to view the situation in Syria.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR KIRBY: Yeah. Okay, thanks, everybody. Oh, listen, by the way, a programming note – there will not be a briefing tomorrow. There won’t be a spokesperson in the building. Two of them are traveling back and I’m traveling over tonight, so there will be no briefing tomorrow.

QUESTION: Can I have two quick on the Western Hemisphere, please? Really quick.

MR KIRBY: Okay, really quick.

QUESTION: Right. One is on Venezuela. Do you have anything on the decision by the embassy to not to take new appointment for a visa application to the United States in response to the government’s refusal to give U.S. personnel visas?

MR KIRBY: What I can tell you is that effective the 18th of May and until further notice, there’ll be no appointments available for first-time applicants for tourist visas at the embassy. Our current inability to schedule appointments for first-time tourist visa applicants is a direct result of lengthy Venezuelan Government delays in issuing visas for incoming U.S. diplomatic personnel assigned to our embassy to replace those officers who have departed. So it’s very much tied to a manning issue, a staffing issue. Okay?

QUESTION: And then in Nicaragua, do you have anything with the governments issued a electoral calendar without provisions for a electoral observation mission?

MR KIRBY: As we’ve said and made clear, allowing internationally recognized election observers to freely monitor elections will only strengthen Nicaragua. We urge the Nicaraguan Government to issue a timely invitation to credible international observation missions. Countries from the United States to Burma regularly invite electoral observation missions to validate the strength of their democratic institutions and to provide constructive and respectful recommendations on how to further improve the process and empower their citizens in determining the future of their country. We believe it’s important for Nicaragua, and again, we urge them to make that kind of an invitation.

Thanks, everybody.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:12 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 - May 16, 2016

John Kirby

Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC

May 16, 2016









Index for Today's Briefing

SECRETARY KERRY'S TRAVEL



YEMEN



LIBYA



EGYPT



IRAQ



SYRIA



MIDDLE EAST PEACE



ARMENIA/AZERBAIJAN



JAPAN



SOUTH AFRICA



NORTH KOREA



IRAN




TRANSCRIPT:

1:38 p.m. EDT

MR KIRBY: Afternoon, everybody.

QUESTION: Hello.

MR KIRBY: Just a couple of program notes for you at the top. As you know, the Secretary is in Vienna today and they just not a little bit ago wrapped up the – a multilateral meeting of some 24 entities – 20 countries and four international organizations – on Libya. You probably saw the Secretary’s comments at the press avail after that. Following that, the Secretary met bilaterally with Foreign Minister Lavrov. That meeting, as I understand it, just wrapped up and I think our Deputy Spokesman Mark Toner, who is out on the road with the Secretary, will have a readout of that meeting. I do not have a readout of it. It literally just wrapped up. And then later today, the Secretary will meet with the presidents of both Armenia and Azerbaijan, where they will discuss, of course, the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, including confidence-building measures and the need to resume negotiations on a comprehensive settlement.

You may have also seen we just put out a note a little bit ago announcing that the Secretary will on the 18th, on Wednesday, make a short trip to Cairo where he’ll meet with Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi to discuss a range of bilateral and regional issues. He’ll do that, again, Wednesday. Tomorrow, as you know, is the next iteration of the International Syria Support Group there in Vienna as well, so a busy few days early in the week for the Secretary.

Then I just want to make a comment on Yemen. We continue to believe that the success of the ongoing peace talks in Kuwait remain critical for achieving long-term peace, security, and stability in Yemen. And the United States commends the parties for their engagement in these talks and for the important steps that they’ve already taken. In particular, we welcome news that the delegations have agreed in principle to an exchange of half of all the prisoners and detainees held by both sides, and that this exchange would happen before or by the beginning of Ramadan, which is the first week of June. We continue to offer our full support to the efforts of the UN special envoy, of course, and as he himself has said, these talks are a historic opportunity. We echo his calls for all the parties to make the hard choices and compromise that will lead to a final agreement there in Yemen.

With that --

QUESTION: Can we start with Libya?

MR KIRBY: Sure.

QUESTION: As I – well, a simple question: Do you expect any imminent arms transfers to the Libyan Government?

MR KIRBY: Well, I don’t know – and I don’t want to parse the word “imminent,” so I’m not sure what you mean in terms of imminent. But as the Secretary said himself, the embargo that’s in place does allow for the GNA to request exemptions, and that we would certainly consider and certainly look upon favorably on requests made by the Libyan Government, the GNA, in terms of material that they might need. As far as I know, there’s been no such request yet, so it’s difficult to say how quote-unquote “imminent” the provision of any arms or material or training might be. We just – this was just decided on now by the international community today that they would do this, that they would look favorably on this, and I think we just need to let the process take effect.

QUESTION: The reason I asked it is there’s been a bunch of reporting on this suggesting that the international community stands ready to do this, but that’s been the case, as you point out, for quite some time. And I realize “look favorably” is kind of a – one further step, but I thought it might be helpful for people to understand whether or not this was likely to happen anytime soon. I mean, as you point out, you haven’t actually gotten a request; and presumably, after you get a request, you’re going to have to study it very carefully, not just in terms of the armaments but also in terms of making sure that whoever gets them uses them responsibly. And --

MR KIRBY: And that it’s appropriately resourced, right? I mean, depending on what they ask for, the international community would have to, through the UN, decide how would – (a) does that request – can we grant it; (b) sort of how would we resource it, staff it, logistically provide for it. So there’s a lot of decisions that have to get made.

I don’t want to – however, in my reticence to describe the word “imminent,” I don’t want to indicate that the international community won’t take these requests seriously and move with as much alacrity as the system will permit them to move. But as the Secretary said himself, and as you noted I think in your last question there, there’s a balance to be achieved here, because we obviously need to make sure that whatever is provided is provided in such a way that it can’t end up in the wrong hands, which is the purpose for the embargo to begin with, which was in place since 2011.

QUESTION: It isn’t happening anytime soon, is it?

MR KIRBY: I just don’t know. I mean, it’s an extremely fair question, Arshad. I just don’t know the answer. I mean, we have to get a request. It has to be, as you said, carefully considered – I would agree with you on that – and then processed. But I just don’t know.

And when you – the real nub of your question isn’t so much the when, but when you said “it.” So what is it? And I think we have to work our way through that – what is the support that would be provided. And that has to start with a request from the GNA, which we just don’t have yet.

QUESTION: John, on Secretary’s trip to Egypt, it would be the second meeting between the Secretary and the Egyptian president in less than a month. And Egyptian foreign minister was here on Friday too. What’s going on?

MR KIRBY: You’re – there’s --

QUESTION: Lots of meetings with the Egyptians --

MR KIRBY: There’s a lot going on, Michel. I mean, I’m not quite sure how to answer your question here.

QUESTION: Regarding Egypt only or Libya or Syria or peace process?

MR KIRBY: As I said, as I said at the top, I mean, they’re going to discuss a range of bilateral U.S. and Egypt issues as well as regional issues. And there’s plenty on that plate to talk about, and the Secretary himself has talked about the importance of Egypt in the region. He’s talked about the importance of our relationship with Egypt and looking for ways to keep that relationship vibrant and healthy. And we’ve also talked at length about the growing threat of terrorism that Egyptians are facing, as well as a spate of other political and economic and security challenges inside the country itself. So there’s an awful lot to discuss with Egyptian leaders, and I think the Secretary looks forward to continuing those kinds of – that kind of dialogue.

QUESTION: And any readout for the Secretary’s meeting with Sameh Shoukry on Friday? Did they discuss the human rights issue in Egypt?

MR KIRBY: They discussed a wide range of issues, as you might expect they would. There hasn’t been a meeting that we’ve had with Egyptian officials in many months where we did not raise our concerns over human rights, and the meeting last week with Foreign Minister Shoukry was no exception to that.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: John, I’ve got a couple of Syria questions. Brett McGurk briefed reporters in Jordan on Sunday --

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- and among other things he talked about the Iraqi military’s determination to take al-Rutba. We saw that operation begin this morning. I’m wondering --

MR KIRBY: To take what?

QUESTION: Ar Rutba. Could you just tell us a little bit about why the specific focus on that town?

MR KIRBY: I’m really reticent to get into tactical operational discussions. Those are better questions to put to the coalition, to Colonel Warren out there in Baghdad. But I did see Special Envoy McGurk’s comments from his press conference, and I think he made clear that the Iraqi Security Forces are making gains against Daesh inside the country, that taking back more and more ground and territory from Daesh is important. On the face of it, it’s important, obviously, to further degrade and defeat them and their capabilities. But it’s also important to counter this narrative they have of this so-called caliphate, so every town and village that Daesh holds is important on its own right simply because it’s being put under the jackboot of this terrorist group. But as for the specific, more operational considerations that were put into place, I’m just not at liberty to get into that.

QUESTION: Okay. He also spoke about the very good information that you guys are getting out of Mosul, from inside Mosul. And I realize this is a sensitive area, but I was wondering if you could talk to us a little bit about the kinds of information you’re getting or perhaps how you made these contacts or – and/or the value of this information to the operations that you’re conducting.

MR KIRBY: Well, again, I’m reticent to talk about intelligence matters from the podium. You know that, and I’m certainly not going to get into, again, specific, tactical military discussions here. I would just – I would just reiterate a couple of things. One, we are gaining a lot more information about this group. There’s a lot of ways in which that information is coming in, and I think you can understand why we wouldn’t want to talk publicly about that – those sources of information. But we are gaining a much better sense of clarity about how they operate, how they organize, how they fund themselves, how they manage their own resources. That’s valuable information and has helped us further shrink the territory they hold and further put them under pressure.

And we have been – the second point I’d make is that we have for some time now been conducting what we call shaping operations in and around Mosul. Everybody recognizes the importance of Mosul and taking it back. They know that – and by “they” I mean Daesh. They know how seriously the coalition, and of course, a major contributor to the coalition is Iraqi Security Forces – they know how important Mosul is. So yes, there’s information. As we have conducted shaping operations we’ve gained a better sense, a heightened sense of situational awareness about what’s going on in Mosul. And we obviously want to see that information continue to flow and continue to help inform what would be future operations there. But again, I’m just reticent to get into the details of what we’re learning and how we’re learning it.

QUESTION: Okay, my last Syria question. There was a report over the weekend --

MR KIRBY: These were all Iraq questions, by the way.

QUESTION: Sorry.

MR KIRBY: At least the first two have been.

QUESTION: Okay. There was a report over the weekend about al-Qaida leadership in Pakistan sending senior officials, operatives, to Syria to work with al-Nusrah to try and establish an emirate. Just wondering how concerned the department is about that. And given that a lot of the U.S. and coalition focus seems to be on ISIS, could you give us a sense of how much you do focus on Nusrah?

MR KIRBY: A couple of things. And so al-Nusrah is an offshoot of al-Qaida, so for all intents and purposes, because of their connection with al-Qaida, there’s been an al-Qaida presence in Syria embodied by them because there is a relationship there. And again, without getting into intelligence matters, I don’t think it should come as a surprise to anybody that al-Qaida would, as al-Nusrah did and as Daesh has done, look to exploit the total lack of governance in areas inside Syria. So do we take it seriously? Absolutely.

As for the second question in terms of what we’re doing about it, I mean, again, I’d point you back to the Munich communique, which put the cessation of hostilities in place in the first place, and that – and that excluded al-Nusrah and Daesh from the cessation. More critically, what it really – what it did, if you look at the specific language, it excluded any group designated as a terrorist organization by the UN as party, and al-Nusrah and Daesh are obviously so designated. So is al-Qaida. So to the degree that al-Qaida proper decides to make a showing in Syria, they will, as al-Nusrah and as Daesh, become legitimate targets. And as we take them seriously elsewhere around the world, we will take them seriously if and when and to what degree they try to advance themselves in Syria. But again, let’s not throw – in this discussion about al-Qaida in Syria, let’s not overlook the very serious, very real, very tangible connection between al-Nusrah and al-Qaida. They are, in many ways, one and the same.

QUESTION: Has there been any success in getting the U.S.-approved rebels to separate from Nusrah?

MR KIRBY: I think those are discussions we continue to have. It obviously remains fluid and dynamic and that there is commingling. Some of it’s intentional; some of it’s not. It still remains an issue.

QUESTION: John –

QUESTION: Syria, on the same issue – same issue.

QUESTION: Go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you. Last week you were asked about the attack on an Alawite village, al- Zahraa. You said you didn’t have specific information about who was responsible. The Ahrar al-Sham group admitted to participating in the attack. The group’s spokesman told Reuters, quote, “Civilians were not targeted. On the contrary, factions made great effort to spare civilians and deal with prisoners humanely,” end quote. RT went to the village and the residents there described a massacre where militants killed women and children and abducted dozens of people. Why does the U.S. insist that this group Ahrar al-Sham should not be blacklisted along with al-Nusrah?

MR KIRBY: We’re – as I said at the outset, out of Munich, the decision by the International Syria Support Group, of which Russia is a member, and a communique that Russia signed up to agreed – and this was more than 20 nations – agreed that the only groups that would not be party to the cessation of hostilities would be those designated as terrorist organizations by the UN. And of all the groups – no, let me finish before you interrupt me – all the groups – of the groups that are represented in Syria fighting, the two that meet that criteria – a criteria that was agreed to by everybody in the ISSG, not just the United States, ma’am – were al-Nusrah and Daesh.

QUESTION: Why did the U.S. fight their inclusion last week at the UN?

MR KIRBY: This was a decision made by the International Syria Support Group. Everybody agreed that al-Nusrah and Daesh, because they’re designated by the UN as foreign terrorist organizations, would not be party to the cessation. And so that’s where we are today.

QUESTION: The U.S. fights at the UN not to include this group in the --

MR KIRBY: I’m not going to get into internal deliberations one way or the other.

QUESTION: But why?

MR KIRBY: I’m telling you – look, you’re putting – I love how you do this, try to put everything on the United States. The International Syria Support Group is an international – it represents the international community. Iran is a member. Russia is a member. Saudi Arabia – I could go on and on and on. All of them collectively made this decision. And so your question should be posed to all the members of the ISSG. Bottom line is that even Russia agreed that the only groups that would not be party to the cessation are members designated by terrorist organizations of the UN. I’ve said that now three times in response to your follow-ups.

The only other thing I would say is regardless of who was responsible for this attack, there’s no excuse for killing innocent civilians, none whatsoever. The whole reason why we wanted the cessation of hostilities put in place was so that violence against innocent Syrian people would not occur. And sadly, it is still occurring and we’re working very hard – the Secretary has been working very hard to try to get it to be held more in place in more places in an enduring fashion. And one of the things I think you can – I can assure you will be a major topic of discussion tomorrow in Vienna is exactly that: How do we get the cessation of hostilities to be observed by everyone?

QUESTION: Do you think this particular group cares much about the cessation of hostilities?

MR KIRBY: What we care about is the cessation of hostilities. And every member of the ISSG cares about the cessation of hostilities. And what we’ve said all along is we want all those who have influence over groups in Syria to use that influence in an appropriate manner to get them to abide by the cessation. So look –

QUESTION: Does the U.S. have influence over this Ahrar al-Sham group?

MR KIRBY: -- nobody’s turning a blind eye to what happened and, as I said last week, that those kinds of attacks are inexcusable.

QUESTION: What does the U.S. do to address what happened last week in al-Zahraa?

MR KIRBY: We are working with all the members of the ISSG, which, as I said, includes Russia --

QUESTION: Is the U.S. in touch with this group, Ahrar al-Sham?

MR KIRBY: We are working with all members of the ISSG to use the appropriate amount of influence that they have – some of that influence is influence we have – over groups in Syria to get everybody to abide by the cessation. Attacks against innocent civilians are absolutely inexcusable no matter who they’re from.

Michel.

QUESTION: John, Mr. Riyad Hijab has said today that the opposition has received promises from the West to receive sophisticated weapons. Any update on this?

MR KIRBY: I’m sorry, on the --

QUESTION: They will receive – the Syrian opposition will receive sophisticated weapons from the West or from the support – the Syrian Support Group.

MR KIRBY: I haven’t seen those comments and I don’t have an update on – in terms of assistance provided – specific direct assistance provided to Syrian opposition groups. I just haven’t seen those comments.

Yeah.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR KIRBY: Yeah, Nic, go ahead. We’ll go back to you, Nike.

QUESTION: Do you have an update on the possibility Secretary Kerry would participate to the meeting the French want to organize later this month on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

MR KIRBY: I don’t have an update. Obviously, we remain interested in – as the Secretary said, in advancing a two-state solution and to listening to ideas on how to do that. We’ve made it clear that the May 30th date originally proposed by the French was – would not work for the Secretary and for his schedule, but there’s been no decision made yet about an alternative date that might work or his possible attendance.

QUESTION: Yeah, because the presence of Secretary Kerry is so critical that the French foreign minister, who was in Israel over the weekend, he said that he is ready to postpone the meeting to accommodate Secretary’s schedule. So is it just a question of schedule or is it also matter of principle?

MR KIRBY: As I said, the 30th won’t work and we’ve made that clear. And I think we’re in discussions right now with the French about any possible alternative date that might better work for the Secretary. I just don’t have anything further to go on today in terms of a decision one way or another, either by the French to come up with a new date or whether that would work for the Secretary.

QUESTION: Does the 30th not work because the Secretary is going to be traveling somewhere else that day, or does it not work because it’s Memorial Day and he doesn’t wish to travel on a federal holiday?

MR KIRBY: I think there were a number of factors that led into our view that the 30th of May wasn’t going to work for the Secretary and some of that has to do with his travel schedule as well. I think you know how jammed he’s going to be for the rest of the month of May. But again, we’re in discussions with the French over this. I just don’t have any decisions to announce today in terms of his participation.

QUESTION: Just one more. Can I – does the U.S. (inaudible) --

MR KIRBY: No. No, no, no, no. Nike.

QUESTION: John, as you mentioned on top of the briefing, Secretary Kerry is going to meet with the presidents of Azerbaijan and Armenia.

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: What’s – what are the expectations of that meetings?

MR KIRBY: Well, I think one of the things they want to definitely discuss – the Secretary definitely wants to discuss is how we can better lower the tensions there, de-escalate the violence that has sadly continued. There was a 1994 ceasefire put in place that obviously is not being adhered to. And so the fragility of the security situation there is something of deep concern to the Secretary, and he wants to explore ways in which we can ratchet down that tension.

QUESTION: By exploring ways, are you saying that the United States is taking a more active role in facilitating the negotiation process of the peace there?

MR KIRBY: We’ve always been interested in seeing a peaceful solution there. That’s not new. This isn’t about arbitration or mediation, but it’s important to us to see the tension de-escalate, to see the violence stop, to see the ceasefire observed, and to see the parties start to work towards some – to see the parties work towards a better outcome through political dialogue and discussion, and that’s really what he wants to help foster.

QUESTION: John, do you have --

QUESTION: When is the last time Secretary Kerry met with both presidents and for the peace process?

MR KIRBY: Met with them face to face? I don’t know. We’d have to take that question and get back to you. I think I read out phone calls that he had done – he’s done in just the last couple of weeks, but in terms of a face-to-face meeting, I just don’t have that data in front of me.

QUESTION: Just a quick follow on that.

MR KIRBY: Yeah --

QUESTION: I think you addressed this a few weeks ago, but does – have you taken a position on why – whether one or the other side was more responsible for the flare-up that happened last month in Nagorno-Karabakh?

MR KIRBY: I think what – I think what I’d say is my answer to Nike, that we’ve seen the violence increase, we’ve seen the tensions increase, and our job here is to try to help find ways going forward to get that tension to decrease. And that’s why he wants to meet with the leaders of both countries.

Yeah.

QUESTION: On Japan. The governor of Okinawa is currently in town. Is anybody from the State Department planning on meeting with him?

MR KIRBY: I don’t have a schedule update for you on that.

QUESTION: He’s apparently discussing alternative plans to the Futenma relocation facility. Is – are you guys done exploring options given your --

MR KIRBY: Nothing’s changed about our position on the Futenma replacement facility. We still believe that that’s the right approach going forward. We’re going to continue to work with the Japanese Government to that end. So there’s no change to our view in terms of the importance of the replacement facility. And again, I just don’t have any specifics with respect to his schedule, but we’ll take that question too and get back to you.

In the back there.

QUESTION: South Africa. The Sunday Times is reporting a former U.S. vice consul and possible CIA officer has admitted that he was the one who tipped off the government in – the apartheid-era government to arrest Nelson Mandela. It’s going to be in a new documentary. Do you have a response to this admission and are you concerned that this could impact relationships with Pretoria?

MR KIRBY: Well, our relationship with the government in Pretoria is very strong and we look forward to continuing to enjoy that close relationship going forward. I’ve seen the press reports on this. I don’t have anything to comment on one way or the other.

QUESTION: John?

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: You guys issued a very – an unusually detailed and blunt travel warning for North Korea.

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: What prompted that?

MR KIRBY: Well, I think, first of all, it’s a – it was done in routine fashion in terms of procedure. It’s time to do – well, you know we do these every six months. And oh, by the way, what you’re going to see now going forward is them being done every 90 days. There’s now legislation that – I’m sorry, policy that requires we’re going to do – every 90 days now you’re going to see updates on DPRK. And I think that that – that makes a lot of sense because of the increase in tensions that we’re seeing there on the peninsula and because of the provocative activity by the regime there. I mean, just – I want to just check. I want to just check one thing. I said “policy,” but I was right the first time – legislation. The North Korea Sanctions and Policy Enhancement Act of 2016 stipulates that the State Department update the travel warning for North Korea every 90 days, so it’s law. I wanted to correct myself on that.

QUESTION: Is there any other country that --

MR KIRBY: So – not that I’m aware of. I’m not – I don’t know how – I don’t know of any other nation that we’re required to do it every 90 days. But so you’re going to start seeing these every three months. That’s point one.

Point two, yes, it is more detailed in some ways in terms of laying out what we’ve – the kinds of – and it’s not an exhaustive list, by the way, but it is an – a list of examples of activities for which we have seen foreigners be given unduly harsh sentences.

So yes, it was a little bit more specific and a little bit more blunt in some ways, but again, I think that’s reflective of the increased tensions that we’re seeing there on the peninsula and certainly the way – the manner in which the regime has acted out against foreigners on travel to North Korea.

So we take our responsibilities very seriously to travelers so that we give them as much information as we can before they travel, before they go overseas, and this is, I think, very much in keeping with our responsibilities to do that. But the frequency will – I just want to make sure you all are aware – the frequency will now be every 90 days instead of six months.

QUESTION: Okay, thank you.

MR KIRBY: Yeah. Okay, thanks, everybody.

QUESTION: One --

MR KIRBY: Whoa, I have one more.

QUESTION: Iran has begun a new crackdown on social media by arresting people, women, who were modeling clothing on photo-sharing websites. Do you have any comment on that?

MR KIRBY: We’ve seen those reports about this social media crackdown. As we’ve said before, we support freedom of expression and freedom of information all around the world. If these reports are true, we would certainly be concerned about such a crackdown and we’d call on Iranian authorities to respect the rights of its citizens to freely express themselves both on and offline. But right now we just have press reports about it.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR KIRBY: Thanks, everybody. Have a good day.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:08 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 - May 13, 2016

John Kirby

Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC

May 13, 2016









Index for Today's Briefing

AFGHANISTAN



SECRETARY KERRY TRAVEL



IRAN



SYRIA



SAUDI ARABIA



CHINA/PAKISTAN/INDIA



EGYPT



ISRAEL/PALESTINIANS



AFGHANISTAN



PAKISTAN



BRAZIL



DEPARTMENT



CHINA/THAILAND



BURMA



EGYPT




TRANSCRIPT:

12:41 p.m. EDT

MR KIRBY: Good afternoon, everybody. Happy Friday to you. Thank you. I appreciate your flexibility on the timing of the briefing today. We’re going a little early and we’re going to have to keep it a little shorter than normal. This – I’m afraid I’ve got to be elsewhere here a little bit after 1:00.

So just a couple of things at the top. I do want to note that the department’s disappointed that the Senate Armed Services Committee did not extend or authorize new visas for the Afghan Special Immigrant Visa Program, which enables, as you know, Afghans who have worked alongside our troops and our diplomats to seek refuge in the United States. Thousands of Afghans have performed this vital work often at great personal risk, and many, as you also know, have lost their lives doing it. Many are continuing to face threats to themselves, to their families, to their livelihoods. These Afghan civilians have been essential to accomplishing our mission in Afghanistan. And we thank Chairman McCain and Senator Shaheen for their longstanding commitment to this issue, and we look forward to continuing to work with them to ensure that those who bravely stood with us in Afghanistan are not abandoned.

On a travel note, and I won’t read the entire travel note – I know we’ve put that a little bit ago so you’re aware, but I do want to just hit the top lines. The Secretary will leave this evening for a trip to Saudi Arabia, Austria, Belgium, Burma, and Vietnam, and that trip will go till about the 26th of May. His first stop will be in Jeddah, where he’ll have meetings with Saudi Government officials to discuss a range of bilateral and regional issues.

He’ll then go to Vienna, Austria, where he will co-host a ministerial meeting on Libya with the Italian foreign minister, and that – we expect that meeting will focus, again, on security issues. He’s also going to co-host the ministerial meeting of the International Syria Support Group also there in Vienna, which will be designed to reaffirm, of course, and strengthen the cessation of hostilities, to discuss ways in which we can better ensure humanitarian access, and of course, to expedite a negotiated political transition there. Then together with Russia and France, he will also co-host a meeting on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict with the presidents of both Armenia and Azerbaijan.

He’ll then go to Brussels, Belgium – this will be from about the 18th to the 21st – to participate in the NATO Foreign Ministerial, which will be really focused on preparations for the Warsaw NATO Summit Heads of State and Government in July.

On the 22nd he goes to Burma to meet with key leaders there to signal U.S. support for the new democratically elected civilian-led government, and then to Vietnam, where he’ll accompany President Obama on the President’s trip to Hanoi and to Ho Chi Minh City. And I’m sure that we’ll have more and more detail as the trip unfolds, but I did want to just hit that right at the top.

Matt.

QUESTION: Right. Well, since this is kind of trip-related – the ISSG meeting – I want to start with Syria. A couple of things about it: One, this will probably be brief because I don’t think you’ll have a lot to say about it. But you probably will have seen reports that Hizballah’s top military guy was killed in Syria. I’m wondering what you make of that, what you know about it, if anything.

MR KIRBY: Don’t know a whole lot of detail. Have seen those reports. Certainly, in no position to dispute them, but we don’t have a lot of information regarding his reported death.

QUESTION: All right. The foreign minister – well, over the course of the past two, two-and-a-half years, Secretary Kerry has forged a personal relationship with the foreign minister of Iran, Mr. Zarif. Is it troubling at all that in response to the death of this Hizballah commander, Foreign Minister Zarif, according to the – Iran’s official news agency, sent his condolences to Hassan Nasrallah, the head of Hizballah, saying that he hoped the martyrdom of this great commander will further strengthen resistance forces against the Zionist and terrorism.

The Secretary was just in Europe trying to encourage banks to do legal business with Iran. They are balking. They’re resistant because of other Iranian – non-nuclear Iranian policies. What’s the view of the Secretary, if you know, or of the Administration more generally, about --

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- notes of condolence for a guy who was accused of murdering dozens at least – more probably – of Americans sanctioned by successive U.S. administrations for links to terrorism and is accused of murdering Rafik Hariri?

MR KIRBY: Well, you’re right. I mean, he was, in fact, convicted for his role in the 12 December 1983 bombings of the U.S. and French embassies in Kuwait which killed five people. And as you know, Hizballah is a designated foreign terrorist organization. So I’ve seen those comments. We certainly do not share in them one bit, and it’s disappointing to see that Foreign Minister Zarif would feel that way.

That said, we also have – know that Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism and that they have continued to support this particular group which is a designated foreign terrorist organization. And that is exactly why, when the Secretary was in London speaking with European banking institutions, on more than one occasion in that meeting he raised very specifically our continued concerns about what Iran is doing in the region. And to be clear, many of these bankers expressed that as a source of some of their skittishness that here you have a country which, while living up to their commitments under the JCPOA, are certainly still conducting any number of destabilizing activities in the world and in the region. And we understand that and the Secretary was very clear about that.

But we do not share the comments attributed to Foreign Minister Zarif and we continue to hold Hizballah as a foreign terrorist organization. And you’re right; this individual was a deeply committed terrorist.

QUESTION: All right. Well, do these kind of comments give you pause about having such a close relationship or close part – I don’t want to say partnership, but close – the Secretary and the others in the Administration, the White House, has talked about how the Iran nuclear negotiations opened up this new channel between the Secretary and Foreign Minister Zarif.

MR KIRBY: Sure, sure.

QUESTION: I mean, are you guys at all uncomfortable with --

MR KIRBY: We are – certainly, we would not associate ourselves with the foreign minister’s comments with respect to the death of Mustafa Badreddine. We wouldn’t associate ourselves at all with that. We have – because of the Iran deal there is an open channel of communication through the foreign minister that Secretary Kerry does use and will continue to use because --

QUESTION: Okay. Do you --

MR KIRBY: Will continue to use. I mean, look, Iran is a member of the ISSG so it’s our expectation --

QUESTION: Right.

MR KIRBY: -- that Iran will be represented in Vienna. The channels of communication are open and will probably stay open. That doesn’t mean by any means that we’re turning a blind eye to what Iran is capable of doing or to these comments.

QUESTION: All right. The second issue on Syria is you will have also seen reports from numerous people – Government – Syrian Government as well as opposition groups that I believe yesterday or very recently – Ahrar al-Sham, a rebel group that you guys have fought with the Russians to keep off of the banned list, to keep them included in the ceasefire, along with al-Nusrah fighters, stormed this Alawite village.

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: How is it that – I mean, they look like they are operating as one and the same, a group that you insist is not a terrorist group and a group that you insist is a terrorist group. How do you explain that? And when, if ever, are you going to tell them that they’re in danger of being unincluded in the cessation of hostilities?

MR KIRBY: There’s an awful lot there. Let me try to break this down. First of all, we’ve seen these reports and the initial reports are very, very troubling indeed in terms of the violence that were perpetrated on these families. We don’t have a whole lot of specific information about these attacks right now. Obviously, it’s reprehensible, unacceptable for any of this kind of violence to occur, particularly if, as early reports indicate, it was – it was based on religious affiliation. So we’re looking into this very, very carefully. Can’t say with great specificity at this time who we – who was responsible or who we believe was responsible.

Number two, Ashar al-Islam[1] is not, as you pointed out, not a designated foreign terrorist organization and therefore is a party to the cessation. And our expectation of them is the same expectation we have for everybody else who is a party to the cessation, that they will observe it, that they will abide by it. So we’re going to look into this and we’re going to see what we know about it. And based on the facts, then we’ll deal with it. But we expect all parties to the cessation to abide by it and we have repeatedly said that. That’s why we’re got the task force stood up. That’s why we’ve plussed up the resources. That’s why we’ve intensified the effort to be able to better monitor the violence in Syria. But this is – obviously, these are very troubling, disturbing reports that we’re taking very, very seriously.

The second – the third part which you also were getting to were the potential collusion between a group like al-Nusrah and this group. And we’ve said all along that we’ve seen some comingling, and we have seen even to some degree some troubling cooperation between certain opposition groups and al-Nusrah. Again, I’m not specifically talking about this attack, because I just don’t know enough about it to say that that’s what happened here. But our message to the armed opposition with respect to al-Nusrah and to any perceived or real cooperation or collusion has been, again, consistent. And we’ve made it clear that our expectation is that they won’t do that.

QUESTION: But have you told them that if they don’t stop doing this kind of stuff, that they’re going to be excluded and they will become legitimate targets?

MR KIRBY: We have not – I don’t want to get into --

QUESTION: And if you haven’t, why haven’t you?

MR KIRBY: I don’t want to get into specific conversations or allusions of threats here. We have certainly made clear – and done so consistently – our expectations for the opposition groups. Those that are part of the HNC and the armed opposition, we have made very clear our expectations for their behavior and conduct with respect to the cessation of hostilities. And they have seen with their own eyes what happens when they are near or operating close to al-Nusrah, when some of the opposition groups have been – have fallen victim to attacks against al-Nusrah because of their close proximity. So I think they’re very well aware of the risks inherent in operating in or near a group like that. But we’ve made very clear what our expectations are in terms of their conduct with respect to the cessation.

QUESTION: Just one simple one on Syria, sticking with the first topic. To put a fine point on it, does the U.S. Government have any information about who may have been behind the attack that killed him?

MR KIRBY: We’re going back to the Hizballah official.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) Hizballah --

MR KIRBY: I do not have additional information about it. I don’t.

QUESTION: Saudi Arabia.

QUESTION: Syria.

MR KIRBY: Syria. Let’s stay on Syria for a little bit.

QUESTION: Yesterday Staffan de Mistura said that he would await the results of the ISSG meeting before announcing the next proximity talks meeting. Considering this group has met three or four times now, the ISSG, from the U.S. perspective, what results need to take place in this upcoming meeting?

MR KIRBY: Well, I’m not going to get ahead of a meeting that hasn’t occurred yet, and I’m not going to preview specific outcomes. But as I said in my opening, and as I think we actually have in our travel note, there’s really three big items that will be discussed, and I suspect in a more comprehensive manner. And one is the cessation and trying to make sure that we can get this cessation better footed, and frankly, better observed and implemented throughout the country. And we’re very focused on that, as you know, because it continues to be fragile.

Number two, better delivery of humanitarian assistance. I mean, just today there was a convoy that was being prepared to go to Daraya to deliver much-needed food, water, and medicine supplies – had to be aborted because the regime stopped it and started pulling out the medical supplies, which they’ve done in the past. So now we have a – we have a town here who has not received a crumb of food from the UN since about 2012. So humanitarian assistance obviously is going to be, I think, a key part of the discussions.

And then lastly, of course, is the – to go right to your question, is getting the political process back on track. We all recognize that the first three rounds didn’t result in dramatic progress in terms of getting towards a transitional governing process, and we want to make sure that the next round can be more successful. So I think you’re going to see them talk about that quite a bit in terms of how that needs to be organized – not just the when and the where, but sort of how it’s going to be organized and what kinds of things need to be focused on.

QUESTION: I guess that’s what I’m getting at. The cessation, the focus on the political talks, and the humanitarian component have been part of all of the ISSG meetings up to now. What’s going to be a new approach or will there be a new approach to sort of breathe life into these issues and move this process forward?

MR KIRBY: Well, I can’t preview or predict a, quote/unquote, “new approach” here, but obviously not all the trend lines in Syria are going in the right direction. I’ve talked about humanitarian access. We’ve talked about the cessation continuing to be under threat and not to – and not to be uniformly observed. And of course, we know there has to be more progress made on the political front.

So there’s plenty of work to be done in the ISSG on all three of those fronts, and the Secretary is very mindful of the challenges still ahead. That’s why this next iteration of the ISSG is so important, and we respect and understand Special Envoy de Mistura’s desire to have the ISSG meet one more time and, perhaps as a result of that, come out with some guidance and some guidelines that he can take into the next round.

But let me just step back for a second and remind that nobody ever predicted or thought or expected that this was going to be a very clean, linear, or quick process. The war has been going on for five years and there has been an awful lot of bloodshed and suffering experienced by the Syrian people. And obviously, that has embittered the opposition to a fare-the-well, and that’s understandable. So we all understand – we know that this was going to be hard from the beginning. It’s going to remain difficult, and that’s why the Secretary is so committed to continuing to stay involved like he has.

QUESTION: Saudi Arabia?

MR KIRBY: Can we go to Saudi Arabia? Okay. All right.

QUESTION: A former member of the 9/11 Commission, John Lehman, said the commission had been aware of at least five Saudi Government officials who were strongly suspected of involvement in the terrorist support network. He said that the 9/11 investigation was terminated before all the relevant leads were able to be investigated. While I know that U.S. officials usually cite the 9/11 Commission Report, which says that there is no evidence that the Saudi Government as an institution or senior Saudi officials were involved – were – had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks – well, what about lower-level Saudi officials? Can you say the same about lower-level Saudi officials?

MR KIRBY: Well, our position hasn’t changed in terms of our view of any official, high-level Saudi involvement. There’s been no change --

QUESTION: High-level.

MR KIRBY: -- no change in our view on that.

QUESTION: What about lower level?

MR KIRBY: Look, there’s a process that’s underway right now to consider those 28 pages, which, as I know, is what gets to this, and to determine how much, if any, of those documents can be declassified and released. There’s a process for this. I’m going to refer you to Director Clapper’s office for an update on where it stands. All of the work, including the contents of the 28 pages, fed into 9/11 – their commission’s work. And I’ll say it again: We believe that that work, the 9/11 Commission’s work, provided a definitive statement about the nature of support that came from Saudi Arabia and other countries with respect to al-Qaida financing. Obviously, it did not determine that the Saudi Government had any intent to support al-Qaida.

So our position hasn’t changed on that.

QUESTION: Well, can you say with certainty that no Saudi Government resources were used to help the 9/11 hijackers?

MR KIRBY: I would point you back to what the 9/11 Commission’s work found, which we believe is still relevant today. That’s what I’d point you back to.

QUESTION: Well --

MR KIRBY: Go ahead, Lalit.

QUESTION: -- in March – in March – actually I had one more. In March, Iran was ordered by a U.S. judge to pay over $10 billion to families of 9/11 victims. Do you believe that Iran had more to do with the 9/11 attacks than Saudi Arabia did?

MR KIRBY: I would point – there’s a long history here in terms of what happened on 9/11. It’s all available publicly, and we fully support the work of the 9/11 Commission. I’d point you to that work. It’s very clear. It’s all laid out for you right there. I don’t really believe that it’s a valuable use of our time here today to re-litigate all that history. We fully support the work done by the 9/11 Commission and it’s been very clear about the responsibilities.

QUESTION: Recently, Saudi Arabia told the Obama Administration and members of Congress that it will sell off hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of its U.S. assets if Congress passes a bill that would allow the Saudi Government to be held responsible in U.S. courts for any role in the 9/11 attacks. Do you see it as extortion?

MR KIRBY: We’ve also talked about this many times here in the briefing room. I don’t really want to revisit it all again. We’ve talked about this. We’ve responded to it. As I said, we remain committed to assisting the families of all the 9/11 victims. We share in the grief that they have had to endure. We do have concerns about this bill specifically, and the Secretary testified that specifically with the precedent that it could set going forward for us and other places. So we’ve made very – very clear our own concerns about this bill. But other than that, again, we’ve reacted to this, we’ve talked about this before. I don’t have anything more to add.

Lalit.

QUESTION: There’s news reports according to which China is blocking India’s membership to a Nuclear Suppliers Group, and you know U.S. has said that it is committed to help India become a member of NSG.

MR KIRBY: Well --

QUESTION: So do --

MR KIRBY: I’m sorry?

QUESTION: So what steps U.S. is taking in that regard?

MR KIRBY: Well, first of all, I’m going to refer you to the governments of China and Pakistan with respect to their positions on India’s membership. Deliberations, as you know, about the prospects of new members joining the Nuclear Suppliers Groups are an internal matter among current members. And then I’d point you back to what the President said during his visit to India in 2015, where he reaffirmed that the U.S. view was that India, quote, “meets missile technology control regime requirements and is ready for NSG membership.”

QUESTION: So what are the hurdles that India become a membership of – member of NSG?

MR KIRBY: I’m sorry, I did not understand.

QUESTION: What are the hurdles, what are the problems in --

MR KIRBY: What are the what?

QUESTION: Hurdles.

MR KIRBY: Hurdles.

QUESTION: Hurdles.

MR KIRBY: Again, as I said before, the – this – the discussion of membership is an internal matter between those members and I’m going to refer you to the governments of China and Pakistan.

QUESTION: Do you know what state it is – the membership is right now?

MR KIRBY: I do not.

QUESTION: Application for membership is --

MR KIRBY: I don’t know.

Samir.

QUESTION: What’s on the agenda in the meeting between the Secretary and the Egyptian foreign minister today?

MR KIRBY: There’s a range of bilateral issues that the two intend to discuss. Certainly, security concerns in Egypt and in the region, our shared concerns about the counterterrorism threat, and as he always does, I would fully expect the Secretary to once again raise our concerns over human rights in Egypt.

QUESTION: Israel-Palestine?

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: Have you got any calls to read out with Mr. Abbas any time in the past few days? Has Secretary Kerry spoken to Mahmoud Abbas? And any update on the decision about whether to join the planned French meeting in Paris on May 30th?

MR KIRBY: He did speak with President Abbas yesterday. I don’t have a specific readout of it. I mean, I – as I’m sure you can imagine – first of all, he speaks frequently with President Abbas. Obviously the main purpose and topic is to continue to reaffirm our desire to see both sides take affirmative steps to get us into a position to create the kind of conditions where a two-state solution can be better pursued. I don’t have any update with respect to the French meeting at the end of the month.

QUESTION: When was the last time he spoke to President Abbas? You have that?

MR KIRBY: I do not, but he does – it’s not an infrequent thing, Arshad.

QUESTION: No decision yet regarding the participation in the conference in --

MR KIRBY: No.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Afghanistan. Nazira Karimi, Afghan journalist.

MR KIRBY: I’m sorry?

QUESTION: My name is Nazira Karimi. I am from Afghanistan, Ariana Television.

MR KIRBY: I think we’ve met before. (Laughter.) Welcome back.

QUESTION: Yes. So what do you think about President Ghani’s statements yesterday in London – international --

MR KIRBY: Which ones?

QUESTION: The one that he rejected the David Cameron’s statement that Afghanistan and Nigeria is number one on the drug and corruption and everything, but President Ghani said that the root is came from different reasons. Like, for example, drugs – consumer in Europe, in Western. So now how should Afghanistan fight against those? Because as I mentioned and Mr. Ghani mentioned, that the consumer of the drug in Afghanistan is European people.

MR KIRBY: Well, look, a couple of thoughts. I mean, first of all, the narcotics trade in Afghanistan obviously has been a longstanding problem. We know that the Taliban continues to profit and to resource itself off the narcotics trade, so this is not a new concern. And the second thing I’d say is that – and the Secretary met with President Ghani privately yesterday – we support his efforts at reform and at building a unity government. His work with Chief Executive Abdullah remains important, and we know that he’s very focused on the issue of corruption in Afghanistan and we fully support those efforts.

QUESTION: Follow-up on the same meeting. President Ghani also said that Afghanistan is fighting an undeclared war with Pakistan. Do you agree with his assessment?

MR KIRBY: I didn’t see those comments, but look, what we continue to believe and continue to see is that Afghanistan and Pakistan still face a shared threat from terrorist networks – terrorist networks which continue to still use the spine between those two countries as safe haven. That’s why we still have a counterterrorism presence in Afghanistan. It’s why we continue to work with the Government of Pakistan as best we can to help share information as appropriate to help all sides go after this shared threat. This is a shared, common enemy to the people of Afghanistan and to the people of Pakistan, and they have been working and communicating together, and we want to see that kind of dialogue and cooperation continue and to improve.

QUESTION: And linked to that is one of the Afghanistan minister has asked Pakistan to immediately open the Torkham border crossing, which has been closed by Pakistan for quite some time now. Afghanistan thinks that it is a retaliation by Pakistan because the tension between the two countries.

MR KIRBY: I – just before coming out here, I got updated that the gate was open, so as far as I know – and, I mean, I could be wrong here, this was an update I just got out – before coming out here – was that the gate had been reopened. Obviously, we want to see – we want – if it’s open, we want to see it stay open, obviously. If I’m wrong about that and it technically hasn’t been opened yet or it’s not open yet, obviously, we want to see both sides work – to work through these differences and to get it open because --

QUESTION: And one more.

MR KIRBY: -- it’s an important – go ahead.

QUESTION: Quickly on the Pakistan’s foreign advisor to Pakistan’s prime minister, Sartaj Aziz, in the parliament today said that the relationship between Pakistan and U.S. has been under stress for the last few months. What is the reason for that stress?

MR KIRBY: I didn’t see his comments, so I’m going to refrain from responding specifically to that sentiment. I will say again what we’ve said before: It is a important, vital relationship that we strongly believe in. Is it complicated at times? Absolutely, it is. And do we see eye-to-eye on every issue with Pakistan? No, we don’t. But that’s why the relationship matters so much, because we have shared threats and shared concerns, shared interest in the region, and we’re going to continue to work at it.

QUESTION: But do you agree that at this point of time, you don’t have the best of the relationship with Pakistan?

MR KIRBY: We have – it is an important relationship that we continue to work at very, very seriously, and we are – we’re going to remain committed to. And I would not share that characterization of it.

QUESTION: I have got two very brief ones, one on Brazil. You will have seen the interim government has been formed or is pretty close to being completely formed and there are no women on it, very few if any minorities. I’m just wondering if you have any thoughts about the inclusivity or lack thereof in this new – in this new government and if it causes you any concerns.

MR KIRBY: We obviously are continuing to follow political developments there. These matters of the government and the composition of it are internal matters for the Brazilian people and Brazilian authorities to decide and to speak to. What we are confident is that we’re going to – that Brazil (a) will work through the political challenges that they’re facing in a democratic way, and that we will continue to look for ways to work with the new government going forward.

QUESTION: Well, okay. That’s – I mean, okay, but this Administration – when Secretary Clinton was the secretary and Secretary Kerry as well – has put great emphasis when they go abroad to talk about particularly including women in positions of government. The phrase, “No country can perform to its full outcome if -- ”

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- “50 percent of the team is on the bench” has been – I mean, that’s been a recurring theme --

MR KIRBY: We’re --

QUESTION: -- in countries all over the place. So I’m a little bit surprised that you don’t – does that not apply to Brazil?

MR KIRBY: We’re not walking away from that sentiment at all, Matt. I mean, the – you’ve heard the Secretary speak much about the power of diversity here at the State Department and in – and democracies overseas. And we still believe that for a democracy to achieve its full potential, it does need to include and represent all manners of society.

QUESTION: Okay. So why wouldn’t you be concerned about this situation in Brazil?

MR KIRBY: What I’m saying is that they’re going through a period of significant political challenge now. We’re watching this and following it as closely as we can. We believe that Brazil has a strong enough democracy to work through all this, and we’re also convinced that because the relationship is so important, that we will continue to have a strong bilateral relationship with Brazil. But I’m – largely but generally speaking, obviously, more diversity is always a better thing.

QUESTION: And then the last one is completely unrelated but it goes back to the subject we’ve been talking about for several days this week, which is the glitch, the quote/unquote “glitch” in the briefing video, that we were told there’s a look into what happened, how this happened, if it was done intentionally, if it was content-related, if it was audio gap-related, whatever.

MR KIRBY: Right.

QUESTION: Has – have you guys come to a determination of how exactly this happened?

MR KIRBY: No, we haven’t, Matt. But I can tell you – and I say this as not just the spokesman for the department, but the assistant secretary of state for public affairs, that I’m very concerned by this, and I have every intention of making sure that we look into it thoroughly and try to get answers as best we can about what happened here. We have an obligation to be transparent and to be fully so, and I take that very, very seriously. So we are still looking at it. I don’t have an answer for you as to what exactly happened.

QUESTION: But from what you know so far, is there – do you have any reason to believe that this was done intentionally because of the content of what the – what the (inaudible)?

MR KIRBY: I do not – I don’t have enough information right now to say one way or the other.

QUESTION: All right. Any idea --

MR KIRBY: And I’m not – and I don’t want to get ahead of a process.

QUESTION: Any idea when this – when you might be – when whoever is looking at it might be finished with it?

MR KIRBY: I do not. I don’t.

QUESTION: Two quick ones, please. One, do you have any comment on the plans announced by the Chinese Government today for China and Thailand to begin doing some military exercises on May 18th and --

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- sorry, May 19th to June 20th?

MR KIRBY: Seen those reports. Obviously, national militaries have a right, if not a responsibility, to exercise their capabilities. And I’d let China and Thailand speak to the scope of the exercises, the purposes for it, the outcomes that they’re trying to achieve. We exercise bilaterally and multilaterally all the time. There’s no reason why those two nations shouldn’t also have the opportunity to exercise their militaries.

QUESTION: Are you worried that the Chinese are filling a gap or a vacuum left by the United States, which, as you well know, has suspended its military exercises until – with Thailand until there’s a democratic election?

MR KIRBY: Well, again, I’d let China and Thailand speak for the outcomes that they’re seeking in this exercise and for the purposes behind it. I would strongly rebut any characterization that we somehow ceded opportunities in the Asia Pacific. As a matter of fact, quite the opposite. The United States military – and I don’t want to get into too much military issues here, but we have from a military perspective alone – and not just military, but from that perspective alone – dedicated a lot more resources, time, energy, and talent into the Asia Pacific region.

QUESTION: And then last one from me: Do you have any comment on the Myanmar Government’s proposal to keep some of the prior government curbs on protests and limitations on freedom of speech?

MR KIRBY: Just seeing these reports. Obviously, you know where we stand on the right of peaceful protest and freedom of expression. This is something that we endorse all around the world and certainly there as well. So just seeing these reports. Obviously, it’s concerning, but again, our position with respect to peaceful protest and expression are long, longstanding.

I’m afraid I’m going to have to wrap it up.

QUESTION: Just one last one --

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- on this GAO report into your arms sales to Egypt. Apparently you didn’t follow through on your own controls on who got the weapons. Have procedures been improved since the period covered by the report?

MR KIRBY: Well, first of all, we welcome the work of the GAO and we’re obviously – we take the report seriously. We accept the GAO’s recommendations for strengthening end-use monitoring, and we intend to utilize available programs to help improve the completeness and timeliness of responses from the Egyptian Government. And I’d also note that we’re – are in complete compliance with requirements for end-use monitoring in Egypt. But review and monitoring are an integral component of the process, and this is to make sure that U.S.-origin defense articles are being used in the manner intended for and are consistent with our legal obligations, foreign policy goals, and values. But we take the report’s finding seriously and, again, we accept their recommendations.

Okay, thanks.

QUESTION: But if you’re in complete compliance, why is there a report in the first place?

MR KIRBY: It doesn’t – well, because you can always improve. It doesn’t mean – being in compliance doesn’t mean that you can’t always improve.

QUESTION: I mean, it’s a pretty damning report. It basically says that you’ve have been falling down on the job completely --

MR KIRBY: And look, we take it --

QUESTION: -- not in complete compliance, but in --

MR KIRBY: We take the report seriously and we’re going to accept their recommendations.

Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 1:18 p.m.)

[1] Ahrar al-Sham

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 - May 12, 2016

Elizabeth Trudeau

Director, Press Office
Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC

May 12, 2016









Index for Today's Briefing

BRAZIL



SYRIA



BAHRAIN



BRAZIL



TURKEY/SYRIA



SUDAN/UGANDA/DJIBOUTI



BANGLADESH



BURMA



COUNTER-ISIL COALITION



PAKISTAN



CHINA



UGANDA



MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS




TRANSCRIPT:

2:05 p.m. EDT

MS TRUDEAU: Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to the State Department. I don’t have anything at the top. Tomorrow you get Mr. Kirby back at the podium, but it’s been a good week. So with that, I turn it over to Matt.

QUESTION: Right. What do I have? I can’t read my writing. Oh, oh --

MS TRUDEAU: But wait. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: No, I’ll defer to Arshad. I really honestly can’t read my writing here.

QUESTION: Can we – let’s just do one quick one to get it out of the way --

MS TRUDEAU: Sure.

QUESTION: -- and then maybe then we can turn to Syria. But with – do you have any comment on the suspension of Rousseff as Brazil’s president?

MS TRUDEAU: So thanks for the question. We continue to follow political developments in Brazil. We are confident Brazil will work through its political challenges democratically in accordance with its constitutional principles.

QUESTION: And then going to Syria --

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- the cessation of hostilities seems to have unraveled with the expiration of the 48-hour time period north of Aleppo. What are you doing to try to restore that, if anything?

MS TRUDEAU: Okay. So we’ve talked about it extensively this week. We believe the nationwide cessation of hostilities remains in place, remains open-ended. Again, as we’ve said repeatedly, we know that there are these areas of violence. We understand that these attacks continue in some of these places. However, as we said on Monday with our joint statement with the Russian Federation, we remain committed to advancing this and creating that space for a political dialogue and transition.

QUESTION: But are you actually doing anything? I mean, it’s all very well to say that a theoretical construct remains in place and is open-ended, but if it has unraveled, as we have seen repeatedly since it was originally imposed or agreed to, are you making any fresh efforts to --

MS TRUDEAU: So we are. Both the United States and the Russians are currently focusing in those areas that you’re mentioning – making efforts to continue the confidence-building measures, speaking to people on the ground to continue the cessation as we move forward.

QUESTION: Who’s doing that? And is the Secretary himself doing anything on this? Has he talked to Foreign Minister Lavrov or --

MS TRUDEAU: Well, as we take a look at the ISSG moving forward, we continue to have these conversations. We’re speaking on the ground. This is part of the process that we have structured. This is something that happens day to day, hour to hour. So the commitment’s there.

Matt. Could you read your writing?

QUESTION: Right. Okay. So what I couldn’t read was Brazil.

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Because --

MS TRUDEAU: Good chat. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Yeah. But I have another B question, and it has to do with Bahrain.

MS TRUDEAU: Yes.

QUESTION: Very recently, I think over the course – over the past weekend, the head of the commission that they set up to look into the protests and the violence there said that all of the recommendations of its – of the commission had been implemented. I’m wondering if you – if the Administration takes that view, or do you think that there – this is still a work in progress, needs to be – needs more to be – more needs to be done?

MS TRUDEAU: So you’re speaking about the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry?

QUESTION: BICI.

MS TRUDEAU: Yep. And Professor Bassiouni. So we are aware of media reports attributing statements to the chair of the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry, Professor Bassiouni. We’d refer you to the Government of Bahrain or Professor Bassiouni for any questions about his recent visit to Bahrain and to his assessment of Bahrain’s implementation of the commission’s recommendations.

I’d note Congress has requested a report on the Administration’s assessment of Bahrain’s implementation of the BICI recommendations. We’re currently finalizing that report. As we’ve said, the government has implemented a number of important reforms, including key recommendations made by the Bahraini Independent Commission of Inquiry. These include human rights training for police, establishing institutions of oversight and accountability, and rebuilding mosques that were destroyed in 2011. We continue to both privately and publicly raise our concerns with Bahrain regarding several areas covered in the BICI report, including limitations on peaceful assembly and political activism, the criminalization of free expression, and the importance of reconciliation.

QUESTION: So in other words, whether it was this guy saying everything had been implemented or anyone else, the Administration does not think that everything has been implemented, judging by --

MS TRUDEAU: We continue to raise some concerns. So we believe some have been done --

QUESTION: But some have not been done?

MS TRUDEAU: We continue to raise concerns on that --

QUESTION: Okay. And when do you – that report, I believe, is several months overdue now. No?

MS TRUDEAU: So I asked this exact question. I’m told soon. It is due to Congress. We’re very aware of that. We’re committed to getting it.

QUESTION: When was it due?

MS TRUDEAU: I don’t know when it was due.

QUESTION: Was it February?

MS TRUDEAU: I am not sure on that, Matt.

QUESTION: I believe it was. So we’re now in May.

MS TRUDEAU: Was that a hypothetical question, Matt?

QUESTION: No. No. But --

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah. So we are committed to getting it to Congress. So we’re working on it now.

QUESTION: Okay. But you don’t have a timeframe?

MS TRUDEAU: I don’t. I’m sorry.

QUESTION: And am I correct in thinking that when the report is sent to – when it’s completed and sent to Congress, it will have a more definitive finding than what you’re --

MS TRUDEAU: I believe that it’ll have a comprehensive finding. We’ve had a number of State Department representatives working to finalize a thorough, accurate report that includes information from a variety of sources.

QUESTION: I’m sorry if this has happened and I missed it, but we’ve – the question of the Bahraini activist who was --

MS TRUDEAU: Zainab al-Khawaja.

QUESTION: Exactly. Zainab al-Khawaja. Has she, indeed, been released?

MS TRUDEAU: So we’re aware that Bahrain’s ministry of foreign affairs announced on Monday – this past Monday – that Zainab al-Khawaja would be released. However, to our knowledge, she remains in prison – in detention with her child. We’ve closely monitored the case since her arrest and incarceration. We’ve discussed this issue with the Government of Bahrain. I don’t have further information to do – but for a status on her case, I’d refer you to the government.

QUESTION: Well, do you know if the Secretary plans to raise this personally? Because the commitment was made to him in person while he was visiting Manama.

MS TRUDEAU: I can’t speak to the Secretary’s conversations, but this is a case where, as you know, we’ve been closely monitoring.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Hi.

MS TRUDEAU: Hi.

QUESTION: Marcelo Ninio from Brazilian newspaper Folha de Sao Paulo.

MS TRUDEAU: Thank you for joining us.

QUESTION: Good afternoon. I wanted to ask about Brazil first. It’s – what the State Department and the U.S. Government expect about the relationship with the interim governments? And has there been any communication yet with the new government?

MS TRUDEAU: Well, I can’t speak to our embassy communication there. As you know, we maintain a strong bilateral relationship between our two countries. As the two largest democracies in the hemisphere, Brazil and the United States are committed partners. We cooperate with Brazil on a number of issues – trade, security, environment. We expect that’ll continue.

QUESTION: I have a follow-up --

MS TRUDEAU: Of course.

QUESTION: -- about the protocol of the President’s call to newly – new governments or new presidents. Can you explain how this – when – how does it work?

MS TRUDEAU: If you’re asking a presidential question, I’m going to refer you to the White House on that. Okay. Thank you though.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Turkey.

MS TRUDEAU: Turkey.

QUESTION: The Turkish president says his country is ready to take unilateral action against ISIL in Syria, saying that Turkey hasn’t received the support that it wants from its allies. What do you think about Turkey taking unilateral action in Syria?

MS TRUDEAU: So I’ve seen those reports. We’re going to refer you to the Turkish Government to speak to that. We view our NATO ally Turkey as a key partner in the coalition to counter ISIL. As we do with all of our partners, we continue to discuss with Turkey our – strengthening our cooperation. I would, again, refer you to Turkish authorities on any operation they may be planning.

QUESTION: Yeah. Erdogan – well, he says that the allies are not supporting Turkey the way it wants. Has the U.S. received a request for support from Turkey? And what kind of support does it want from the U.S.?

MS TRUDEAU: So we’re in constant dialogue with Ankara on this. And as I said, our cooperation and our relationship with Turkey is one of allies and partners and friends.

QUESTION: Well, what do you think about Ankara’s complaint?

MS TRUDEAU: Again, I’d refer you to Turkish authorities to speak specifically to the president’s comments.

Ma’am.

QUESTION: What’s your reaction to the Sudanese president slipping into Uganda today, in defiance of an arrest warrant, and slipping back out again without being arrested?

MS TRUDEAU: So --

QUESTION: And was anyone from the U.S. Embassy present at the inauguration of the new president? And if so, how did they react?

MS TRUDEAU: Okay. Thank you very much for the question.

QUESTION: Re-inauguration of the old president.

MS TRUDEAU: So the United States has made its position with respect to Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir’s travel very clear. We’re concerned that President Bashir has been able to travel to Uganda as well as Djibouti in the past. In Kampala, President Museveni made disparaging remarks about the ICC in front of attendees, including other heads of state. In response to President Bashir’s presence and President Museveni’s remarks, the United States delegation, along with representatives of the European Union countries and Canada, departed the inauguration ceremonies to demonstrate our objection.

We believe that walking out in protest in an appropriate reaction to a head of state mocking efforts to ensure accountability for victims of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, particularly when his country has committed to accountability as a state party to the Rome Statute. While the United States is not a party to the Rome Statute, which is a treaty that established the ICC, we strongly support the ICC’s efforts to hold accountable those responsible for genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes in Darfur.

QUESTION: What did he say?

MS TRUDEAU: I’m – I don’t have the exact transcript in front of me. It was my understanding he spoke to – you know what? I’m going to have you take a look. I’m not going to extrapolate here.

QUESTION: Can I ask a couple on this?

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MS TRUDEAU: I’ll come to --

QUESTION: Prior to the actual inauguration, was there any contact between the U.S. and the – the U.S. and Ugandan governments about the appropriateness of President Bashir attending?

MS TRUDEAU: When U.S. officials who were present at the ceremony learned of President Bashir’s arrival, we relayed our concerns immediately to the Ugandan prime minister and foreign minister in light of President Bashir’s status as the subject of ICC arrest warrants for genocide and other atrocity crimes in Darfur.

QUESTION: And did – I mean, I’m not – was the decision made that it was – even though he did arrive, they didn’t – basically they ignored your complaint and presumably the complaint of – complaints of Europeans. But why did they even then go to the ceremony if President Bashir was going to be --

MS TRUDEAU: So Uganda is – we do have bilateral ties with Uganda. However, they found that President Museveni’s comments about the ICC with President Bashir there – the two issues together. And --

QUESTION: So – but they went, so – they obviously went, because they walked out.

MS TRUDEAU: They did, they did.

QUESTION: But why was it appropriate for them to even go in the first place if your concerns about President Bashir were ignored?

MS TRUDEAU: So considering our bilateral ties with Uganda – it was the presidential inauguration – we did make our concerns known. However, when President Museveni did make those comments, we found it appropriate to leave.

QUESTION: Okay, but I mean – so, first of all, who was the U.S. delegation? Was that --

MS TRUDEAU: Which was Arshad’s question.

QUESTION: Yeah, sorry.

MS TRUDEAU: It was Ambassador Malac as well as our Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary Bruce Wharton.

QUESTION: So there was someone from Washington.

MS TRUDEAU: Washington, yes, there was.

QUESTION: But here’s what – I mean, why is it okay to sit in the VIP section with President Bashir, or wherever it was they were – why is that okay or it was deemed to be okay and then it was only when President Museveni made his comments that – against the ICC that it was determined that they shouldn’t --

MS TRUDEAU: So we raised our concerns, as I mentioned --

QUESTION: Yeah.

MS TRUDEAU: -- with Uganda, as we did when he was previously in Djibouti. And consistent with our bilateral relationship with Uganda, we did feel it was appropriate to attend.

QUESTION: Well – so there was no walkout at the Djibouti inauguration, correct?

MS TRUDEAU: No there was not.

QUESTION: Is that only because the president – the --

MS TRUDEAU: We did not --

QUESTION: -- re-inaugurated president of Djibouti didn’t make any disparaging comments about the ICC?

MS TRUDEAU: So we had no interaction with the Sudanese president at the inaugural ceremony in Djibouti, but they did feel at this time, considering both President Bashir’s presence as well as President Museveni’s comments, that it was appropriate to show --

QUESTION: Right. I --

MS TRUDEAU: -- to show our concern.

QUESTION: But I’m just trying to find out – maybe this is a protocol question, but why is it okay to sit with him, but – and it’s only when another leader insults the ICC that it’s --

MS TRUDEAU: I think it was – I think it was the two issues together, Matt.

QUESTION: Yeah, but, I mean, why did they go in Djibouti?

MS TRUDEAU: So again, we have bilateral relations with Djibouti.

QUESTION: Yeah.

MS TRUDEAU: We have a strength of relationship with both Djibouti and Uganda on this. What we found is what happened with President Museveni’s comments as well as the presence of President Bashir.

QUESTION: Right, but do you understand what I mean?

MS TRUDEAU: I --

QUESTION: My question is: Why is it – why is it only appropriate to walk out if the – if President – when President Museveni makes comments, when they were perfectly happy to --

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah. I’d refer you to President Museveni’s comments, as we mentioned, mocking the --

QUESTION: Yeah. And I can understand why they would walk out if that happened. What I don’t understand is why they were there in the first place after the Ugandan Government ignored your concerns about President Bashir being there in the first place and President Bashir showed up and participated or attended.

MS TRUDEAU: Again, it was a bilateral decision to attend the inauguration of an important U.S. partner.

QUESTION: Here’s something I don’t quite understand.

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah.

QUESTION: Your decision to walk out was a function of dismay at Museveni’s comments about the ICC or Bashir’s presence or both?

MS TRUDEAU: It’s both. This goes back to Matt’s question.

QUESTION: Okay, so it’s both. And then secondly, was there – I know you said that as soon as you learned of his presence at the ceremony – do you mean, like, that he had actually shown up at the ceremony, or rather --

MS TRUDEAU: So it was after President Museveni’s comments that our delegation left, as well as other delegations.

QUESTION: No, no, no, I get that.

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah.

QUESTION: But what I didn’t understand was at some point you were asked – and I believe you said that as soon as you learned of President Bashir’s presence, you raised your concerns.

MS TRUDEAU: As soon as we learned about his planned travel and his presence, we did raise our concerns with the --

QUESTION: And how did you do that?

MS TRUDEAU: We raised our concerns with both the prime minister and the Ugandan foreign minister. I’m not sure if it was a demarche or --

QUESTION: Can you check that?

MS TRUDEAU: I can. If I have anything to add --

QUESTION: Okay.

MS TRUDEAU: It’s a question of detail on that. But if I do have something to add, I’ll get back to you.

QUESTION: And following on that, apart from your concern about President Bashir presence and the Ugandan president comments, are you concerned also about the fact that the Ugandan president is starting his fifth term as president?

MS TRUDEAU: So the United States and Uganda have a longstanding and strong partnership. We are concerned the Ugandan Government’s recent actions could endanger the economic and political process that has allowed our strong bilateral relationship to grow. We do urge the government to take steps to reverse this troubling trend.

QUESTION: On the Sudan – the Sudan Government held a referendum last month in Darfur and they said it was very successful and it’s going to end the crisis in Darfur. Do you accept that?

MS TRUDEAU: We actually put out a statement, I think you remember, on April 9th that specifically spoke about our concerns with the referendum in Darfur. We spoke about our concerns with the timing of the Darfur referendum due to conditions on the ground not being right for holding a vote – a widespread insecurity currently exists, there are millions of internally displaced individuals still. Again, we thought that the referendum posed a risk of setting back efforts to secure a monitored cessation of hostilities and humanitarian access in the conflict-afflicted areas, so --

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS TRUDEAU: Lalit.

QUESTION: Yeah, on Bangladesh --

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- there was a demonstration yesterday near Dupont Circle on rise in extremist violence in Bangladesh. I know assistant secretary was in Bangladesh last week. Do you think the government is doing – there’s enough to take care to protect religious minorities in the country?

MS TRUDEAU: Okay. So we’re troubled by the recent spate of extremist attacks in Bangladesh. We’re confident, however, that these attacks do not represent the views of and are rejected by the overwhelming majority of Bangladeshis. These attacks are being carried out by a small group of terrorists who seek to stifle independent thought, to violently attack those who disagree with him. We believe the government is working to address this problem. Our focus is on supporting their efforts to do so effectively while still respecting human rights.

Bangladesh has a proud and historic tradition of being a pluralistic society that values diversity and welcomes the free exchange of ideas. These are the very values that these extremists are attacking.

QUESTION: To what extent extremist organization like al-Qaida or ISIS have established their foothold in Bangladesh? Do you have a list?

MS TRUDEAU: I believe the Government of Bangladesh has spoken specifically to your question. I’d refer you there to speak about that as well as their own counterterrorism efforts. We continue to stand with the Government of Bangladesh as they take a look at violent extremism across the spectrum.

QUESTION: Staying in the region?

MS TRUDEAU: Of course.

QUESTION: So there is a report which cites as its original source the Facebook page of Myanmar official Shwe Mann that U.S. Ambassador Scot Marciel told him that he would be careful in future about how he – about saying things that displease the Myanmar people. Is there any truth to – this is all obviously over the use of the word “Rohingya” – is there any truth to that report? Is that what Ambassador Marciel told this gentleman?

MS TRUDEAU: So I can’t speak to that meeting specifically.

QUESTION: You – you don’t – have you tried to find out?

MS TRUDEAU: So I can speak to the use of the word “Rohingya,” but I can’t speak to that meeting specifically. I’m sorry, Arshad.

QUESTION: Well, is it the policy of the Administration that officials will be careful in using the word “Rohingya” from --

MS TRUDEAU: No.

QUESTION: -- going --

MS TRUDEAU: It is – the United States supports the ability of all groups to self-identify. If members of a population identify as Rohingya, we respect their ability to self-identify by using the term “Rohingya.”

QUESTION: And there is no reason to believe nor reason to think that Ambassador Marciel had strayed from that position, correct?

MS TRUDEAU: I believe that Ambassador Marciel has expressed that view. I can’t speak to this --

QUESTION: He has expressed what – he has expressed the position of --

MS TRUDEAU: The Administration.

QUESTION: But you can’t speak to whether he was misquoted, for example, or whether he said maybe he’ll be a little more careful?

MS TRUDEAU: I haven’t seen the Facebook post, I --

QUESTION: Yeah.

MS TRUDEAU: So no, I can’t speak to that meeting.

QUESTION: And then one other one. I mean, in his – in the Q&A that was widely reported, he – what I’ve seen him saying was that the Rohingya get to decide what they’re going to be called and that’s the U.S. practice. So why is it that the United States has for so many years referred to a country that at least the previous government preferred to call Myanmar as Burma, a term they didn’t like.

MS TRUDEAU: So that’s the U.S. position that that’s what we call them.

QUESTION: So you call people what they want to be called, except in the case of Burma?

MS TRUDEAU: I’m going to leave that where it is.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Yesterday Turkish minister of foreign affairs told that – I mean, he was talking about the struggle against ISIS, and he told we don’t even have a strategy to destroy ISIS. Our strategy is in pieces, and many of those pieces didn’t work. We are powerless, that we hope for help from some radical groups on the ground. Is there a strong strategy against ISIS, I want to ask, after his remarks?

MS TRUDEAU: Okay. Well, I’m not going to speak to the remarks of a foreign leader. I think your colleague has asked this already. We believe we’ve made important progress on the counter-ISIL coalition, certainly along the military line of effort in the last two months. Josh Earnest spoke about this yesterday too from the White House. This is not a fast fix. This is a long fight. This is day-to-day taking ground. And not only the military, but also fighting back against the different areas of effort: the foreign terrorist fighters, the financing, countering the messaging that is online. So yes, we do think we’ve made progress, but on those specific comments, I’m not going to discuss those.

Yes.

QUESTION: Which are, do you think, the radical groups that they hope help?

MS TRUDEAU: Again, I’m not going to speak to a foreign leader’s comments. I’d refer you to him to speak to that.

QUESTION: Okay. Can I have one more on Turkey about Syria?

MS TRUDEAU: You know what; we’ll come back to you if we have time.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS TRUDEAU: Go ahead.

QUESTION: On the South China Sea, China again spoke out against the arbitration process and saying that they wouldn’t accept it. Do you have a response?

MS TRUDEAU: I don’t. We’re very clear where we are on that.

QUESTION: And they also said that the arbitration process opens up a Pandora box of possible counter-litigation. Do you see that as a threat?

MS TRUDEAU: I’m not going to respond to that comment. We’re very clear on where we are on that.

Lalit.

QUESTION: I have one on Pakistan. The House Armed Services Committee last week passes – passed NDAA 2017, according to which they have increased the condition for the release of U.S. aid to Pakistan.

MS TRUDEAU: The Coalition Support Funds?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah.

QUESTION: By 450 million until, unless you certify that Pakistan has taken appropriate action against the Haqqani Network.

MS TRUDEAU: Okay.

QUESTION: And in connection with the F-16s commitments (inaudible), do you consider those considerations – what’s your take on that?

MS TRUDEAU: Okay. So we’ve spoken about our view on the Haqqani Network from here before. So Coalition Support Funds are a Department of Defense matter. For details on that, I’m going to refer you to the Department of Defense. I will note key members of Congress have been clear they’re not prepared to support U.S. military aid to Pakistan absent some specific actions. I would direct you to Congress, those specific members, for anything further on their position. As always, we’re committed to working with Congress to deliver security assistance to our partners and allies. It furthers U.S. goals by building capacity to meet shared security challenges.

QUESTION: But is the State Department willing to certify that or say that the Pakistan is taking enough action against Haqqani Network?

MS TRUDEAU: So we’ve spoken about our views on Haqqani quite a bit as well as what we view Pakistan needs to do. Pakistan has spoken that they will not discriminate against groups. We could encourage them to continue to live up to that.

QUESTION: So on this issue, you and the Congress are on different page on --

MS TRUDEAU: So we continue to work with Congress, as I said.

Okay, Nike.

QUESTION: Right. Do you have anything on Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security Gottemoeller’s meeting with her counterpart?

MS TRUDEAU: The China meeting?

QUESTION: Yes.

MS TRUDEAU: I do.

QUESTION: Is that today or yesterday?

MS TRUDEAU: It was today. Under Secretary Rose Gottemoeller hosted the U.S.-China Security Dialogue at the Department of State today. She was joined by Assistant Secretary for International Security and Nonproliferation Countryman, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary Anita Friedt, as well as other interagency officials from the National Security Council and the Department of Defense. Discussions focused on a range of bilateral and regional security issues, including arms control, nonproliferation, missile defense, and disarmament.

QUESTION: Did she also attended yesterday’s meeting on cyber security or outer space?

MS TRUDEAU: So the lead on that was actually the Coordinator for Cyber Issues Painter. I’m not sure the under secretary’s participation in the cyber meeting.

QUESTION: Can I ask you a follow-up to that?

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah.

QUESTION: How does the so-called Senior Experts Group on cyber issues differ from the Working Group on Cyber Issues that China ceased attending in 2014?

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah. So just for clarity point because I think you guys know this, for others watching at home, these are different meetings. So I do have some information on the cyber meeting. So the governments of the United States and China held the first Senior Experts Group, which was your question, Arshad --

QUESTION: No, my question was: What’s the difference between the two groups?

MS TRUDEAU: And I’ll get there.

QUESTION: Okay, yeah.

MS TRUDEAU: To international security and cyber space on May 11th. This new meeting – and it is a different meeting from previous meetings – was an element of the cyber commitments made by Presidents Obama and Xi in September 2015. I can go on and read it out, but I do want to note that this was different. This was based on the commitments made in September 2015 – different people.

QUESTION: How is it different?

MS TRUDEAU: So it’s my understanding different people, different scope, different process of meeting.

QUESTION: So is it two levels of people? Is it more junior-level people, for example? And scope – is it a narrower scope or a wider scope?

MS TRUDEAU: So I can’t speak to the scope. I can say that they spoke about international security and cyber space – the international law on state behavior in cyber space, voluntary international norms of state behavior, cyber confidence-building measures. It was led by the coordinator for cyber issues here at the department, but I am told it’s a different group than the previous.

QUESTION: Could you take that question? Because I’d actually like to know how it differs in --

MS TRUDEAU: -- in the detail?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MS TRUDEAU: We can look into it.

QUESTION: I mean, it shouldn’t be that hard. You had people at the original meetings and you’ve had people at different meetings --

MS TRUDEAU: I am told that this is a different group.

QUESTION: Yeah, I get that.

MS TRUDEAU: It actually came from 2015.

QUESTION: Yeah, I get that.

MS TRUDEAU: And Matt Lee.

QUESTION: I have a question on both of them.

MS TRUDEAU: Hold on one second, Nike. Do you want to --

QUESTION: She can go.

MS TRUDEAU: Do you want to go then?

QUESTION: This is a different subject.

MS TRUDEAU: Okay, Nike. Is this a follow-up?

QUESTION: Right. Is there any – is there any indication like that China has actually followed through the cyber commitments from last fall that no – what’s the word – the cyber-enabled theft should be used for commercial gains? Is there any indication that the commitments was actually --

MS TRUDEAU: So I’m not going to – I’m not going to grade China on its commitments. What I would say is that we continue to have this dialogue. This meeting on May 11th is a good indication that we stay engaged, we stay in discussions, we talk about these international norms.

QUESTION: When you mentioned that this is a good mechanism for confidence building --

MS TRUDEAU: It is.

QUESTION: -- how exactly is that going to work? Is that going to be worked through constant meetings or would that be under the umbrella of the Strategic & Economic Dialogue?

MS TRUDEAU: So we understand that the senior group will be meeting twice a year now.

Okay, Matt.

QUESTION: I wanted to go – ask – to ask you a general question. Twice in this briefing so far you’ve been asked about comments of foreign leaders, and you declined to. You referred us back to them. And the one time when you weren’t asked about the comments of foreign leaders --

MS TRUDEAU: I volunteered.

QUESTION: -- you did speak out on them. Where is – where do you draw the line? Why is it that it’s the department or the Administration deems it appropriate to criticize President Museveni for his comments about the ICC and you don’t see the need to comment on the --

MS TRUDEAU: We view President Museveni’s comments were mocking the victims of genocide and seeking accountability – we view that that was appropriate for us to speak out.

QUESTION: Okay, thanks.

MS TRUDEAU: Good.

QUESTION: When was the last time that U.S. diplomats staged a protest like that to the --

MS TRUDEAU: I don’t know, Carol, and I’ll look. I’m not even sure how we would start to look at that, but let me find out. If we’ve got anything, we’ll come back to you.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: Do you have any comment on reports that dozens of Russian athletes from the 2014 Olympics, including 15 medal winners, were found to be part of a state-run doping program?

MS TRUDEAU: I do not.

Sir.

QUESTION: On Japan.

MS TRUDEAU: Yes.

QUESTION: There have been reports that the U.S. Government discussed the purpose of President Obama’s visit to Hiroshima with the Korean Government. Can you confirm those reports?

MS TRUDEAU: I cannot. For questions regarding the President’s travel, I’d direct you to the White House.

Matt.

QUESTION: A follow-up from yesterday.

MS TRUDEAU: Sure.

QUESTION: Just wondering if you were able to find out whether or not U.S. officials had raised the situation of Omar Barghouti directly with the Israelis or if you are just going to stick to the public comments that you made yesterday.

MS TRUDEAU: Okay. So thank you for that. Today is a holiday in Israel. I have no updates on our conversations with the Israelis, however we will discuss this with the Israelis, as we do a range of other issues. Our strong opposition, of course, to boycotts and sanctions of the state of Israel is well known, however I would reiterate, as a general principle, we support the freedom of movement as well as freedom of expression even in cases when we do not agree with the political views espoused.

QUESTION: Okay. And is it – is it safe to assume, for lack of a better word – assume, that that will be the message that you – that is delivered to the Israelis as well as --

MS TRUDEAU: As we say this publicly, we say it privately.

QUESTION: Right. You said – okay, so that one was --

MS TRUDEAU: That’s great. Thanks – whoops.

QUESTION: No, no, no.

MS TRUDEAU: Not --

QUESTION: Not getting away so easily.

MS TRUDEAU: But we’ve been doing so well, Matt.

QUESTION: I need to ask you one more time: Have you all gotten to the bottom of the glitch in the video of the – of the briefing?

MS TRUDEAU: So we continue to take a look at it. We take this seriously. What we’re doing is not only reviewing what happened in the past but also ensuring that we can guarantee that transparency going forward, so we’re in discussions now. I don’t have a final readout to give you guys.

QUESTION: And has – in the course of the review or whatever you want to call it, however you want to describe it, has – have there been any other similar instances?

MS TRUDEAU: We have not located any similar incidents.

QUESTION: But have people looked?

MS TRUDEAU: So people are continuing to review it. It’s a big archive, yeah.

QUESTION: Right, no kidding. I know.

MS TRUDEAU: But no, we are.

QUESTION: It’s --

QUESTION: And have you – have you – is it still your view, as it was yesterday, that it was a glitch?

MS TRUDEAU: At this stage we know – and as Fox News pointed out – that there was – there were minutes missing on that. As soon as we found out, we flipped it over. As I said before, the transcript was available, the video was available on other U.S. Government platforms. I can’t speak to what happened. I’m not at that point yet, but --

QUESTION: No, no, I know. But yesterday and the day before --

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- you told us it was a glitch, and I’m wondering if that’s still your view.

MS TRUDEAU: It’s still my view right now.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS TRUDEAU: So – but again, we continue to take a look at it. We take it seriously.

Okay, thanks.

QUESTION: Can I – I’ll just wait.

MS TRUDEAU: Okay. Thank you, guys.

QUESTION: Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:39 p.m.)

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

Daily Press Briefings : Daily Press Briefing - May 11, 2016

Elizabeth Trudeau

Director, Press Office
Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC

May 11, 2016









Index for Today's Briefing

IRAQ



YEMEN



ISRAEL/PALESTINIANS



SYRIA/RUSSIA



UKRAINE/RUSSIA



YEMEN/SAUDI ARABIA



EAST ASIA REGION



ISRAEL/PALESTINIANS



DEPARTMENT




TRANSCRIPT:

2:01 p.m. EDT

MS TRUDEAU: Hi, everyone. We’ll keep it short today, but I have a few things at the top. Okay. First, on the attacks today in Iraq. The United States strongly condemns the barbaric attacks in Iraq today claimed by Daesh, including one in Sadr City that killed scores of civilians and wounded many more. We wish a speedy recovery to the wounded and express condolences to the families of those victims, many of whom were innocent women and children who were in an open market. These cowardly attacks only harden the resolve of Iraqis and the international community to utterly destroy this group and its warped ideology.

We are committed to the united and global effort to help Iraqi forces remove Daesh from its territory and suffocate its financial foreign terrorist fighter and propaganda networks. The recent spate of attacks by Daesh is the latest reminder of the danger this group poses to all Iraqis and the importance of Iraqi leaders from all communities working together to quickly resolve differences so the progress made against Daesh continues.

Next, on Yemen. Under Secretary for Political Affairs Thomas Shannon met with UN Special Envoy for Yemen Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed in Kuwait to discuss the ongoing U.N.-mediated Yemen peace talks and how the U.S. can help end the conflict in Yemen and best continue to support a return to a peaceful political transition in Yemen. Under Secretary Shannon met with Yemeni officials and other parties in the negotiation.

Under Secretary Shannon underscored the U.S. strong support of the peace talks and the UN Special Envoy’s efforts and thanked Kuwaiti Foreign Minister Sheikh Sabah for Kuwait’s role in hosting the talks. The Under Secretary welcomed the stated commitment of the parties to continue the cessation of hostilities that began April 10th and which has been broadly holding despite some violations. He also welcomed the incremental progress made on detainee and prisoner issues.

Under Secretary Shannon and the UN special envoy reaffirmed the need for all parties to continue engaging in the talks in good faith even while difficult discussions continue as parties tackle challenges that will return Yemen to a peaceful, political transition supported by all communities.

And, Matt.

QUESTION: Since I was late, I will punish myself. I’ll defer to either Arshad or Nicolas. I do have questions, but I’ll wait.

QUESTION: Can we stay on Shannon, Mr. Shannon. Did he meet with the Houthis?

MS TRUDEAU: He met with a variety of Yemeni.

QUESTION: The Houthis are one of the --

MS TRUDEAU: I’m not going to comment specifically on that. I have no information on that.

QUESTION: Was Mr. – or former president Abdullah Saleh representatives – did he see any one of them?

MS TRUDEAU: So I have no information on who specifically he met with besides the people I mentioned. So he did meet with a broad range of Yemeni officials.

QUESTION: Can you take that question?

MS TRUDEAU: If I have anything to add, I will.

QUESTION: Please, thanks.

QUESTION: Why wouldn’t he meet with the Houthis considering that they really are the primary opponent of the government forces? I mean, if he went to talk to bring --

MS TRUDEAU: So he was there primarily --

QUESTION: Right.

MS TRUDEAU: -- to meet with the UN mediator. He did meet with Yemeni officials. If we have anything to add, I’ll come back to you guys. And since Matt ceded his question, I’ll let you guys wrestle it out.

QUESTION: Cher monsieur, cher monsieur. It’s not his question.

MS TRUDEAU: Ceding. He has postponed his question.

QUESTION: Okay. Okay, so thank you. Thank you, Matt and Arshad. (Laughter.) Can we start with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

MS TRUDEAU: Of course.

QUESTION: As you know, the French – not me, but the French Government is very keen on organizing a meeting later this month in Paris on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Secretary Kerry was in Paris a few days ago. He remains vague about his participation. I think Deputy Secretary Blinken was in – is in Paris today. Do you – you have made your – have you made your decision about a U.S. participation and at which level?

MS TRUDEAU: So we continue to discuss this proposal with the French and other key stakeholders. There has been no decision made yet on whether we can participate on May 30th. However, we are interested in working cooperatively to pursue our shared goal for a two-state solution.

QUESTION: But is it a good thing to organize this kind of meetings and conference?

MS TRUDEAU: So Secretary Kerry actually spoke to that. I think he said, “We welcome all good ideas.” We remained concerned about the continued violence on the ground, and we welcome all ideas on moving this forward. On this specific conference on the May 30th event, no decision’s been made on participation.

QUESTION: And what do you think of the fact that neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians would attend this conference?

MS TRUDEAU: Well, we continue to look to both sides to demonstrate with actions and policies a genuine commitment to a two-state solution. I won’t speak specifically about this conference. We haven’t made a decision on our own participation yet, so I’d refer you to them to speak to that.

QUESTION: Is America --

QUESTION: Wait, wait. Why can’t you make – why can’t you tell the French that May 30th is a really bad day, it’s a national holiday in the United States and the Secretary won’t be there?

MS TRUDEAU: Well, we’ve traveled before on national holidays.

QUESTION: I know.

MS TRUDEAU: I can’t get ahead of that. We just haven’t made a decision.

QUESTION: I know, we were in Vienna for July 4th (inaudible) --

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah, you would know, it’s true.

QUESTION: But will the – would the – I mean, you said you welcome all good ideas. Do you think this is a --

MS TRUDEAU: And that’s what – that’s what the Secretary said.

QUESTION: And this is a good idea?

MS TRUDEAU: Well --

QUESTION: Having this meeting on May 30?

MS TRUDEAU: -- what we’re saying is we haven’t made a decision on this particular event.

Said.

QUESTION: Why is it so difficult, Elizabeth, to take such a decision?

MS TRUDEAU: I’m not saying it was difficult.

QUESTION: It’s taking time.

MS TRUDEAU: I’m just saying that decision hasn’t been made.

QUESTION: Elizabeth, is it a good idea to hold this meeting on May 30th?

MS TRUDEAU: So what we would say is that we welcome all good ideas. We haven’t made a decision on this.

QUESTION: So you can’t say that it is a good idea.

MS TRUDEAU: We still remain in consultations with the French and other international partners on it.

Said.

QUESTION: Not this issue, but on the Palestinian-Israeli issue.

MS TRUDEAU: We’ll stay there.

QUESTION: Okay. The Israelis have imposed a travel ban on the BDS, the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions founder, or co-founder, Omar Barghouti.

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah.

QUESTION: Do you have any comment on that, they’re preventing --

MS TRUDEAU: So we’ve seen the reports. We would refer you to the Israelis for comments.

QUESTION: Okay. Well, I tell you what, because last month, earlier last month, there was a conference to – actually to counter BDS, a conference that was attended by the American ambassador and so on. And in fact, one of those present giving speeches by – from the Israeli side basically threatened Mr. Barghouti directly, and he implicitly called that maybe they ought to be targeted and assassinated and so on. Do you – you don’t find this a bit disturbing that Israel is using – uses whatever tactics to prevent this activism that is largely peaceful?

MS TRUDEAU: So I can’t speak to those comments. I haven’t seen those specific comments. I know we talked about this conference before.

QUESTION: Right.

MS TRUDEAU: I would say, as a general principle, we support freedom of movement for Palestinians and permanent residents of Israel.

QUESTION: Okay. Because Israel seems to be doing this against journalists, against activists and so on. Do you call on them not – to sort of cease and desist?

MS TRUDEAU: I don’t think anyone should question the U.S. Government on freedom of expression.

QUESTION: Okay. I have to a couple more. Sorry, I have a couple more questions on Palestinian-Israeli issue.

MS TRUDEAU: Of course.

QUESTION: Also --

QUESTION: Can you just stay with Barghouti for one second?

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah, of course.

QUESTION: So when you say that you – in principle, you support – what was it you said?

MS TRUDEAU: It was freedom of movement for Palestinians and permanent residents of Israel.

QUESTION: Including Mr. Barghouti?

MS TRUDEAU: As a general principle.

QUESTION: Yeah, but you don’t have --

MS TRUDEAU: I can’t speak specifically to this case. For that, I’m going to refer to the Israelis. However, I would say as a general principle, yes.

QUESTION: Well, I mean, is this something that you’ve brought up with the Israelis?

MS TRUDEAU: To my knowledge, at this --

QUESTION: Or is this only something that you’re responding to Said’s question with? I mean, I’m just trying to figure out --

MS TRUDEAU: At this stage, I don’t know if we’ve raised it with the Israelis.

QUESTION: I’m just trying to figure out if this is an issue that the U.S. is concerned about.

MS TRUDEAU: So freedom of movement for Palestinians --

QUESTION: Yeah, yeah.

MS TRUDEAU: -- and permanent residents is a concern. I don’t know if we’ve raised this specific issue.

QUESTION: And is it – would it be possible to find out?

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah, I can definitely check.

QUESTION: Because, I mean, there’s two arguments here. One is from the Israeli perspective that this guy is running a campaign that basically – that they see as a threat. But then there’s the other side --

MS TRUDEAU: Which is freedom of movement.

QUESTION: Right, and whether – and you oppose – you say you oppose the BDS tactics. You don’t like boycotts; you think that they’re – you’re – you think that they’re bad, and so the question is: If you basically agree with the Israelis on this --

MS TRUDEAU: We support freedom of movement.

QUESTION: Yeah, I know, but in this specific case --

MS TRUDEAU: But let me check and see if we’ve raised this specific case.

QUESTION: Could I follow up --

MS TRUDEAU: Yep.

QUESTION: -- on the home demolitions.

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah.

QUESTION: So the Israelis yesterday demolished a home in Walaja. It’s a village in southern – in south – southern – the West Bank, south of the West Bank. (Inaudible.)

MS TRUDEAU: I’m sorry, where is it?

QUESTION: And they have – it’s called Walaja.

MS TRUDEAU: Okay.

QUESTION: It’s located in the south part of the West Bank. And they have orders to demolish nine more homes and so on. I wonder if you have any comment on that.

MS TRUDEAU: Okay. I’m not aware of those specific reports. However, we’re always concerned, as we’ve said repeatedly from this podium, about demolitions taken by Israeli authorities that continue throughout the West Bank and East Jerusalem. These actions are indicative of a damaging trend of demolition, displacement, and land confiscation, and alongside settlement-related activity and continued construction, continue to undermine the prospects of a two-state solution. We’ve spoken about this.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS TRUDEAU: Okay. Matt, let’s go back to you.

QUESTION: To me?

MS TRUDEAU: I can move around. It’s going to be a short one today.

QUESTION: Sure. Well, let’s go to Syria for a second.

MS TRUDEAU: Sure.

QUESTION: There seems to be a renewed interest from some of the – some members of the ISSG – not you, not the United States, and certainly not your allies in the ISSG – to have the UN add at least one of the groups – Ahrar al-Sham – onto the list of groups that are not included in the ceasefire. You in the past have opposed such a move, and I’m just wondering if there is anything – there seem to be new allegations that they are pretty much interwoven with Nusrah, which is not covered by the ceasefire. And I’m just wondering if there’s any – if there’s any revisiting of this position.

MS TRUDEAU: Okay. There’s no change in our position. We do note the reports that Russia’s proposed placing we believe both opposition groups – Jaysh al-Islam and Ahrar al-Sham – on the UN sanctions list that includes ISIL, the al-Qaida-linked terrorist group. Russia is publicly attempting to designate groups that are parties to the cessation of hostilities. Such actions, we continue to believe, would have damaging consequences to the cessation just as we are trying to de-escalate the situation on the ground.

QUESTION: But is that a – is that – is your position based on just simply trying to preserve the cessation of hostilities, or is your position based on the fact that you think that the Russians are wrong when they say that these two groups are inter – they’re woven together with al-Nusrah?

MS TRUDEAU: We’ve spoken before – and when you say “woven together” you’re talking about co-located, or the Russian allegation that --

QUESTION: Well, I mean, I think that there’s some who say that they’re co-located and they intermingle, but there are others, the more stronger case, is that they are allied with or are essentially the same as al-Nusrah.

MS TRUDEAU: Okay. But these are parties to the cessation, so our position on that is that we believe that they are still covered under the cessation. We disagree with that assessment at this time. We continue to reach out to these opposition groups to ensure that they are adhering to the cessation and continuing to create the environment for a political transition.

QUESTION: Which allegation do you disagree with? That they are allied with or essentially the same as al-Nusrah?

MS TRUDEAU: Yes.

QUESTION: Or that they are inter --

MS TRUDEAU: No, we are very aware that there’s some – there’s some co-location. We’ve spoken before about both Russia and our role to try and identify – we’ve --

QUESTION: Okay. But from your point of view, the Russians are – the Russian position is wrong, these guys are not terrorists, and they should continue to be --

MS TRUDEAU: At this stage, our position is --

QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.

MS TRUDEAU: -- is that they continue to be parties to the cessation.

QUESTION: Can we just follow up on --

MS TRUDEAU: Sure.

QUESTION: -- on this issue? Both Ahrar al-Sham and Jaysh al-Islam – I mean, they have exactly the same bylaw, almost the same bylaws. They don’t have a constitution. They have what they call internal document. They espouse the same dogma, they believe the same thing, they practice the same practices as Jabhat al-Nusrah and as al-Qaida. Why shouldn’t they be designated as a terrorist organization?

MS TRUDEAU: So we constantly review information. We are constantly assessing these groups. At this stage our position is that these groups are members of the cessation of hostilities. We continue to have dialogue with them. If our position changes, we’ll make that assessment then. But we are in constant review of this.

QUESTION: So you’re not bothered by the fact that some of their leaders actually – they go from one place to the other and back and forth and so on? In a leadership capacity --

MS TRUDEAU: We’ve talked about the intermingling on the ground. We have talked about, especially in areas of Aleppo, where it’s very difficult to tease that out. This is one of the commitments that we made when we released the statement with the Russians on Monday, that commitment to try and differentiate. So we are aware of this. As we get more information, as we assess, we continue to look at it.

QUESTION: And I promise, my last question on this. I mean, you always say that you want to support the secular opposition. There is – according to their statement, there is nothing secular about these groups. In fact, they want a very strict Islamic caliphate in Syria, both --

MS TRUDEAU: At this stage, they are parties to the cessation. We’ll leave it there.

Matt, did you have more, or are we moving around?

QUESTION: No.

MS TRUDEAU: Okay. Yeah.

QUESTION: There’s this website in Ukraine called Myrotvorets. Its header says, “Information for law enforcement authorities and special services about pro-Russian terrorists, separatists, mercenaries, war criminals, and murderers.” That website has just published personal data of around 4,000 journalists who are working or worked in eastern Ukraine – their phone numbers and email address. These are journalists from all over the world, not only from Russia. But last year, shortly after the website did a similar thing with publishing personal data, a Ukrainian journalist, Oles Buzina, who had expressed pro-Russian views, was murdered. What do you think about this leak of journalists’ personal data?

MS TRUDEAU: Okay. We’re aware of the reports of the hacking of personal information of some reporters who had worked or are working in parts of eastern Ukraine. These are international outlets, some of which are represented in this room. The United States fully supports the fundamental principle of press freedom. Journalists play a critical role, particularly in countries where civil and political rights are fragile and in areas of conflict where the hazards of reporting are at their most extreme. So we are concerned.

QUESTION: Would you call the hacking – you called it a hacking.

MS TRUDEAU: We did call it a hacking.

QUESTION: Would call that hacking a criminal, maybe --

MS TRUDEAU: I’m not going to make a criminal determination, but I – we did call it a hacking and we are concerned.

QUESTION: And it is wrong for them to do that?

MS TRUDEAU: We are very concerned about the hacking and the posting of personal information of members of the press who are already on the frontlines.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Back to Yemen. General Asseri is in town this week, the spokesman for the Saudi-led coalition. And he said that if the peace talks fail, that they are going to retake Sana’a and --

MS TRUDEAU: I saw that. That was Foreign Policy’s report.

QUESTION: It was, it was. So do you have a response to that?

MS TRUDEAU: So we’re committed to the peace talks, we’re committed to the UN effort. For the Saudis’ comment, I’m going to refer you to them, okay?

QUESTION: Is this something that the U.S., as a member of the coalition, would partake in?

MS TRUDEAU: So where we are is we’re committed to those peace talks. As we said, the cessation is largely holding. The peace talks continue. Under Secretary Shannon met with the mediator today; that’s where we’re focused.

QUESTION: So the Saudis say that they support the peace talks as well, but if they happen to fail, then they have this plan B, which is, of course, a large city with about 2 million people and it’s interwoven with pockets of Houthi support. The U.S. supports the peace process. Would it be supportive of a plan to retake Sana’a?

MS TRUDEAU: I’m going to refer you to the Saudis for those comments, which I just saw. Okay.

QUESTION: Can I ask about this?

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah.

QUESTION: Is it not your understanding that the position of the Saudi-led coalition has, for a long time, been that they have a two-track strategy of a political one – diplomatic talks – and a military one?

MS TRUDEAU: So what I would do is not delve into the Saudi strategy. It’s not for me to speak to that.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS TRUDEAU: Okay.

QUESTION: Is the U.S. a member of the coalition?

QUESTION: Yeah --

MS TRUDEAU: We support the Saudi-led coalition.

QUESTION: But you’re not a member.

QUESTION: No, I know, but you’re not a member of it.

MS TRUDEAU: I don’t – I’m – I believe --

QUESTION: I mean, do you have any – you don’t have any planning or financing role in it, do you?

MS TRUDEAU: No. We support them, I believe, through sharing of information, but I do not believe we’re a member of the coalition. If I’m wrong, I’ll correct myself.

QUESTION: Are you aware that there may be some arm directly sent to Saudi Arabia for use in this conflict?

MS TRUDEAU: For that?

QUESTION: For use in the ongoing conflict in Yemen.

MS TRUDEAU: If you’re asking about sort of operational details and cooperation --

QUESTION: Right. No, no. I’m saying they are --

MS TRUDEAU: -- with the Saudis on that, you know for – I’m going to --

QUESTION: Let me ask you – maybe you know. There are some arms that are – that go to Saudi Arabia, but they’re – they actually are taken immediately to the battlefield so they go – including cluster bombs – or some – some say including cluster bombs.

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah, I’m not aware of those reports.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: On South China Sea. So yesterday several times you referenced the international law.

MS TRUDEAU: Yep.

QUESTION: And I just wonder within it is the term “excessive claims” defined.

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah. So the United States was among the nations that participated in the UN Conference on the Law of the Sea, which took place from 1973 to 1982 and resulted in the international treaty known as the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. The – this – while the United States recognizes the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, I will note we haven’t ratified it. The definition is actually in there.

QUESTION: Yeah. So I just – I was wondering: Under which specific international law authorize the U.S. to use warship to patrol in the sea?

MS TRUDEAU: Okay, so this is freedom of navigation and we’ve spoken about this before. If John Kirby was up here, he would use the famous phrase that I told him I would use yesterday, which is freedom of navigation is not just for whales and icebergs. The United States will continue to exercise that in accordance with international law.

QUESTION: How about penguins?

QUESTION: Yeah, but how do you --

MS TRUDEAU: I can’t speak to penguins, Matt.

QUESTION: Really?

QUESTION: So how do you correlate it – I mean, with the use of warship to patrolling the sea to the innocent passage?

MS TRUDEAU: So this is freedom of navigation. This is allowed under this international convention. So thank you. And – yeah.

QUESTION: But the fact remains is that the United States is not a party to this treaty. It’s not --

MS TRUDEAU: That’s true. We do recognize it, though, but you’re correct.

QUESTION: Well, yeah, but you also recognize lots of things you don’t – but that doesn’t mean that – that doesn’t give you – I mean, you don’t have any standing to bring or make a determination that means anything on the definitions or what is prohibited inside that treaty unless you’re a party to it.

MS TRUDEAU: So we believe --

QUESTION: It’s like you telling – trying to tell the International Criminal Court what it – who it can or cannot prosecute. You just – I mean, you can say all you want to, but it doesn’t mean anything.

MS TRUDEAU: So we believe – and we’ve said this before – that our freedom of navigation operations that challenge maritime claims that are inconsistent with the Law of the Sea – ours are conducted in accordance with international law and applied evenhandedly across the --

QUESTION: I don’t think anyone’s disputing that. I’m just trying – wanting to make the point is – I mean, where do you – how is it that you think that you have standing to make a determination that someone’s maritime claim is excessive --

MS TRUDEAU: We believe --

QUESTION: -- under the definitions provided by – in a treaty to which you’re not a party?

MS TRUDEAU: So we believe that our freedom of navigation operations are consistent.

QUESTION: Yeah, but that’s not what I – I’m talking about the excessive claim part, not the freedom of navigation. I mean, that doesn’t enter into it. What gives the United States the right to make a determination that something is an excessive claim using the definition of a treaty that it’s not a party to?

MS TRUDEAU: So because we believe that our actions are consistent with the international --

QUESTION: I’m not asking you about your actions.

MS TRUDEAU: I understand.

QUESTION: I’m asking about your determination that other people’s claims are excessive and therefore should not be recognized.

MS TRUDEAU: I’m going to leave it where we were.

QUESTION: All right.

MS TRUDEAU: Nike.

QUESTION: This is just a quick follow-up. Yesterday you mentioned the 12 nautical miles for the freedom of navigation.

MS TRUDEAU: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Are you – you can take the question if you want. Are – is the United States identifying the reef as a rock or island? Because --

MS TRUDEAU: So Fiery Cross Reef?

QUESTION: Right. Because – the reason I ask --

MS TRUDEAU: It is a high tide elevation and entitled to a 12 nautical mile territorial sea under international law as reflected in the Law of the Sea convention. So our ship transited inside the 12 nautical miles of the feature in a professional manner, exercising the right of innocent passage consistent with international law.

QUESTION: So that elevation – does that entitled to the territorial sea or not?

MS TRUDEAU: It is a high tide elevation and is entitled, and we went through in innocent passage.

Okay. Thanks, guys.

QUESTION: Can I ask one more on the Palestinian-Israeli issue?

MS TRUDEAU: Of course. Yeah.

QUESTION: An Israeli court convicted a 13-year-old Palestinian boy of attempted murder. They have not revealed the sentence yet, but there is also scores of Palestinian children that are in – I wonder if you have any kind of comment, if you’re aware of this issue.

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah. This was the 13-year-old who was involved in the stabbing attack in Jerusalem.

QUESTION: Right, yeah. He was – yeah, Ahmad Saleh Manasra. He was involved in an attempted – I guess stabbing back in October.

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah. We – we’re aware of that report. If you remember, we condemned the attack at the time. We continue to remain deeply concerned about the violence.

More broadly, we have an ongoing dialogue with the Government of Israel. It’s also in our Human Rights Report, talking about minors in prison.

QUESTION: I’ve got more.

MS TRUDEAU: Of course, Matt.

QUESTION: Yesterday you intimated that there would be some kind of looking at or review – you didn’t want to use the word “investigation,” but – into what happened with this video – the video of the briefing in question. Has that – have you determined – have you been able to figure out what exactly --

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah, we’re still looking into it. We continue to take a look at our process at that time and also making sure that something like that obviously never happens again. I would reiterate video is – was always available. It’s back up now on state.gov. We annotated it on our YouTube channel, so it’s been resolved, but we do take it seriously and we’re looking.

QUESTION: Well, is – I mean, is there any suspicion that you’re aware of that this was not some – it was not simply a “glitch,” quote-unquote --

MS TRUDEAU: Thanks for the air quotes.

QUESTION: -- that you --

MS TRUDEAU: At this stage we believe it was a glitch, but we’re double-checking and making sure because we have that commitment.

QUESTION: Okay. So do you have any idea how long it will take?

MS TRUDEAU: To be honest, I think people are talking about it now. As soon as I have an update, I’ll come back to you.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS TRUDEAU: Thanks, guys.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:26 p.m.)

DPB #81

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 - May 9, 2016

Elizabeth Trudeau

Director, Press Office
Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC

May 9, 2016









Index for Today's Briefing

DEPARTMENT



SYRIA



TURKEY/SYRIA



TURKEY



IRAN



YEMEN



SYRIA



IRAN



CHINA/TAIWAN



NORTH KOREA



EGYPT



UKRAINE



PHILIPPINES/CHINA



JAPAN/CHINA



SAUDI ARABIA




TRANSCRIPT:

2:00 p.m. EDT

MS TRUDEAU: Hello, everyone. Happy Monday. Welcome to the State Department. We will keep them sharp this week, so I have no – nothing at the top.

So Matt, I turn it over to you.

QUESTION: Right. I just have one brief logistical thing and then to Syria, and the logistical thing is about the whole email issue and a court filing that you guys just presented today. It says that you have been unable to find any email records responsive to a request from the RNC for Mr. Pagliano’s email. I’m just wondering, how – do you know how that is?

MS TRUDEAU: Okay. So thanks for the question. I have quite a bit to say on this, so bear with me.

As a standard, the department does not comment on matters in litigation. However, the department disagrees with a number of assertations made in today’s filing and will be responding in court. We will say, however, that this matter was reported in the press back in December 2015. The department has searched for Mr. Pagliano’s email PST file, and has not located one that covers the time period of Secretary Clinton’s tenure. To be clear, the department does have records related to Mr. Pagliano and we are working with Congress and FOIA requesters to provide relevant material. The department has located a PST from Mr. Pagliano’s recent work at the department as a contractor, but the files are from after Secretary Clinton left the department. We are continuing to search for Mr. Pagliano’s emails which the department may have otherwise retained.

When it comes to FOIA, I think as you know, the State Department works diligently to produce all responsive records in our possession. The department does acknowledge we must work to improve our systems for record management and retention. As part of the ongoing effort, the department is now automatically archiving Secretary Kerry’s emails as well as the emails of numerous senior staff.

QUESTION: So in other words, these – because he was not a senior official, they just – they just – they’re now in the ether someplace?

MS TRUDEAU: So what I would --

QUESTION: I mean, you think – I mean – you can’t find them, so he clearly didn’t spend four years here and never send an email, right?

MS TRUDEAU: No. It’s --

QUESTION: So --

MS TRUDEAU: It’s not required for employees to save every email they have sent and received. However, they must preserve federal records. Each employee is responsible for preserving his or her emails that are required to be retained under the Federal Records Act. The topic of records management has been discussed previously, exhaustively, from this podium. We have work to do to improve our records management.

QUESTION: Does that include – so you’re – the search continues; is that what you’re saying? You haven’t --

MS TRUDEAU: So --

QUESTION: To be responsive to this request, you --

MS TRUDEAU: We are conducting a thorough search right now.

QUESTION: But it’s not over? You haven’t just thrown your hands up in the air and said --

MS TRUDEAU: No, we are conducting it.

QUESTION: -- you can’t find – you are continuing?

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah. A PST is that when you archive your emails and it makes that little folder – and sometimes it’ll ask you on Outlook – that’s a PST.

QUESTION: And so when – I mean, if I understand it, is it the case that you have not found a single email related to Mr. Pagliano’s service while Secretary Clinton was here?

MS TRUDEAU: So that’s accurate that we have located a PST from when his recent work with the department as a contractor, but not – those were from after when Secretary Clinton left the department.

QUESTION: Is it conceivable that he might have deleted every single email he sent during the period of Secretary Clinton’s service?

MS TRUDEAU: I’m not going to speculate on that. I cannot say how or whether he stored records.

QUESTION: And is it conceivable that nothing he committed to email during the time he was here rose to the standard of a federal record?

MS TRUDEAU: I can’t say on that. What I will say is the department’s conducting a thorough search. At this stage, I just don’t have any additional details to provide.

Okay, Matt.

QUESTION: Syria.

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah.

QUESTION: So I know that this has been discussed by a senior official, or by official on a background call, but I want to try and pin you down on this thing about the joint statement from United States and Russia.

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah.

QUESTION: It is still unclear to me whether or not you think that this joint statement today extends and expands and reinforces the nationwide cessation of hostilities so that incremental extensions of local truces and sort of – like Aleppo, like Latakia, like – so that those don’t need to be extended anymore. Is that the Administration’s position? And if it is, is that your understanding of – that’s the Russian position and also the Syrian Government position?

MS TRUDEAU: So there’s a lot there. I’m going to address some of it and then we can talk about what those incremental ceasefires were actually doing. So in this joint statement today, the United States and Russia reaffirmed the commitment to the nationwide cessation of hostilities that went into effect February 27th across Syria. That includes Aleppo. Full stop. We have been cognizant of the strains to the cessation in Aleppo in recent week, but the cessation of hostilities in Aleppo remains in effect and will continue. We’re fully committed to making sure it remains in place. Each side – the Russians and the United States – have communicated with commanders, saying the other side is called upon to honor the cessation and they should reciprocate.

Both the United States and the Russians are currently focusing on particular areas of the country where we’ve seen tensions in recent week, obviously including Aleppo, and making these incremental steps to getting the cessation back on track. The goal is to get to the point where we no longer have to rely on these 24-hour, these 72-hour, and that the cessation of hostilities is fully respected across.

QUESTION: Right.

MS TRUDEAU: Speaking specifically to this – so the use of these 24-hour, the 48 hours, were because the exchanges of fire on both sides – they had become intense in Latakia, in Eastern Ghouta, in Aleppo. These small – these short-term cessation of hostilities were a means to get local commanders to be assured of the other side’s readiness to renew the implementation of cessation. With our statement today, we do believe that the cessation is in place. We do believe that this was what’s called a confidence-building measure that the cessation then will be across. We’re not ruling out scattered violence; we’re not ruling out that there could be attacks either way. But we do believe that this is now in place.

QUESTION: So you think that this puts you now at the point where you don’t need another 24 or 48-hour or 72-hour extension in Aleppo, for example.

MS TRUDEAU: So --

QUESTION: You think that that’s covered by --

MS TRUDEAU: -- we believe that it’s covered, but what we’re also very cognizant about is that these are small, isolated areas, that the violence flares up there. We’re committed; the Russians have said today that they’re committed. We’re in touch with the commanders on the ground, so we believe yes.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS TRUDEAU: Okay.

QUESTION: Elizabeth, on this one.

MS TRUDEAU: Of course, Michel.

QUESTION: The statement said that Russia and the U.S. are committed to undertaking efforts to develop a shared understanding of the threat posed and territory controlled by ISIL and the Nusrah Front and to consider ways to deal decisively against the threat posed by ISIL and the Nusrah Front to Syria and international security. Does this mean that Russia will be part of the international coalition now – will join the effort?

MS TRUDEAU: I wouldn’t read into it. Russia’s been a member of the ISSG. We continue --

QUESTION: Yeah, we know that, but after this --

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah, but we continue to talk about that. One of the things we’ve spoken out extensively from this podium is the issue of having parties to the cessation intermingled with Nusrah. This was that conversation on how we have a shared understanding of the territory controlled by Nusrah and making those efforts to tease that out.

QUESTION: But when you say that or the statements says “consider ways to deal decisively against the threat posed by ISIL,” what ways are you talking about?

MS TRUDEAU: As I said, this is the idea that we share information, that we understand where Nusrah is, where they’re mixed in with parties to the cessation, and then we have conversations there about how we can deal with them. I wouldn’t get ahead of this in talking about your primary question.

QUESTION: That means there will be more cooperation and coordination with Russia now to fight ISIL and al-Nusrah?

MS TRUDEAU: What I would say is we’d leave it where it is, where it is – we are building a shared understanding of where the territory controlled by Nusrah and then steps we could take to do that, but I’m not going to get ahead of where the statement was.

QUESTION: What about the timing of the statement? It came out before Paris meeting.

MS TRUDEAU: Yep.

QUESTION: Anything about the timing?

MS TRUDEAU: No. I would say that this is a conversation that we have been having with the Russians. We are very cognizant of the impact on the ground that the cessation of hostilities has had very positively for the Syrian people – not uniformly, not covering all areas – and the idea that a reconfirmation right now is vitally important for the Syrian people.

QUESTION: And why the U.S. didn’t wait for the – for Paris meeting to issue the statement?

MS TRUDEAU: So the Secretary today, it’s our understanding, is briefing those individuals who will be at the Paris meeting. But remember that this is a build-on from a previous Russia-U.S. statement.

QUESTION: And is the U.S. and – or are the U.S. and the European and Arab states at the same page regarding Syria?

MS TRUDEAU: I would say that we all have the same goal. We all have the same view. Suffering has gone on too long; the political transition is the only solution for the people of Syria.

QUESTION: There is no difference between --

MS TRUDEAU: I think with any sovereign state, of course there’s going to be differences in views on there, but we all have the same end goal.

Okay --

QUESTION: But Foreign Minister Ayrault said that there would be a meeting of the ISSG next week. Is there --

MS TRUDEAU: I’ve got nothing to announce on there, but I would – if the foreign minister --

QUESTION: Would the U.S. like to see one?

MS TRUDEAU: I think that we are committed to using the ISSG as the platform to continue this dialog forward.

Barbara.

QUESTION: Yeah. The U.S. official who spoke on background said that the fighting southwest of Aleppo city was not a truce violation because it involved --

MS TRUDEAU: Nusrah --

QUESTION: -- the government versus al-Nusrah. But there are reports that, in fact, it involves Jaysh al-Fatah, which does include parties to the truce like Ahrar al-Sham. So are you aware of these reports, and if you could shed any more light on that? And if so, are you pressing those parties, probably through your allies – Saudi Arabia and so on – to stop fighting?

MS TRUDEAU: Okay, so I haven’t seen particularly that report, but I would say your question actually illustrates perfectly why it’s so important to have that shared understanding of where Nusrah is, where they’re operating; where Daesh is, where they’re operating. They’re not parties to the cessation, as you exactly said.

Let’s stay on Syria. Yes, sir.

QUESTION: Elizabeth, ISIL attacks to Turkey’s border town Kilis have claimed tens of lives, civilians’ lives since mid-January. And following the last week’s attacks Erdogan yesterday said that Turkey has been left alone in its fight against ISIS, and he says that unlike the attacks in the European countries, the attacks to Turkish towns are not being taken enough seriously by the coalition forces and the U.S. And I was wondering if U.S. or coalition forces are going to take any further steps in order to secure the Turkish towns.

MS TRUDEAU: So I’m not going to speak specifically to President Erdogan’s comments. What I will say, though, is Turkey is a NATO ally. It is a friend. It is a key partner in the fight against ISIL. We stand by our ally Turkey. We have said that routinely and strongly and positively from this, and our coordination continues.

QUESTION: And also – sorry.

MS TRUDEAU: Wait, wait. Are we on Syria or Turkey?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MS TRUDEAU: Because sometimes it gets a little blurry with you guys. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Okay, Syria. There are some reports suggesting that Turkey and U.S. have agreed on helping Syrian Democratic Forces to take control of that 98 kilometer of Manbij pocket. And also the same reports claim that Turkey have demanded in change of leadership of Syrian Democratic Forces, bringing the Turkmens and Arabs into the leadership of Syrian Democratic Forces as well. I was wondering if you can confirm those report.

MS TRUDEAU: So I’m not going to speak to those comments. I haven’t seen that report. We have spoken, though, extensively about the importance of that stretch of border in supporting Turkey’s efforts to making sure that that border is closed. We actually spoke to that in the statement today with the Russians and the importance of helping and intensifying our efforts with regional allies to making sure that Daesh is not getting the financing, the people. So that’s actually in the statement. I’d refer you there.

QUESTION: Does Turkmens and Arabs – are they also part of the plan to bring into Syrian Democratic Forces?

MS TRUDEAU: Okay, you’re asking me about a report, like I mentioned, I haven’t seen. I’m not going to speak about that – that component.

QUESTION: Elizabeth, on this --

MS TRUDEAU: Syria?

QUESTION: No, Turkey-Syria. Turkey has said today that it will deal with the PYG forces in Syria in the same way that it’s dealing with ISIL in Syria. Are you aware of that, and do you have any comment?

MS TRUDEAU: Okay, I hadn’t seen that. As you know, our view is very clear on both the PKK as well as the YPD. Our view on that has not changed.

QUESTION: I’m not talking about the PKK.

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah.

QUESTION: I’m talking about Turkey --

MS TRUDEAU: The PYG --

QUESTION: -- dealing with the PYG in the same way that it’s dealing with ISIS.

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah, I have not seen those comments. I have not seen those comments, Michel.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: About the resignation of the Turkish prime minister --

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah.

QUESTION: Can we stay on Syria, please?

MS TRUDEAU: Of course. And then I’ll come back to you.

QUESTION: It’s a Turkish question. There are several reports quoting rebel and opposition sources in Aleppo have complained that from this podium and others the U.S. Administration has exaggerated the extent to which Nusrah is present in the city of Aleppo as a way of giving cover to the Russians and the Syrians in this attack. What proportion of the city of Aleppo do you think is under Jabhat al-Nusrah control?

MS TRUDEAU: That’s an operational, on-the-ground report, Dave. I’m sorry, I really can’t give a figure on that.

QUESTION: What about the allegation then that you have --

MS TRUDEAU: I would say that we don’t underestimate the impact of Nusrah or Daesh on that area. These are terrorist organizations. When you see ungoverned space like that, terrorist organizations thrive. So that’s why I can’t give a specific figure or make a guess on the percentage of Aleppo that’s been controlled by that, we take it very seriously.

Let’s go to Turkey.

QUESTION: Yeah, about that decision, a lot of people see the resignation of Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, who is widely seen as a relatively kind of reformist leader, as a push – as being – he’s being forced to resign by President Erdogan. What do you make of that? Do you have anything to say?

MS TRUDEAU: Okay. Well, we’ve – we spoke to this last week. Obviously, we’ve seen the reports, we’ve seen the prime minister’s comments that he’ll be stepping down as the AKP chair, and there will be an extraordinary congress on May 22nd to select new party leadership. Mark spoke to this last week. This is an internal matter for Turkey. We will continue to work with the Government of Turkey as – and you guys can say it with me – as a friend, a NATO ally, and a partner.

QUESTION: So – but when a prime minister resigns, there should be a reason, and nobody knows the reason. I mean, prime ministers are pushed --

MS TRUDEAU: Well, that would be for the people of Turkey to speak to and not from the U.S. State Department podium.

QUESTION: Okay. Do you – does the United States share the views of a lot of people, critics, who believe Erdogan is a creeping authoritarian leader?

MS TRUDEAU: I think we’ve spoken extensively about our views on media freedom in Turkey, as well as the very real threats that Turkey faces along its border, as well as Turkey’s exceptional generosity in hosting so many refugees.

QUESTION: Do you --

MS TRUDEAU: I’m – there’s really nothing that I can add to that.

QUESTION: Do you believe he’s a democrat, Erdogan?

MS TRUDEAU: I believe that he is the leader of our friend and our NATO ally.

QUESTION: Can I go to Iran?

MS TRUDEAU: Of course.

QUESTION: Can I ask one more on Turkey before we leave?

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah. Do – we’ll do that, and then, Matt, I’ll go to Iran.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Is there a concern that with the prime minister’s resignation, there may be a setback in efforts to fight the Islamic State, that this may be a hindrance to the overall effort considering that he had relatively warm relations with the U.S.?

MS TRUDEAU: What I would say is that Turkey is not blind to the threat that it faces on its own – its own soil along its border, so Turkey is very aware. It’s a strong partner in the counter-ISIL coalition.

Matt.

QUESTION: So you’ve – I’m sure you’ve seen these conflicting – or I don’t know about – I guess they are, yes, conflicting claims out of --

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah, they are conflicting.

QUESTION: -- out of Tehran today – the first report being that they had test fired this ballistic missile, okay, with a 2,000-kilometer range; second report from the defense minister saying the range was not 2,000 kilometers, but he didn’t deny that a missile test had taken place. So what’s your read on this?

MS TRUDEAU: So we’ve seen – we’re aware of Iranian comments on an additional ballistic missile launch. We’re working to gather additional information at the time – at this time. We remain concerned about Iran’s ballistic missile test launches, which are provocative and destabilizing. These launches are inconsistent with UN Security Council Resolution 2231 in which the Security Council called on Iran not to undertake launches of ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering a nuclear weapon.

QUESTION: So you can’t speak to, one, whether or not you think that they actually did launch a missile of any range --

MS TRUDEAU: I can’t, no.

QUESTION: -- or two, whether or not it was this range?

MS TRUDEAU: I can’t. I can’t confirm either.

QUESTION: So if and when – in the past, when you have confirmed launches, you have taken it to the Security Council, where your --

MS TRUDEAU: And if this launch is confirmed, we will do so again.

QUESTION: Okay. But when you have done this in the past and sought additional Security Council action, you have not been successful, correct?

MS TRUDEAU: So we would say that as we raise it at the UN under 2231 that we will continue to have those conversations there if this is confirmed – and again, we’re not saying it is.

QUESTION: Yeah, I know. But it is correct that you have not been able to get the Security Council to take any action on previous tests in part because the language in the current resolution that replaced all the previous resolutions is less stringent than what it used to be.

MS TRUDEAU: So --

QUESTION: Is that not correct?

MS TRUDEAU: The language is “is inconsistent with,” and I think we’ve talked about this before.

QUESTION: I understand that, but you – but I just want to make sure that you acknowledge that the reason that you have not been able to get action at the Security Council in the wake of the previous tests, these most recent previous tests, is because the language in this new resolution is different than the language that was in the previous resolution as it regards ballistic missiles.

MS TRUDEAU: So the new resolution, 2231, continues to call on Iran specifically not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using ballistic missile technology.

QUESTION: Well, do you agree that that is different from the previous resolution language, which said “shall not?”

MS TRUDEAU: I think there are nuances – I think there are nuances in words, and we will continue to vigorously press the case for UN Security Council Resolution 2231.

QUESTION: But you do accept that there is a difference between a commandment – “shall not” – and a “call upon” --

MS TRUDEAU: We will continue --

QUESTION: This is the argument – I’m not making it.

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah.

QUESTION: This is the argument that the Russians have made. This is the argument that the Iranians have made. And when you start saying that it’s not a violation, but rather it is inconsistent with, it just seems like it’s playing at words. I’m trying to find out if the Administration will at least acknowledge that the new language is less stringent than the old language.

MS TRUDEAU: No.

QUESTION: No?

MS TRUDEAU: The UN Security Council resolution continues to call on Iran specifically not to undertake any activity.

QUESTION: Yes, but before it did more than just “continue to call upon.” It said it shouldn’t – it “shall not” do these things. So if you’re – if you say that the language is exactly the same, then it shouldn’t --

MS TRUDEAU: It’s not exactly the same.

QUESTION: Ah, okay.

MS TRUDEAU: We believe we have the tools.

QUESTION: All right. Thank you.

MS TRUDEAU: Samir.

QUESTION: Oh, wait, wait. I had one more --

MS TRUDEAU: Wait. Are we staying on Iran?

QUESTION: I have one more on Iran, but it’s a different --

QUESTION: Iran. Iran for --

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- 200. (Laughter.) Sky News has reported --

MS TRUDEAU: You have to pose it as a question. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Well, then you have to come up with the right answer. (Laughter.)

MS TRUDEAU: Snap. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: How would you respond to the Sky News report that Secretary Kerry plans to meet with British bankers to discuss sanctions lifting on Iran and presumably to encourage them to lend their depositors’ funds to the Iranians?

MS TRUDEAU: Thanks for the question, for 200. While we don’t have anything specific to announce today, the Department of State and Treasury are always looking for ways to engage relevant parties on the implementation of the JCPOA. So nothing to announce today.

QUESTION: Okay. And is he meeting any – is he meeting any French bankers, for example, to discuss this?

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah. I – if I have more information in the coming days, I’ll do that.

QUESTION: Thanks.

MS TRUDEAU: And Matt, you had an Iran too, and then I’ll get to you, Samir.

QUESTION: I did, but go – I can’t remember what it is at the moment. Ask --

MS TRUDEAU: I’m here all day.

QUESTION: Yeah.

MS TRUDEAU: Samir. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Twice on Saturdays.

QUESTION: Do you have an update about the status of the Yemen peace talks in Kuwait?

MS TRUDEAU: I do. Thank you for that question. So we are pleased that the Yemeni peace talks that began April 21st continue in Kuwait. As the UN special envoy for Yemen noted today, he continues to hold meetings with the Yemeni parties in order to reach an understanding on contested issues and to find a way to move forward. Thus far, parties have agreed upon a general framework for the talks and began meeting in working groups to focus on a variety of political and security challenges. The United States encourages all parties to continue to attend the talks in good faith and to continue to build upon the important progress already made in order to find a comprehensive solution to the crisis in Yemen.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS TRUDEAU: You’re welcome.

QUESTION: On Ukraine.

QUESTION: Can I --

QUESTION: Change of subject?

MS TRUDEAU: Hold on one second.

QUESTION: Can I just go back to the – finish the – they’ll be very brief, because I think you’re going to have to take both of them.

MS TRUDEAU: Okay.

QUESTION: One is there’s also – you saw the reports about a bunch of IRGC officers being killed in Syria --

MS TRUDEAU: I did see those.

QUESTION: -- and some being captured. I don’t know if there has been an official claim of responsibility for this action, but there is talk in Iran now that there is going to be some kind of a large-scale offensive in the area where that incident happened. Do you know anything about that? Have you – would you – if there was to be, would it be an issue with the joint statement that you put out with the Russians earlier? Or is it your view that whoever did this would not be covered by the ceasefire?

MS TRUDEAU: So I’ve seen the reports. I don’t have a lot of details on that, and I haven’t seen a claim of responsibility.

QUESTION: Okay. And then the second one, which you may not also know, is that a group, very much like the opposition to the Iran deal in Congress here – which there has been some – there is also opposition to it in Iran, in the Iranian parliament. And there – I guess more than 100 members of the Iranian parliament have written to say that they should stop – say that Iran should stop complying with the JCPOA and go ahead and do as much enrichment as they want, as they’re allowed to under the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Do you have anything to say about that? Is that --

MS TRUDEAU: I would refer you to the Iranians to speak to their own political process.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS TRUDEAU: Ma’am, and then we’ll go back.

QUESTION: Okay. Thank you, Elizabeth. I have a question about WHO’s invitation to Taiwan last week.

MS TRUDEAU: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Margaret Chan, the general secretary of WHO, sent a letter – invitation for Taiwan to be an observer this May. But in the letter he – he’s recalling the UN Resolution 2758, and in line with the “one China” principle as reflected within. Therefore, he invited Taiwan to lead delegate to WHA. I wonder, do you have any comment? Because I remember U.S. has a “one China” policy, not a “one China” principle. So since you’re a supporter of Taiwan’s participation in WHA --

MS TRUDEAU: We are.

QUESTION: -- I wonder do – yeah.

MS TRUDEAU: We are pleased that Taiwan has received an invitation to this year’s World Health Assembly taking place May 23rd through 28th. Taiwan has participated as an observer in the WHA for the past seven years. The United States strongly supports such WHA participation and Taiwan’s meaningful participation in the work of the World Health Organization-related activities. We note Taiwan has made important contributions to global health, and its participation in the WHA and in the work of the WHO contributes to a safer, healthier world.

QUESTION: But how about the “one China” principle? Does that contradict the --

MS TRUDEAU: The United States remains committed to our “one China” policy based on the three joint communiques and the Taiwan Relations Act.

QUESTION: And I remember too --

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- a quick – just one last question.

MS TRUDEAU: Of course.

QUESTION: In 2011, I remember the secretary of health from the U.S. said in Geneva no UN organization can unilaterally decide, determine Taiwan’s status. Do you think this time, by sending this invitation, WHO trying to redefine Taiwan’s --

MS TRUDEAU: No. As I noted, we’re pleased to see them participate.

QUESTION: Can I follow up?

MS TRUDEAU: Go ahead. You know what? Let me go to the gentleman behind you and then I’ll come to you.

QUESTION: On North Korea, the Workers’ Party congress ended and with Kim Jong-un being named the party chairman. Do you have any comments on that? Is this a --

MS TRUDEAU: I do not.

QUESTION: Do you have any comments on the reporters being kicked out, the BBC reporters being kicked out of North Korea?

MS TRUDEAU: I think our position on press freedom is pretty well known. It’s an opaque regime. It’s – I think that we’ll leave it there.

Sir.

QUESTION: So that I’m wondering that the United States agree on WHO’s move to mention the “one China” principle in its invitation for Taiwan to participate in WHA.

MS TRUDEAU: I’m just going to leave our comments where we put them.

Sir.

QUESTION: On Egypt.

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah.

QUESTION: Last Saturday an Egyptian court recommended death penalty against three journalists, including two from Al Jazeera, Ibrahim Helal and Alaa Sablan. What’s your reaction to this, and was there any kind of communication with the Egyptian authorities over the weekend about this issue?

MS TRUDEAU: Okay. Thank you for the question. It’s an important story. We understand an Egyptian court is seeking the death penalty for two journalists affiliated with Al Jazeera. Apparently they were tried in absentia, which we understand automatically leads to the maximum allowable sentencing per Egyptian law. As we’ve said, we’re concerned about the deterioration in respect for freedom of expression and association in Egypt, and we continue to have very frank conversations with the Egyptians on this.

Ma’am.

QUESTION: Ukraine. In the recent days there have been lots of reports about possible appointment of the new ambassador of the U.S. to Ukraine, Mary Jovanovich. Could you please confirm this or give more details of this?

MS TRUDEAU: No, I can’t. I have no personnel announcements.

Sir.

QUESTION: The Philippines.

MS TRUDEAU: Of course.

QUESTION: Yes. Mr. Duterte is the likely winner of the presidential election in the Philippines.

MS TRUDEAU: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: What is your response? And he will call for a summit to solve disputes over the South China Sea, which would include the United States and Japan. What is the U.S. reaction to his proposal?

MS TRUDEAU: Okay, so first on the Philippines and the election, the United States congratulates the Philippines on holding inclusive and democratic elections. Our two nations have strong and enduring ties based on our shared respect for democratic values. We look forward to continuing those ties. We do understand, however, official election results have not yet been released. We’ll wait for the official results from the Government of the Philippines before providing further comment. That would extend to any proposals that would be made by one of the candidates.

QUESTION: I had another one on South China Sea.

MS TRUDEAU: Of course.

QUESTION: Over the weekend, a representative of the Chinese foreign ministry rejected any participation in the arbitration. Do you have any response to that?

MS TRUDEAU: As we’ve said before, the United States supports peaceful resolution of disputes including through the use of international legal mechanisms such as arbitration.

QUESTION: One more on the Philippines?

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah.

QUESTION: Do you have any comment on Mr. Duterte’s long service as Davao – if I’m pronouncing that right – mayor and the many allegations by human rights groups that he condoned or actively encouraged extrajudicial killings by death squads?

MS TRUDEAU: At this stage, because the election results are still coming in, I’m not going to speak to that. I understand it’s still in flux. I understand the question. Thanks, Arshad.

QUESTION: On the disputed island distribution.

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah.

QUESTION: I mean, Japan and Taiwan recently has a territory dispute on a small island --

MS TRUDEAU: Which island?

QUESTION: I forgot, it is --

QUESTION: Senkakus.

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah, we don’t have a position on those.

QUESTION: So Taiwan’s president said that he might bring it to the international arbitration for the dispute. Does the U.S. --

MS TRUDEAU: As we’ve said in the past, we do welcome efforts for international involvement in this including through arbitration. But on this particular one we have no position on the sovereignty on those islands.

QUESTION: Staying in the region --

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- but slightly different. On Japan. There’s been some sort of mixed speculation on the U.S. position on this, so I just wanted to give you a chance to clear the record. Does the State Department have any reaction to Prime Minister Abe’s meeting with Vladimir Putin last Friday?

MS TRUDEAU: Okay. So we consult regularly with the Government of Japan on a range of regional and global issues. Continued unity among our partners including the EU and the G7 remains vital in our approach to Russia. We would refer you to the Government of Japan regarding Prime Minister Abe’s visit and his discussions with his counterparts.

QUESTION: Thanks.

MS TRUDEAU: That’s it. Thanks, guys.

QUESTION: One quick --

MS TRUDEAU: Oh, I’m sorry.

QUESTION: I’m sorry, a quick one on Saudi Arabia.

MS TRUDEAU: Sure.

QUESTION: Do you have any comments on the appointment of the oil minister?

MS TRUDEAU: We are aware of reports that the Government of Saudi Arabia has appointed several new ministers. We’d refer you, obviously, to the Government of Saudi Arabia for specific question. They remain a strong, vital partner of the United States. We continue to work with them on a range of fields including economic issues.

QUESTION: Wait, wait.

MS TRUDEAU: Yes, sir.

QUESTION: You’re aware of reports?

MS TRUDEAU: We know. Thank you, Matt. That’s an important thing.

QUESTION: I mean, the Secretary of State did meet with the Saudi foreign minister today in Paris.

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah, it is. Yeah, that’s --

QUESTION: Are the --

MS TRUDEAU: No.

QUESTION: Did this not come up at all? You haven’t --

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah, thank you. Thanks, guys.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:34 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 - May 6, 2016

John Kirby

Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC

May 6, 2016









Index for Today's Briefing

TURKEY



SYRIA



IRAQ



SYRIA



ISRAEL/PALESTINIANS



DEPARTMENT



UKRAINE




TRANSCRIPT:

.1:06 p.m. EDT

MR KIRBY: Good afternoon, everybody. I do not have any announcements at the top, so we can get right to questions.

QUESTION: Can we start with Turkey?

QUESTION: David, you had a --

QUESTION: I was just going to launch in halfway through, but --

MR KIRBY: You’re going to what?

QUESTION: Going to Turkey, Turkey’s (inaudible).

MR KIRBY: All right. You had your hand up. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you so much. Today, just this morning or a couple hours ago, editor-in-chief of Cumhuriyet daily, Turkish daily, attacked by a gunman. Do you have a comment, first of all, on this?

MR KIRBY: No, look, I’m just seeing press reports about this myself, and so it – I think we’re just going to watch this as closely as we can, but I don’t have an official comment on it right now.

QUESTION: But you have seen that the incident happened? Do you think that --

MR KIRBY: I have seen press reports about an incident. I don’t have operational reports to speak to about it, so I’m going to refrain from specific comments until we have more information. I just don’t have anything more for you.

QUESTION: Do you have operational reports on the fighting in Hama prison in Syria?

MR KIRBY: We’ve seen reports of that as well and we’re certainly concerned about that. We would urge the regime to refrain from actions that could escalate the violence and the tension. And I understand that there’s already been some violence here. I’m not saying there hasn’t been. And as always, we call on Russia and other partners that have influence on the regime to press them for restraint.

And I might take this opportunity to simply say that we also call on the regime to treat appropriately those people that are being detained. There’s a – you could easily have a fundamental debate about whether they should be detained or not, and certainly, we have concerns over the detentions. But separate and distinct from that, there’s an obligation – if you’re going to have people detained in a prison, there’s an obligation that a government incurs upon itself in terms of assuring their well-being. And so we’re – we certainly call on them to respect that obligation.

QUESTION: Do you have any update on the alleged bombing of the IDP camp in northern Syria? I gather the Syrians and the Russians have denied having anything to do with it, but it’s apparently an airstrike.

MR KIRBY: Yeah. I would tell you that we’re still processing information about that incident and there’s the – we don’t have perfect knowledge about what happened. So we’re still doing the best we can to try to get more information and more accurate information about what happened.

QUESTION: Well, what is the status of the ceasefire – of the truce?

MR KIRBY: The cessation of hostilities in Aleppo – that’s what you meant to ask, I think.

QUESTION: No, I meant to ask – I don’t like the words “cessation of hostilities -- ”

MR KIRBY: I know you don’t. I know you don’t.

QUESTION: -- because I’m not sure it doesn’t – it doesn’t – it apparently doesn’t mean “cessation of hostilities.” It means --

MR KIRBY: No --

QUESTION: But it doesn’t mean (inaudible).

QUESTION: -- keep fighting.

MR KIRBY: It does – it does --

QUESTION: No, that’s why I said “truce.”

MR KIRBY: It does – well, it does mean that, though. It does mean that. And it --

QUESTION: But anyway – anyway --

MR KIRBY: And that’s what we’re trying to achieve. And so to answer your question --

QUESTION: So it’s supposed to – so by your count if you – since yesterday, you guys accepted or Mark accepted that it was 48 hours that the Syrians had agreed to. And by your definition of when that started, it would have been over last night at midnight local time. By their definition, the Syrians’ definition, it would be over tonight, midnight time.

Is it still, on according to you? Because according to you, it would have been over last night and it hasn’t (inaudible).

MR KIRBY: Well, what we – right. So obviously, what we want and desire is for these cessations to be enduring. And what I can tell you is (a) we continue to watch the situation in Aleppo. It does appear as if the violence has decreased since it came into effect a couple of days ago and that seems to be the case today. I can’t tell you that it’s perfect in every neighborhood of Aleppo, of course not. And obviously, the right number of violations is zero. That’s what we want. We’re still concerned about reports of violations.

But in general, since the – it went into effect two days ago, we have seen a decreased level of violence in Aleppo, and we’d like to see that continue.

QUESTION: Okay, right. But are there active efforts underway now to extend it beyond what the Syrians say would be the end of it?

MR KIRBY: Well, I don’t want to get ahead of diplomatic discussions. I can tell you that we very much – the United States very much would like to see it endure and go beyond what were – what were stated time limits.

QUESTION: Well, based on what you know, what are the chances of that?

MR KIRBY: I don’t – I think I don’t want to – I’m not going to speculate in terms of the chances of being able to go forward with it. I think – I don't know that would be useful to do. What I can tell you is we’re committed to seeing it endure --

QUESTION: I understand that, but I’m --

MR KIRBY: -- and we’re going to continue to have discussions with the partners in the ISSG to try to see that it can endure.

QUESTION: Okay, but I’m not asking you to speculate about it. I’m saying based on what you know --

MR KIRBY: Well, you said what are the chances.

QUESTION: Based on what you know, or what this building knows from people in Geneva and potential conversations that the Secretary or other officials may have had with the Russians, what are – are you optimistic that there will – that you’ll be able to get an extension?

MR KIRBY: I would say that we’re committed to making it endure and we’re very focused on trying to see if that reduction in violence can be sustained.

QUESTION: Can I follow up?

QUESTION: Have the Russians said whether they’re going to – it’s going to endure? The Russians announced it as a 48-hour ceasefire.

MR KIRBY: I’m not aware of any additional comments out of Moscow. You’d have to talk to them about that.

QUESTION: They have – when was the last time Secretary Kerry spoke to Foreign Minister Lavrov?

MR KIRBY: Hang on a second. The last call I have on record was Monday, the 2nd of May, before it went into effect.

QUESTION: John?

MR KIRBY: Yes.

QUESTION: Can I just quickly follow up? Now, your counterpart at the Russian foreign ministry, Maria Zakharova, said today that basically it was the terrorists, what she calls the terrorists, that time and again broke the ceasefire before. And she noted what happened on May 1 and May 3rd and so on, and she’s saying basically it is Jabhat al-Nusrah and others who have been trying to frustrate or to break the hudna, the cessation of hostilities, since it went into effect on – last February. Do you have any comment on that? Because she has said --

MR KIRBY: Well, it’s an interesting comment to make because they’re not parties to the cessation of hostilities.

QUESTION: I understand that.

MR KIRBY: Designated terrorist groups are not parties to it.

QUESTION: So but --

MR KIRBY: So nobody ever expected them to observe it.

QUESTION: Okay. But so – then she says that that made them a fair target by government forces and so on. So when you say that they are not part of the cessation, then they are fair targets, then the government has or everybody else – much as like the coalition or the Russians and so on – has every right to go ahead and bomb them, right?

MR KIRBY: They’re not a party to the cessation, so they are – they are fair targets for kinetic strikes, yeah.

QUESTION: Right, okay, okay. And that includes the areas that may not be delineated between this group or that group, and so on?

MR KIRBY: If – we’ve talked about this before, Said.

QUESTION: I understand. I’m trying to --

MR KIRBY: I mean, I --

QUESTION: -- to get a grasp of it.

MR KIRBY: I know. But I feel like sometimes we’re retreading the same ground over and over again.

QUESTION: Right, right.

MR KIRBY: I’m not disputing the fact that in Aleppo these groups can be intermingled. In fact, sometimes it’s by design, especially by groups like al-Nusrah that want to help try to protect themselves by being geographically close or intermixed with groups that – either civilians or opposition groups that they know are parties to the cessation of hostilities.

I’m also not saying and never have said that there haven’t been violations of the cessation by certain members of the opposition. There has been. That said, by and large, the violations have been as a result of the regime. And what we’ve asked certainly in our conversations with Russia particularly is that if they are going to undertake strikes, which they have, against al-Nusrah and against Daesh, that they do so with as much precision as they can so that they are just hitting those groups and not anybody else. I can’t say with certainty that that has always been the case, that there haven’t been in these strikes also strikes against the opposition and against civilians. And on the regime side we can say definitively we know that the regime has not abided by the cessation particularly there in Aleppo and has deliberately, on purpose, gone out and struck civilian targets and opposition targets. But it’s a very --

QUESTION: Now the --

MR KIRBY: It’s a very fluid situation there, very dynamic, which is why, quite frankly, it was so important for us to get this reaffirmation in place a couple of days ago in Aleppo.

QUESTION: Now, I can do one quick follow-up on what – something that Mark said yesterday that it was unacceptable to have the regime retake Aleppo and so on, something to that effect. Does that mean there ought to be some sort of lines or demarcation between the different – between government troops and the other groups that ought to be recognized by those involved, like you, like the Russians, like whoever is involved in this process?

MR KIRBY: We’re not looking at the cessation in terms of lines of demarcation, no.

QUESTION: Different --

QUESTION: John?

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: Can I ask you about the – so has this issue of the 48 hours been cleared up? If the military said that it was 48 hours and the State Department said it’s open-ended, can we assume that this truce continues?

MR KIRBY: I think that was sort of the line of questioning that I just went through with Matt. We would like to see it endure. I understand what some of the understandings were at the outset, and again, I’d say over the last two days we have seen a reduction in the violence, and I think that gives us some reason to be encouraged that if it can endure, we may continue to see even more of a reduction in the violence. But I couldn’t possibly predict that certainty or for how long that might be able to go. What we would like to see – and we’ve said it from the very beginning when the cessation was first put in place – that we – that our goal, our objective, our desire would be to see that it be enduring, that it be long-lasting, permanent, sustainable. I mean, obviously that’s what you want. You want to see the violence come down.

QUESTION: So was this a lack of communication between you and the Russians?

MR KIRBY: I don’t think it was a lack of communication. I mean, I think there were pretty serious discussions that went on between us and the Russians with respect to getting this latest reaffirmation of the hostilities, the restoration, if you will, in Aleppo – getting that in place and trying to get it to stick. And in the process of doing that, it’s natural to – especially because you’re looking at a specific geographic area, it’s natural to want to – to try to bound that in some way so that you can get a deal in place that can be enforced. And we did. And there has been, as I said, a reduction in the violence.

But we – for our part, we – and we’ve said this from the beginning. I’m not saying something different to you that what we’ve said in the room – we want to see this be enduring. Ultimately, we don’t want to see time limits on this.

QUESTION: So when we look at this as outsiders and we evaluate whether this truce is holding or not, we look at the levels of violence. Is that what you’re saying we should do?

MR KIRBY: The levels of violence, yes. I mean --

QUESTION: Overall?

MR KIRBY: And when I – yeah, overall, but most specifically the – and I hate to put adjectives on it, but the organized violence that you would see from – where you see the cessation not happening or not succeeding. It’s this – it’s the regime against opposition or against civilians. It’s – and it’s violations of other groups that are causing these deaths and these injuries.

QUESTION: And can I ask one more question? With the task force and evaluating the violations, is – does the U.S. and Russia coordinate and – I mean, would you have to show your hand as where the opposition is based, and they would have to show their hand where the government is based? Is that not kind of --

MR KIRBY: Well, I don’t think there’s any question about where the government is operating out of. But – and I don’t want to get into the tactical-level detail here of how – of the information flow. But it is true that the U.S. side and the Russian side are in direct communication around the clock now about the situation, particularly in Aleppo, and the purpose of that round-the-clock communication is to do exactly that – to make sure that violations don’t occur and then when they appear to be or appear to maybe be in the future, to try to forestall that by sharing information as appropriate to keep it from happening.

QUESTION: If the 48-hour ceasefire or cessation of hostilities is not renewed at midnight Syrian time, so in a few hours, does that mark a failure for this policy and of the mechanism that you’ve chosen?

MR KIRBY: What I would say is, number one, we want to see it continue. We want to see it be sustainable and enduring. That it has led to, for the first time now in weeks, a reduction in the violence in Aleppo is a good thing, and again, we’re encouraged by that.

QUESTION: But you’ll be disappointed --

MR KIRBY: And it tells us – it tells us that it is possible to get to a better outcome in Aleppo. It tells us that it is in fact possible for Russia to exert the appropriate kind of influence on the Assad regime so that regime attacks can stop. So it certainly is an indicator that this approach can work, and I think what – I would say it gives us hope that it’s worth continuing to try to pursue that and to keep it going.

QUESTION: But if the regime is listening to you now – I assume they are – they might see this as proof that they can string you along for 48 hours from time to time, and you continue to say that you believe the process has got potential.

MR KIRBY: Well, look, you do what you have to do to stop the bloodletting, particularly where you see it in places like Aleppo. But that doesn’t mean that we’re interested in some sort of long-term plan to do this piecemeal. What I’ve said from earlier is we want to see all of Syria to be a peaceful environment. We don’t want to see any Syrians --

QUESTION: How long --

MR KIRBY: -- come under attack from their own government.

QUESTION: How long are you prepared to tolerate the piecemeal approach?

MR KIRBY: We are – we certainly are prepared to keep working this very hard for as long as it takes to try to get --

QUESTION: But you just you wouldn’t tolerate a long-term – but now you say as long as it takes.

MR KIRBY: Hang on a second. Your question was how long are we going to work towards keeping the cessation in place, and we’ll do that for as long as it takes. What we want to see is the cessation of hostilities endure nationwide and to be sustainable over the long term. I’m not going to speculate from here about what happens in another 12 or 18 hours if, in fact, the Syrian regime considers the timeframe started later than what we did. What I can tell you is --

QUESTION: I don’t think it’s 12 or 18; I think it’s about six, isn’t it?

MR KIRBY: What I can tell you – oh, whatever. What I can tell you is we’re committed to keeping this in place as long as possible. That’s the focus. And not just in Aleppo, but throughout the whole country.

QUESTION: John, I have three questions on Syria. On the IDP camp, Russian military official said that judging by destruction of the refugee camp, Nusrah Front militants could have deliberately or accidentally fired on it. Do you have any information that confirm this statement?

MR KIRBY: No.

QUESTION: And do you think that al-Nusrah was behind the – behind firing on the camp?

MR KIRBY: I don’t have any information that indicates that. As I said at the outset, we’re still gathering information right now and are not in a position to definitively say exactly what happened there.

QUESTION: Second question.

MR KIRBY: No, you already asked two.

QUESTION: No, this was one. (Laughter.)

MR KIRBY: No, that was two.

QUESTION: The first one was a question; the second was a follow-up. Now, the second question: The Syrian coalition issued a statement today saying that the massacre perpetrated by the Assad regime against civilians in the IDP Kamouna Camp in rural Idlib could have been prevented had U.S. President Barack Obama approved the establishment of a safe zone in northern Syria. What do you think about this statement?

MR KIRBY: Well, again, we’re still trying to get better information about what happened in the Idlib camp. So I’m not going to go any further on the circumstances there. We just don’t have perfect knowledge right now.

The issue of safe zones, buffer zones, whatever you want to call them – we’ve talked about that for quite some time, Michel. I don’t have anything new to add to what we’ve said in the past, that we continue to examine and consider all manner of options and all alternatives. It would be irresponsible not to. But there’s no change to our view at this time that safe zones or buffer zones are not the appropriate response to take right now. And there are risk and resource-intensive issues that must be considered before you enact an approach like that, and we have to be mindful of it.

QUESTION: My third question is: Will the Secretary participate in the meeting on Syria on – in Paris next Monday?

MR KIRBY: I don’t have any updates to offer on his schedule for next week.

QUESTION: Because French – France foreign ministry has announced that United States will be part of the meeting, and Britain, Germany, Italy, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Jordan, and Turkey will be there too.

MR KIRBY: I don’t have any updates to his schedule to announce right now.

Pam.

QUESTION: One on Syria and two on Iraq. Syria – this is a follow-up to David’s question. I understand that the U.S. is interested in a broad nationwide ceasefire in Syria as a whole, but as you do these localized agreements such as what you have in place in Aleppo, the ones that were enacted last week in Latakia, is there a limit on how long you’re willing to consider trying with these localized ceasefires? Is there are a point that you get to where these localized ceasefires with 48-hour deadlines just – it becomes futile and difficult or too difficult to maintain?

MR KIRBY: I think this gets – it’s the same question that Dave asked, okay? I mean, I don’t know how I can approach this any differently. We’re – so let’s back up just a little bit here. We want to see the entire country safe and secure for the Syrian people. We want to see the cessation of hostilities, which applied to the entire country, actually executed for the entire country – implemented across the entire country.

We knew the day after it was implemented that there were going to be violations, and there have been. We’ve been very open and honest about that. We’ve tried very hard to prevent them where we can, and there have been some that have been prevented. And where they occur, we try as best we can to analyze the information, share it, and then try to use influence – both on the opposition and on the regime – to keep them from happening again.

Now, you’re right, there were some smaller reaffirmations of that or efforts to restore that over the last couple of weeks. And I’m not in a position now to say with any great certainty that that approach is going to be pursued in the future. I wouldn’t rule it in, I wouldn’t rule it out. What I can affirmatively tell you is that the Secretary is committed to keeping the cessation of hostilities in place as much as possible. Obviously, the goal here is zero violations – that’s what we want. And he will continue to work this very, very hard, certainly with Foreign Minister Lavrov, but also with other leaders in the ISSG going forward. And if that means that we have to take a look at more localized efforts in order to do that, then we’ll do that.

Obviously, the ideal approach is one that’s nationwide and it’s enduring and it’s sustainable. And I appreciate the desire to get me to speculate about another 48 hours or another 72 hours or whatever it is, and I’m simply not prepared to do that. And I don’t think it would be wise to try to hypothesize about the manner in which we might pursue additional efforts to keep the cessation in place. What matters – and I think – and I wish I had said this the first time you asked this question, but what --

QUESTION: Well, this is why we’re asking again.

QUESTION: There you go. (Laughter.)

MR KIRBY: Okay, I can’t argue with that. What matters is that we have seen a reduction in violence and that – and I’m not overstating this by any stretch, because Syria remains a dangerous place and there’s still a lot of suffering – but that for some Syrians in some places, life has gotten better. Not perfect – they still have a government that is, obviously, showing a propensity to continue to kill them. But life has gotten measurably better for some Syrians in some places, and I don’t think we should lose sight of that. There is more work to be done, but I can tell you the Secretary is committed to being as flexible as he needs to be to keep the cessation in place.

QUESTION: And then a couple on Iraq, if we can transition.

MR KIRBY: Go ahead.

QUESTION: Has the U.S. increased military personnel at the U.S. embassy as a result of security concerns – brought in additional Marines? Can you confirm those reports? And secondly, if this is the case, is this a permanent increase in the number of military personnel who will be there for security reasons or a temporary up-staffing?

MR KIRBY: Well, I think you know we don’t talk about security posture at our embassies, and it’s a dynamic situation. We constantly evaluate our security posture, and, frankly, we routinely and constantly change that posture as appropriate. That is what we expect the good people in Diplomatic Security to do. I won’t talk about it one way or another. I will – I do think it’s important to remind, however, that our embassy in Baghdad continues to operate normally.

QUESTION: John?

QUESTION: Is there – one more – is there ongoing – is there concern in this building concerning the ongoing friction between the Iraqi Government and Muqtada al-Sadr’s followers? I know that you’ve said before that this is sort of inside baseball, an issue that Iraq has to work out, but is there concern that these tensions may be destabilizing to U.S. interests such as the overall fight against the Islamic State?

MR KIRBY: We want, obviously, to see the reforms that Prime Minister Abadi is putting into place – we want to see them succeed. And we know that he knows how important it is for him to continue pursuing these reforms in keeping with Iraq’s constitution. And Iraq is an important partner in the region. They are certainly an important partner in this fight against Daesh. Our support inside the coalition remains and will continue. That support is being done by, with, and through the Abadi government in Baghdad.

But you’re right. Look, these are political challenges that the Iraqi people have to work through and Prime Minister Abadi has to lead them through. And as I said earlier, a few days ago, we’re confident that he can do that and that he’s well aware of the significant challenges he’s facing.

QUESTION: Kirby, can I have a follow-up on that, please?

MR KIRBY: Sure.

QUESTION: Are you concerned, though, about the security around that embassy?

MR KIRBY: We’re concerned about the security of our embassies all over the world, everywhere.

Samir.

QUESTION: Yes. You said you talk daily to the Russians about Syria. Can you help us understand, how do you assess their behavior in Syria? Because it doesn’t seem they are using their influence very much on Assad, because he keeps continuing bombing and violating ceasefires. I mean, can he keep doing this without an orange light from the Russians?

MR KIRBY: Without a what?

QUESTION: Orange light.

MR KIRBY: Orange light?

QUESTION: It’s not a green – orange light at least.

MR KIRBY: I’ve never heard that phrase before. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Yellow light.

QUESTION: Yellow light.

MR KIRBY: Look, I talked about this the other day, that we know that Russia’s influence can matter, that it does matter to the Assad regime. Because when we’ve seen them exert that influence, it has worked. And I think the reduction in violence in and around Aleppo over the last couple of days is yet another indication, another bit of evidence that – but when they exert their influence, it can have a meaningful impact.

The question that we’ve asked ourselves is how much – how willing are they – and how strongly are they using that influence at times, and whether or not Assad has developed any antibodies to some of that influence. That has not always been clear. But again, if you just take a look at the last 48 hours – and the fact, Samir, quite frankly, that in many other places around Syria the cessation has held. I mean, Aleppo gets a lot of attention, rightly so – no question about that. But there are a lot of other communities around Syria that we’re not talking about, you’re not asking me about, because the cessation has held and the violence has stopped. So we know they can have influence and that that influence can have an impact. We want to see that continue.

QUESTION: Idlib, for example. The firing on the camp. It’s in Idlib province, not in Aleppo.

QUESTION: I asked about Hama.

MR KIRBY: Yeah. So --

QUESTION: So we are asking about other places.

MR KIRBY: Yeah. You’re asking about other places where the cessation may not be holding. We’re not talking about the places in Syria – which is what I was referring to – where it is holding. Because I recognize that’s not necessarily newsworthy – at least maybe not to some members of the media – but it certainly is to us, because it shows that the cessation can in fact be put in place and held.

Now, your question about Idlib, in the question itself, you’re calling it a firing. As I said, we’re still trying to assess what happened, and I don’t have great – we don’t have any more specific knowledge about what happened there, and so I think it’s just too soon to say.

QUESTION: Can we move on?

MR KIRBY: Yes.

QUESTION: Can we go to the Palestinian-Israeli issue?

MR KIRBY: To the what?

QUESTION: Palestinian-Israeli issue?

QUESTION: Guess. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Could I ask you --

MR KIRBY: Said asks about other stuff.

QUESTION: Madagascar.

QUESTION: I ask about other stuff.

MR KIRBY: He does, he does. You’re not going to ask about --

QUESTION: I can ask about North Korea if you --

MR KIRBY: -- but you’re not going to ask about Madagascar today, are you?

QUESTION: No.

MR KIRBY: Because I really don’t have anything on that right now.

QUESTION: It’s a big island. Anyway. I wanted to ask you for the third day straight – or confrontations along the Gaza border. Are you concerned that this may escalate out of hand? Hamas is saying that they don’t want – or they don’t want for these hostilities to accelerate in any way, but the Israelis are not holding off. Are you talking to them about the need to --

MR KIRBY: Well, we – look, we always talk to our Israeli counterparts about security there, and certainly --

QUESTION: I understand. But on this particular issue, have you spoken to them?

MR KIRBY: I’m not going to – I won’t detail specific conversations that we’re having with Israeli leaders. Let me just say a couple of things, and I think it’s probably the same thing you’ve heard us say over the last couple of days. I mean, it is a developing situation. We obviously do not want to see it escalate. And certainly, we condemn mortar attacks and other attacks from Gaza into Israel. And I would also say, as we’ve said before, we support Israel’s right to defend itself and to defend its citizens. And no country should have to be under threat that comes from attacks based on tunneling. So – and there’s a legitimate security concern here for the Israeli Government. What we would like to obviously see is the tensions decrease and it doesn’t get worse.

QUESTION: Is there a line beyond which you expect the Israelis not to go in affirming their self-defense?

MR KIRBY: All I will say to that, Said, and what we’ve said before is we want to see the violence come down, we want to see calm restored, we want to see both sides take affirmative steps and show some leadership to try to get us to a situation where you can have a meaningful discussion about a two-state solution, and that’s really – that’s really what this is about or needs to be about.

QUESTION: I have a couple more questions. The Israelis keep holding bodies of Palestinians that are killed at the checkpoints – really kind of macabre. I mean, the brother and sister, for instance, that were killed on the 27th, their bodies are held there, some – something like 14 or 15 others that are being held, and in a way, just to punish and torment the families. Do you have any comment on that? Is that a practice that should cease or should stop immediately? Because obviously, it doesn’t seem to have any kind of investigative value.

MR KIRBY: Well, look, without talking to the specifics of any case here, what I would tell you is that we would welcome steps from the parties that would help to reduce the tensions and restore calm, and I just – I think I’ll leave it at that.

QUESTION: Including the release of the bodies of dead people --

MR KIRBY: If a step like that --

QUESTION: -- to their families?

MR KIRBY: If a step like that could help reduce the tensions and restore calm, then obviously, we would welcome that.

QUESTION: Let me ask you one more question. Congresswoman Betty McCollum from Minnesota’s Fourth District drafted a letter and she’s trying to collect signatures and so on from her colleagues. It is addressed to President Obama, copied to Vice President Biden and Secretary of State Kerry. And she calls for the establishment of a special envoy for the protection of Palestinian children. Is that something – have you – first of all, have you seen this letter?

MR KIRBY: We have not received the letter. I’m aware of it.

QUESTION: You are aware of it?

MR KIRBY: But I have not – we’ve not received it here. I certainly wouldn’t speak for the White House and the manner in which they would respond. Obviously, when the Secretary gets congressional correspondence, we try to respond appropriately and as expeditiously as possible. We don’t talk about the specifics of that. And I’m not going to speculate about this particular proposal. I mean, I’m aware of what’s in it. I’m – although I have not seen the letter, we haven’t received it, I’m certainly aware of the purported contents of it. And I just wouldn’t get ahead, speculate on a proposal like that at this time.

Broadly speaking, we don’t want to see any children under any threat. Children should be allowed to live freely and grow up to live normal, productive, healthy, happy lives.

QUESTION: That’s a very controversial policy. (Laughter.)

MR KIRBY: Yes. But it’s true.

QUESTION: Going out on a limb.

MR KIRBY: It’s true, it’s true. And as I said, we want to see affirmative steps by all the parties to restore the calm and to move us forward here.

QUESTION: But she also suggests that this, of course, will be under your auspices, so to speak, the – whatever, special envoy and so on. And she cites reason for engagement, knowing exactly what’s going on on the ground; she cites that generation after generation of Palestinian children have grown up under occupation, a sense of despair, no opportunities, all these things – things that you really agree with, it’s things that you would sort of, in fact, fall in place or mesh with your outline and your policies and so on for anywhere, as a matter of fact.

Would that – so why – would you look sort of positively at such a suggestion?

MR KIRBY: Well, again, as far as I know, we haven’t gotten this letter, and I’ve seen reports of it and reports of this proposal. So I really don’t think it’s wise to speculate about the specific proposal that is purportedly in this letter. We haven’t gotten it. It’s – as you said, it’s not addressed to the Secretary; it’s addressed to the President.

QUESTION: Right.

MR KIRBY: I’m not going to get ahead of how the White House would respond to this. But in general, obviously, we want to see the kinds of conditions there that can move us forward to a two-state solution, a productive path forward here and leadership on all sides to help us get there, so that children on all sides can live normal, happy, healthy lives. I mean, obviously, that’s the whole reason why we still consider or still favor moving towards a two-state solution so that there can be a more peaceful future for kids.

QUESTION: Right. So now that we’ve nailed down that you’re pro-child, which is always good to know, can we move on to something else?

MR KIRBY: Sure.

QUESTION: And that is: The Secretary has often, when asked about the current political campaigns, demurred or only made very brief comments related to what he has heard from foreign leaders. This morning he, in his commencement address, went a bit further than he has in the past. He made a joke about the diverse graduate – graduating class being Donald Trump’s worst nightmare. He alluded to carnival barker-type campaigning. And I’m just wondering, has he decided that he is going to weigh in or – on the campaign, or in general on the season?

MR KIRBY: I think the Secretary was simply trying to enjoy a light moment with the graduates and it was really nothing more than that. He, as you know, has made it a point to stay out of the political fray as Secretary of State, and I don’t see that changing.

QUESTION: So this was it? It was just a one-off kind of joke? Because he did get – it wasn’t just the joke. It was – there was more serious --

QUESTION: Hiding behind a wall.

MR KIRBY: Well, in terms of – what’s that?

QUESTION: A carnival barker hiding behind a wall.

QUESTION: But he only mentioned Trump’s name once.

MR KIRBY: Well, look, I mean --

QUESTION: As a racist.

MR KIRBY: What’s that?

QUESTION: He only mentioned him once to refer to him as a racist.

MR KIRBY: He has repeatedly talked about the concerns that he hears from foreign leaders when we’re traveling around the world, the concerns that they have expressed about the rhetoric on the campaign and the anxiety that some of that rhetoric is causing foreign leaders around the world. I mean, he’s talked about that quite a bit. I mean, he’s not living in a bubble. He sees what’s going on in there --

QUESTION: No, I understand that, but --

MR KIRBY: -- and he’s obviously concerned about some of the tone --

QUESTION: Right.

MR KIRBY: -- and the effect that that’s having on foreign leaders. But if you’re asking me, is because he enjoyed a lighthearted moment with students today, is that going – has he changed his calculus now to more aggressively jump into active debates about what’s going on on the campaign trail, the answer is no.

QUESTION: Okay, so we should not expect him to carry on with --

MR KIRBY: You should not expect him to change his view that as Secretary of State, he needs to stay --

QUESTION: Okay.

MR KIRBY: -- and will stay out of the political fray.

QUESTION: If that was a lighthearted moment, he thinks that Donald Trump’s campaign is still a suitable subject for humor?

MR KIRBY: It was a joke intended to lighten up an audience of students that were graduating from college.

QUESTION: Let me follow up on Trump because he also said that England would be better off without being a member of the European Union. Does that complicate your policies or your efforts in this regard? Would the president of the United States --

MR KIRBY: I’m not going to respond to – no, as I --

QUESTION: Or is that just part of the campaign rhetoric?

MR KIRBY: I have and will continue to scrupulously avoid engaging in a tit-for-tat for every comment made by every candidate for political office. That’s not appropriate discussion from this podium and I’m not going to engage in it. The Secretary has said himself he believes in a strong UK in Europe and in the European Union. President Obama has spoken very clearly about our views in that regard, and I don’t have anything more to add.

Yeah, Janne.

QUESTION: John, thank you. Do you know that – UN Security Council press statement on North Korea, why they delayed it?

MR KIRBY: I don’t have an update for you on that, Janne. I’m sorry.

QUESTION: Did you – can you take the question?

MR KIRBY: I’ll take a look. I’m not aware of a specific delay, so you’re going to have to let me get back to you on that.

QUESTION: All right, thank you.

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: Ukraine?

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: Today several dozen armed men raided a mosque in Crimea and captured almost a hundred Crimean Tatars. Later the Tatars were freed but they were told to come to police. Are you aware of that and do you have any reaction of such kind of religious persecution in Crimea?

MR KIRBY: I’m not aware of those reports. I think before I issue a comment here from the podium you’re going to have to let me go back and get some more information on that. So I think I’m just – if you don’t mind, I’m going to just take your question and we’ll get back to you on that. I’m going to refrain for right now until we can get more information about what happened here.

Guys, I’m going to have to get going, I’m afraid. Thank you very much.

(The briefing was concluded at 1:46 p.m.)

DPB #78

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 - May 4, 2016

Mark C. Toner

Deputy Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC

May 4, 2016









Index for Today's Briefing

SYRIA/REGION



IRAN/REGION



MIDDLE EAST PEACE



DEPARTMENT



SYRIA/REGION



DEPARTMENT



SYRIA/REGION



NORTH KOREA



BAHRAIN



VENEZUELA




TRANSCRIPT:

1:48 p.m. EDT

MR TONER: Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to the State Department. In the interest of time, since I do have to be up and down fairly quickly this afternoon because there’s a bilat I’ve got to be at, I will not – I will refrain from any toppers and go right to your questions.

Matt.

QUESTION: Okay, thank you.

MR TONER: Yep.

QUESTION: The announcement of the enhanced, reaffirmed cessation of hostilities that you just put out –

MR TONER: Yep.

QUESTION: -- you say since it went into effect at one minute or one second past midnight local time in Damascus, I’m just – that’s what it says, “Since this went into effect today.”

MR TONER: Right.

QUESTION: But if you had – if fighting continues, how can you say it went into effect?

MR TONER: Well, because – I mean, look, that was the agreed upon start for this, as you put it – or as we put it – this enhanced cessation of hostilities reaffirmation. It began at 12:01 this morning Damascus time. It --

QUESTION: But did it really?

MR TONER: Well, there have been – and we say that in our statement. We’ve seen an overall decrease in violence, but there have been incidents, of course.

QUESTION: Well, so in other words, you have an agreement but it really hasn’t taken hold yet?

MR TONER: It’s not complete.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR TONER: And that’s – frankly, that has been the case throughout the cessation, frankly --

QUESTION: Right. Yes, right.

MR TONER: -- writ large.

QUESTION: Okay, and then --

MR TONER: We’ve seen overall a reduction but – yeah.

QUESTION: Okay. And then my last one on this.

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: I’m just curious, it says that you’re coordinating with – closely with Russia to finalize enhanced monitoring efforts of the renewed cessation and that you look to the Russians to press the Assad regime for compliance and that you’ll do your part with the opposition. I’m just wondering, do you have an agreement with the Russians that they will do this? And what exactly does it mean, “enhanced monitoring efforts?”

MR TONER: Yes. I mean, that’s – otherwise, we wouldn't have this statement out saying that we have an agreement with Russia to –

QUESTION: Well, I mean it says --

MR TONER: Right.

QUESTION: -- it’s critical that Russia redouble its efforts against the regime.

MR TONER: We have –

QUESTION: Do you have an agreement with them?

MR TONER: -- reached an agreement with Russia.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR TONER: And as the Secretary alluded to, and I preface my next part of my comments by saying I don’t have high-level – or I can’t get into the minutiae of how this new structure will look. But the Secretary spoke about it the other day in Geneva, that we’re looking at enhancing our personnel in Geneva, the Russians are doing the same, and with the goal or aim of really intensifying our efforts to look at these areas where the ceasefire is being reaffirmed – or the cessation.

QUESTION: Go ahead. Thanks.

QUESTION: On the ceasefire?

MR TONER: Go ahead. Go –

QUESTION: Did the rebels –

QUESTION: (Inaudible.) That’s how it happens, I think.

MR TONER: Okay. Go ahead, Lesley, and then I’ll get to you.

QUESTION: So you probably saw today that France called a special meeting of Friends of Syria in – for next week.

MR TONER: Yep.

QUESTION: Is the U.S. attending that?

MR TONER: Nothing to announce at this point. Obviously, the Secretary has been in touch with his counterpart in France, Ayrault, Foreign Minister Ayrault, for – this week. I’m just looking to see when they last spoke, but – I always look at the wrong date of these. But in any case, we’ve been in consultation with them over the last weeks and days and – but nothing to announce in terms of our attendance next week.

QUESTION: And then you say that the ceasefire is not complete, and that’s how it’s always been. Today you’ve seen some pretty serious assaults going on and fighting in Aleppo. How many days or how long do you believe that it will take effect?

MR TONER: Well, I mean, look, we have also said, and the statement said as much, that there has been a decrease in the fighting, in the violence in these areas, specifically in Aleppo. But it has not been, of course, complete and that’s what we’re striving towards. That’s the goal here, and not just in Aleppo but throughout Syria. And in fact, we said that in our statement. We’re not – our aim here isn’t to just simply establish a bunch of truces, if you will, in various parts or hot spots around Syria. Our aim here, ultimately, is to get this cessation back into credible enforcement or a credible state in the next coming days and weeks so that, ultimately, we can (a) reduce the fighting, increase humanitarian assistance to those parts – and the Secretary spoke to this yesterday – those parts that have not received it, and then get negotiations back on track.

QUESTION: So you believe that by tomorrow there would be – the fighting will have stopped in that area? Or you don’t think that?

MR TONER: I can’t predict that right now, Lesley.

QUESTION: And so --

MR TONER: And of course, that’s a – and look, I mean, that’s a reality of this. I mean, we’re going to put influence on the parties who – over which we have influence. The Russians are going to do the same on their side. But ultimately, neither side, neither Russia or the United States, can predict fully that that’s going to have an effect, an immediate effect.

QUESTION: But today Lavrov said that Bashar Assad is not an ally for Russia. Do you really expect him to have that kind of influence on the ground?

MR TONER: Look, Russia has, we believe, influence on the Syrian regime, of course, most notably through their military support of the regime over these past weeks and months. I can’t speak to what Foreign Minister Lavrov meant by his comments. Certainly, you know where we stand on Assad’s future.

Please.

QUESTION: On Lavrov’s statement --

MR TONER: Let me take her question. I’ll get to you, Said.

QUESTION: Did the rebels that the U.S. is in contact with in Aleppo agree to separate themselves from al-Nusrah there?

MR TONER: Again, that’s – this agreement or reaffirmation is predicated on the fact that – that both the regime and the opposition, who have signed up to the cessation, will act accordingly and in good faith --

QUESTION: Did they even tell you --

MR TONER: Let me finish, let me finish.

QUESTION: -- that they’ll distance themselves?

MR TONER: No, no, let me finish. So in order to maintain this cessation or this renewed cessation of hostilities, it’s incumbent on them and it’s what our message is to them that they cannot interact with those parties on the ground who are not part of that cessation. Let me finish. And that’s what – that’s been a consistent message with – from us.

That said --

QUESTION: What was their response?

MR TONER: That said, we are – let me finish. We also are cognizant of the fact that, and the Secretary himself has spoken to this I think in Geneva and we’ve said it before, that the situation on the ground in Aleppo city in particular is very fluid and very complex, and there’s – there has been, quote/unquote, “intermingling” of some of these groups. We need to separate them. We need to clearly delineate who is where going forward in order for this to – the cessation to have effect.

QUESTION: I understand your message to them.

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: What is their response to you, though?

MR TONER: Well, again, I mean, I don’t have their immediate response to this latest reaffirmation today, but we are going into this believing that we can influence them to abide by it.

QUESTION: Sir, if the U.S. has hard time separating the rebels from al-Nusrah in Aleppo, do you expect Assad forces to do a better job, or do you expect them to stop attacking al-Nusrah in Aleppo altogether?

MR TONER: What we need now is a complete de-escalation of the violence, and that’s what we’re looking for all sides. What we have seen over the past several days certainly, but weeks, is on the part of the regime is – and again, the Secretary spoke to this much better than I will be able to – but just blatant attacks on civilian populations, on hospitals, on medical facilities, and again, targeting civilians that are unacceptable no matter how you justify them, whether you’re going after al-Nusrah or whatever. However you justify them, it’s just simply unacceptable. It needs to stop. And the Secretary spoke yesterday that attacks from both sides on civilians need to stop. So what we’re looking for now is a cessation, a credible cessation, in and around Aleppo.

Please, Said.

QUESTION: Mark, just to follow up the Lavrov, he also said that the United States wanted to extend areas under the control of al-Nusrah as part of the truce and that the Russians actually rejected that. Could you confirm or deny that?

MR TONER: That’s inaccurate.

QUESTION: That is completely false?

MR TONER: It’s inaccurate, yes.

QUESTION: Would you say that is completely --

MR TONER: That is inaccurate.

QUESTION: Would you say it’s inaccurate?

MR TONER: Yes, I would say it’s inaccurate.

QUESTION: Can I just ask you one thing on this comment that he made about Assad not being an ally? Does that sound any different to you than what the Russians have been saying for the past four years?

MR TONER: I mean --

QUESTION: I mean, Putin himself has come out and said that Assad is not an ally and that it’s not up to the Russians to stick up for one leader or another, it’s up to the Syrian people to decide. And I just --

MR TONER: I mean, the Russians have – what the Russians have said, and in publicly as well as privately, is that they don’t want to see a power vacuum exist in Syria. And hence --

QUESTION: Right. But I’m not asking you --

MR TONER: No, but I’m saying that’s how they – that’s how they are justifying their support for the regime.

QUESTION: Do you see – yeah, but --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: But do you see this comment today as any change in the Russian position?

MR TONER: I – again, I don’t want to necessarily signal that we see it as any kind of significant change. Frankly, to me, it sends a message to Assad that we think is a helpful one.

QUESTION: Let me just go back to my question.

MR TONER: Sure thing.

QUESTION: He also said that this leads them to believe that you are either manipulated or influenced by forces that don’t wish to have al-Nusrah attacked. Do you have any comment on that?

MR TONER: I truly don’t. I don’t know what he was --

QUESTION: Alluding to.

MR TONER: -- alluding to. Thank you.

QUESTION: All right.

MR TONER: Thanks – alluding to in his comments.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR TONER: Please, Pam.

QUESTION: Can you clarify with this new cessation in Aleppo, the U.S. and Russia of course are spearheading this, but has either side received assurances from the Assad regime and as well as from rebels on whether or not they’re buying into this and are ready to comply with it?

MR TONER: Well, again, I think – so two things. One is this all hinges on the fact that – or the idea that we as well as Russians – the Russians can influence the main combatants on the ground to uphold a cessation of hostilities. We’re in very close touch with the Syrian opposition. We know that the Russians are in very close touch with the regime. So it’s a certain test, if you – if I could put it that way, that they’re going to abide by this cessation of hostilities. They’re the ones who need to ultimately abide by it if it’s going to have any effect. But we believe we can --

QUESTION: I guess what I’m asking is --

MR TONER: Sorry, but we believe – we believe we can exert the necessary influence on them and that we can get – and we have their buy-in on this effort.

QUESTION: But neither side has said – the Russian – the regime or the opposition has stated to you, “We’re going to agree with the cessation at this point”?

MR TONER: Well, again, I’ll let them speak for themselves, but we believe that, at least on the opposition side, that we have their buy-in.

Please.

QUESTION: Does the Administration consider sending MANPADS to the rebels in Syria or approving the delivery of MANPADS by coalition partners?

MR TONER: No.

QUESTION: Can I --

QUESTION: On the enhanced monitoring.

QUESTION: Mark?

MR TONER: Yeah, I’ll get to you.

QUESTION: You’ve said before that – you seem to be very confident --

MR TONER: I apologize, the first part of your – on the enhanced – I apologize.

QUESTION: On the enhanced monitoring.

MR TONER: Yes.

QUESTION: Previously you’ve expressed a lot of confidence in your ability to monitor. There has never been any talk about monitoring shortcomings; where you’ve acknowledged shortcomings is that there’s no enforcement at all. So what is the enhanced monitoring actually going to do? What haven’t you been able to do, and why are you not doing anything on the enforcement side?

MR TONER: Again, I can’t go back and look at all – everything we’ve said about our monitoring efforts to date, but I think we’ve --

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR TONER: -- but I think we’ve – but I --

QUESTION: You were very praiseful of it.

MR TONER: -- I hope we didn’t oversell it, because there’s always room for improvement, and I think we’ve recognized, especially in and around Aleppo where, as I said, it’s very complex, there’s intermingling, it’s very difficult to define exactly who is where, that we need to do a better job. And I think that this is a recognition that we need to do a better job coordinating, again, where we believe the Syrian opposition is and then communicating that to the Russians and then – and through the Russians to the regime so that we can, again, de-escalate the violence there.

QUESTION: I don’t think the complaint on either side has been that you’re not monitoring well enough. It seems to be that nobody gets in trouble for doing – for killing people. So what are you doing on the enforcement side?

MR TONER: Well, look, we’ve talked about this, again, before and on the enforcement side, it’s ultimately incumbent on the parties who adhere to the cessation to, obviously, uphold it. And if they give up on – no, let me finish. Don’t give me the quizzical look. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: This is self-enforcement.

MR TONER: Well, I mean, in a sense, yeah. Yes, Brad. Because – well, listen, but --

QUESTION: Well, after 500,000 people die, that seems to have been a failing effort; hasn’t it?

MR TONER: But Russia has influence on the regime. Russia can send a message to the regime that they are not in this for the long haul and that there is no military solution, and that any such belief in a military solution is, an ultimate military victory in Syria, is fantasy. We also need to convey that same sentiment to the opposition so that both sides recognize that it’s incumbent on them to uphold this reaffirmation and that it’s incumbent on them to go back to Geneva and engage in serious political negotiations to find a political solution.

Please, Michael.

QUESTION: Foreign Minister Lavrov --

QUESTION: Can you explain this enhanced monitoring? Does that mean NGOs or --

MR TONER: I’ll get back to you.

QUESTION: -- or electronic --

MR TONER: I just – yeah, that’s okay. I’ve given you what I have. So it’s basically – the Secretary spoke to this – increasing the personnel on the ground – I don’t have exact numbers – but on both sides so that they can do a better job in closer contact, in closer coordination.

Please.

QUESTION: Foreign Minister Lavrov said he was actually satisfied with U.S.-Russian efforts on this, and he said because no one expected the level of violence to reduce – be reduced as much as it did. Do you agree with his assessment?

MR TONER: I’m sorry, you’re talking about his assessment to date or to --

QUESTION: Yes.

MR TONER: -- or since the reaffirmation came into effect?

QUESTION: The reaffirmation.

MR TONER: Again, I mean, the ultimate goal in any of these things, Michael, is to have zero percent violence or zero cases of violence, but I think looking at the overall picture, we are – I don’t want to say “satisfied” because that implies that we’ve reached our goal. We have not. But we have seen a significant reduction in the level of violence, so we believe that this is worth pursuing.

QUESTION: I have one more question on --

MR TONER: Yeah, sure, Michael.

QUESTION: Yesterday, the hospital bombing – have you reached out to the opposition about the hospital bombing in Syria and --

MR TONER: I’m aware – I mean, we’re obviously in near-constant contact with them or in frequent contact with the opposition. And I’m sure that what we said publicly, what the Secretary stated publicly, was conveyed to them in our private conversations as well, but --

QUESTION: What he said – Secretary Kerry said he urged both sides --

MR TONER: Correct.

QUESTION: -- and a lot of time when it – when the regime does it, you call out Assad specifically. Why won’t you specifically --

MR TONER: Michael, we’re trying to get more granularity on what exactly happened. That’s part of the process here. But I don’t have anything to add at this point.

Michel.

QUESTION: Mark, I have three questions. One, in your statement, you said, “We welcome today’s reaffirmation of the cessation in Eastern Ghouta for the next 48 hours.” That means the cessation will stay only for 48 hours? What did you mean by that?

MR TONER: Well, I mean, you recall that when this Latakia and East Ghouta cessation came into effect that there was actually a timeframe that was 24 hours, I think, in Latakia and 48 hours initially in Eastern Ghouta. And forgive me if I have those reversed; I apologize. But as it went forward and appeared to at least have some purchase or have some effect, that we’ve seen this extended throughout the week. And ultimately, as I said, our goal here is to have it in place permanently, but we’ve kept extending the time limit for the cessation so it solidifies and strengthens.

QUESTION: And same --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- timeline for Aleppo too, 48 hours?

MR TONER: You know what? That’s a good question. I’m not aware that there’s – and forgive me, I’m not aware that there’s a specific timeline for Aleppo, like a timeframe or a deadline or whatever.

QUESTION: When you announced the Ghouta or Latakia ceasefires, did you announce a timeframe for those or was that the Russians who announced the timeframes?

MR TONER: It was the Russians and the Syrians who said they would recognize that certain timeframe, but it was with our understanding that that was the --

QUESTION: So your communications up to date haven’t included the timeframes. You’ve just said there was a reaffirmation of ceasefire.

MR TONER: No, and I said we welcome the reaffirmation of the ceasefire for the next 48 hours. So I apologize that’s – if that was unclear.

QUESTION: So was that the first time you’ve acknowledged that these were time-limited? Previously --

MR TONER: I think we have, David. I think we have.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR TONER: I think we have, but --

QUESTION: Mark, do you know, was there an effort to get the Russians to sign off on this statement and make it a joint statement so that it’s not just yours?

MR TONER: Not necessarily. I mean, we – we obviously coordinated closely with them, but --

QUESTION: You guys are taking turns in announcing these things? Is that what-- Well, no, I’m not meaning you. I’m not trying to be funny. It’s just that --

MR TONER: No, okay. I’m sorry. No, no, okay. I mean --

QUESTION: -- the first one was announced by the Russians.

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: This one’s announced by you guys. Why don’t you do it together to show some kind of solidarity here?

MR TONER: We’ll take your suggestion under advisement.

QUESTION: Two more questions, Mark.

MR TONER: Please, Michel.

QUESTION: On the MANPADS, Saudi foreign minister has asked the international coalition to provide the MANPADS to the opposition. What can you answer on?

MR TONER: I would refer you to the Saudis.

QUESTION: Yeah, but you asked the international coalition who’s fighting ISIS --

MR TONER: I’m just saying our --

QUESTION: -- to provide the opposition with MANPADS, and you are --

MR TONER: Michel --

QUESTION: -- leading this coalition.

MR TONER: The question to me was whether we have. We have not. And the question was whether we would condone it. Our position’s been clear to date on providing actual weaponry to the opposition on the ground.

QUESTION: And my third question was: You’ve been relying on Russia to press the regime to comply with the cessation of hostilities. What can the U.S. do without Russia if the regime doesn’t comply with the cessation of hostilities?

MR TONER: Well, it works both ways, and frankly, I don’t want to exclude the other members of the ISSG, all of whom wouldn’t be at the table of the ISSG – the International Syria Support Group – if they didn’t exert some kind of influence with the parties on the ground who are part of the conflict. So, I mean, it’s incumbent on, as I said, everybody who’s part of that group. I’m talking in terms of the U.S. and Russia, certainly, in and around Aleppo, and this renewed effort. But as we see France and others are meeting next week about the cessation of hostilities, there’s more relevant parties and stakeholders to this than just the U.S. and Russia.

Please, sir.

QUESTION: Mark, yesterday, the Secretary said a target date for transition in Syria is 1st of August --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- and he said, “So either something happens in these next few months or they are asking a very different track.” And I was wondering if you can elaborate on that different track.

MR TONER: No, I won’t at this point. We’re committed right now to the cessation, getting it in place – or getting it renewed or reaffirmed, and then also pursuing political negotiations and a political process that leads to a transition in power. So I don’t want to talk about what-ifs or what-nexts. The Secretary was alluding to – or not even alluding to, but talking about the fact that there is this August deadline, if you will. It’s a timeline with target dates that was already built into the political process, and that was in both the ISSG joint statements as well as in UN Security Council Resolution 2254. And again, the idea behind these deadlines is sometimes they can be forcing mechanisms; they can help clarify to the parties involved the need to – and the urgency of the situation and the need to engage.

QUESTION: Can you clarify what they have to achieve by August the 1st?

MR TONER: I think it’s to – well, it’s to establish the framework for a political transition, as well as a draft constitution.

QUESTION: Can we move on?

MR TONER: Please.

QUESTION: Iran. I just have a quick one.

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

QUESTION: (Inaudible) one more on Syria?

MR TONER: I have very limited time now. I mean, I just don’t – I apologize. If we have time – let me take a look – few more questions, I’ll come back. I apologize, but go ahead.

QUESTION: I just want to know if you saw the comments by this deputy IRGC commander about closing off the Straits of Hormuz to the U.S. The Iranians have said this in the past, or made this threat in the past, and you guys have always brushed it off. But that was before you had this new relationship with Iran, or this rapprochement, at least, around Syria and the ISSG and the nuclear deal. And I’m just wondering, what do you think of this threat now in the context of the – in particular the nuclear deal? This kind of a threat doesn’t seem – well, it doesn’t have anything to do with the nuclear deal; it doesn’t seem to comply with the spirit of this new rapprochement.

MR TONER: Well, Matt, I mean, we’ve talked a lot about – that we hope in the spirit of the deal that that will spread into other aspects of our relationship with Iran, or Iran’s relationship with the rest of the world. We can’t predict that that’s going to happen, and frankly we’ve still seen Iran continue with statements and behaviors that are not helpful and not constructive.

QUESTION: So it remains that it’s pretty much all hope and no change?

MR TONER: Look, I mean, that’s – I mean, let’s dial back and look at the fact that the JCPOA was about preventing Iran from acquiring or developing a nuclear weapon. That’s its main goal. If other aspects of the relationship improve as a result of that --

QUESTION: It’s nice.

MR TONER: -- then that’s great.

QUESTION: Right.

MR TONER: So much for the better.

QUESTION: But you haven’t seen that yet, right, in any – in anything other than maybe them joining the ISSG?

MR TONER: Yeah. I mean --

QUESTION: Is that right?

MR TONER: I mean, that, and we do have, I think, improved access with Foreign Minister Zarif. But beyond that we’ve seen a continuance of some of the same behaviors.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR TONER: Please.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) new topic for a second?

MR TONER: Yeah. We’re in – we already changed; we’re in Iran.

QUESTION: Okay, all right. May I change topics to the Palestinian-Israeli issue very quickly?

MR TONER: Quickly, yeah.

QUESTION: There are some reports that the Israelis have gone into Gaza, eastern Rafah in Gaza – I mean, just like a few hours ago and so on. Have you heard anything about that?

MR TONER: I have not, Said. I apologize. I don’t have any update on that.

QUESTION: Okay, all right. Okay. And very quickly, there are also reports that the Obama Administration is going to issue a – like a some sort of a statement or fact sheet on the efforts that they have done since 2008 and so on, and some suggestions on what to do next in the context of --

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: -- turning down the Paris – or the French initiative. Have you heard anything about that?

MR TONER: So I’ve not – no, I’m not aware of those specific reports about a summation or, as you put it --

QUESTION: Summation, right, yeah.

MR TONER: All I can say is that – I mean, I – you do know the Quartet is in fact preparing a report on the situation on the ground that will include recommendations on how to change current trends. I don’t know if that’s what you’re referring to. And also, just to clarify, too, we haven’t made any decisions; we’re still looking and discussing the French proposal. And we’re always looking at options on how to get both parties to take steps that we believe will get them back into an environment where serious negotiations or peace talks can restart.

QUESTION: And finally, there are 10 Palestinian journalists that are being held by Israel – six without charges. Do you have any comment? I mean, considering yesterday was Free the Press Day and so on. Do you have any comment on that?

MR TONER: Well, again, I don’t know their specific cases. Certainly you know where we stand on freedom of the press; the Secretary spoke to it yesterday. I don’t know – I don’t have any details. Any specific cases, I’d refer you to Israeli authorities.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR TONER: Yeah, please.

QUESTION: Over the last year, Congress has appropriated specific sets of funds to help the State Department comply with document production requests for the Benghazi committee. Do you know how much that figure was, and can you tell us the status of the document review unit?

MR TONER: So I don’t have a specific dollar figure. We can try to get that for you. I apologize; I just don’t have it in front of me. Speaking broadly, I mean, we’re very much committed to cooperating with the Benghazi committee. I think since the committee was formed we’ve provided some 48 witnesses for interviews and some 95,000 pages of documents.

Look, we have an open line of communications with the Benghazi committee. When they make requests, we do our utmost to comply with them in a speedy manner. We want to make sure that we’re providing the right type of documents that they need as well as briefings and interviews that match their priorities, and we’ll continue to do that. So I think we’ve made a good-faith effort overall to comply and to – with the committee’s requests and to get them the information that they need, and we’re going to remain committed to doing that.

QUESTION: It’s our understanding that some of the State Department personnel were – who were evacuated from Yemen were supposed to staff this document review unit. Has that happened?

MR TONER: I don’t know. I mean, we did look at – I don’t have that level of detail. What we did look at was – in terms of our FOIA requests for the Clinton emails, we did ramp up our efforts and our staff and personnel who were looking at both that as well as – we’ve talked about this before – the sharp increase in FOIA requests. Now, I don’t know if that same approach has been applied to the Benghazi committee. I’ll just have to take the question.

QUESTION: Okay. And then was the Benghazi committee staff helpful to the State Department in securing these funds from Congress? I know you didn’t give us a figure, but --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- for this purpose.

MR TONER: You know what? I don’t have – again, I apologize. I don’t have clarity on that, so I’ll try to --

QUESTION: Okay. Thanks.

MR TONER: Yeah, please. In the back.

QUESTION: Hey.

MR TONER: Hey, Felicia.

QUESTION: Just back to – sorry, back to Syria really quickly.

MR TONER: That’s okay. Sure.

QUESTION: Are there going to be efforts to look at other cities for partial ceasefires? Like I heard from an aid organization that the fighting in Homs has gotten very intense and they’re having trouble getting access there. Are there other places that you’re kind of looking to extend this in the coming days?

MR TONER: I mean, we’re really trying to take a systematic approach. We began in Latakia and east Damascus. We’ve now attempted to apply the same reaffirmation to Aleppo. Ultimately, yeah, we want to see this spread throughout Syria, this reaffirmation of the cessation of hostilities, because we have seen pockets of instability, we’ve seen pockets of violence continue. And we need to, as I said, systematically go try to address these pockets where they exist.

QUESTION: Just – yeah, like Secretary Kerry and others spent a lot of time saying this needs to happen in Aleppo. Are there other sort of, like, high-priority --

MR TONER: Yeah – I mean, I don’t have a list in front of me.

QUESTION: Yeah, yeah.

MR TONER: I mean, we’re looking at – and as I said, there’s other areas of concern, I guess, is – I’d put it that way. And we’re going to continue to look at this. I don’t have like another --

QUESTION: Yeah, yeah.

MR TONER: -- next on our list, but I think what we’re trying to do is get these two areas under a solid cessation of hostilities and then continue to look at where else it needs to be applied – or reapplied, rather.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: I have Syria.

QUESTION: I have one more too here.

MR TONER: Yeah, please, and then I’ll get to you.

QUESTION: Can you show the public that the money that was reprogrammed – the funds for it that Congress set aside for this purpose – has actually been used for this purpose and not other things?

MR TONER: The funds reprogrammed for --

QUESTION: For the --

MR TONER: -- the Benghazi committee?

QUESTION: -- document production requests.

MR TONER: Yeah. I’ll look into that. Again, I don’t – I – if they were reprogrammed for that or that funding was provided, I’m fairly certain that it would have been used for the purpose for which it was set up for.

Yeah.

QUESTION: For the ceasefire to hold in Aleppo, do you expect Assad forces to stop attacking al-Nusrah, given that, as you said, the lines between rebels and al-Nusrah there are fluid?

MR TONER: Again, it is a very fluid situation. Nusrah is not party to the cessation. We all know that. But we have not seen the regime’s actions specifically targeting Nusrah; in fact, we’ve seen them targeting civilian populations as well as opposition groups. So what we want to see is them to comply, the regime to comply with the cessation of hostilities, which only applies to those who have signed up to the cessation of hostilities.

Please.

QUESTION: Mark --

MR TONER: Yeah, quickly.

QUESTION: Thank you, Mark. Do you have any information about North Korea preparing a fifth nuclear test soon or tomorrow or --

MR TONER: No, I don’t, and I don’t know that we would preview that.

QUESTION: I’ve got two brief ones on Bahrain.

MR TONER: Yeah, sure.

QUESTION: I’m wondering if you – or if the embassy is planning to send anyone to the verdict – scheduled court verdict tomorrow for this opposition guy who’s been in prison for a while. His name is Khalil al – hold on, I’ve got his name now – Halwachi, Halwachi.

MR TONER: We’ll take it, Matt.

QUESTION: And then secondly, tomorrow is also the month anniversary of the date of when the Bahraini foreign minister told Secretary Kerry, standing next to him, that this woman would be – the other woman that we were talking about --

MR TONER: And we’ll use this anniversary, one-month anniversary, to urge the Government of Bahrain to follow through with its publicly announced plans to release her.

QUESTION: So as far as you know, she – that pledge that the foreign minister made while he was standing next to Secretary Kerry has not been fulfilled?

MR TONER: As far as I know, yeah.

QUESTION: Wasn’t that court-ordered as well?

MR TONER: I’m not sure about that.

QUESTION: Although dressed as a humanitarian gesture?

MR TONER: I’m not sure about that. Sorry.

QUESTION: Do you have any update on this back-and-forth between the U.S. and Venezuela on visas, please?

MR TONER: Back-and-forth? You mean the comments by Venezuela that we somehow withheld visas for --

QUESTION: Yeah. Well, it really started last year, didn’t it?

MR TONER: Yeah. Look, I mean, we’re aware of the reports that Venezuelan officials were denied U.S. visas. You know we can’t talk about visa records; they’re confidential under Section 20 – 222 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. So – but more broadly speaking, as a host country for many international meetings and conferences and summits, et cetera, I can assure you that we facilitate all requests by foreign governments’ government officials for travel to the United States for multilateral meetings in accordance with U.S. immigration laws.

QUESTION: Mark, I want to make this a point again. It is not 100 percent always the case that visa confidentiality is – requires – means that you can’t say nothing. If the person in question comes out and publicly says or complains that his or her visa has been revoked or he has – she has been denied a visa, it has been in the past, and I think should be and is allowable under the law, for you to confirm whether that’s true or not. Just putting that out there.

MR TONER: You just undercut my --

QUESTION: Yeah, well.

MR TONER: -- witty retort there. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Is there a part two?

MR TONER: No, that’s it. Look, I mean, I would refer you to the Venezuelan Government, but I will not uphold the accuracy of those comments. How about that?

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR TONER: Yeah. Thanks, guys. I’m sorry, I’ve got to run.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:21 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.