U.S. Department of State's Blog, page 15

Daily Press Briefings : Daily Press Briefing - May 3, 2016

John Kirby

Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC

May 3, 2016









Index for Today's Briefing

SYRIA



IRAQ



SYRIA



DEPARTMENT



RUSSIA/UKRAINE



HONDURAS



PAKISTAN



TURKEY



IRAQ



SOUTH KOREA/IRAN



DEPARTMENT




TRANSCRIPT:

2:50 p.m. EDT

MR KIRBY: Okay, everybody. I don’t have a topping statement or an opening statement, so we can get right at it.

Anybody else? Pam?

QUESTION: Following up on what the Secretary had to say about Syria, first, a couple of questions concerning this – the teams that are working for this new ceasefire agreement in Aleppo. What’s different about this agreement in terms of teeth? What’s there? Has either side received any assurances that the Assad regime is buying into this and willing to acknowledge terms of this agreement? In other words, what makes this different from what was negotiated in February?

And then secondly, Foreign Minister Lavrov earlier today in his news conference with de Mistura mentioned that there was a U.S. monitoring center in Geneva, an enhanced center that was going to be looking at ceasefire violations. Can you elaborate on this new agreement? And how is it different from what had been in place previously?

MR KIRBY: Okay, there’s a lot there. As the Secretary indicated, our two teams – U.S. and Russian teams – are working right now to try to get the modalities here in place for additional cessation compliance in other places in Syria. And as he said, Aleppo is very much part of that discussion. I don’t want to get ahead of that meeting or decisions that they may or may not make. I think when they’re done and when we have an agreement on the way forward, we’ll be able to speak to it with more specificity, so it just wouldn’t be wise for me to get ahead of decisions that haven’t been inked at this point.

It is – as the Secretary indicated, it is a continuation of the cessation efforts that have been in place now for a couple of months. And we’ve seen it break down in certain places and obviously Aleppo’s one of them, and so we want to make sure that we are adding renewed energy to the effort to get it restored where it needs to be restored. And that’s what this is really about. When the modalities have been finally set into place, then we can talk about what that means and with more specificity, but again, that work is still ongoing. I won’t get ahead of it.

On Geneva, I think you heard the Secretary speak to this idea himself in the last couple of days when he was in Geneva about having a more concerted effort and perhaps additional resources applies to a 24-hour ability to better monitor – more effectively monitor – the status of the cessation. That is all, again, part of this discussion that’s going on literally today. So again, I don’t want to get ahead of it. When we have all the details worked out, we’ll certainly lay those out for you.

QUESTION: John --

QUESTION: Following up, but just --

MR KIRBY: Hang on a second, Said.

QUESTION: Following up if I can, with this new U.S.-Russia team, are there consequences for violations? You have more people – a higher level of people involved in monitoring, but then what’s the next step when violations are identified? Is there something different there?

And then secondly, looking at the team that’s going to – that’s meeting today, can you shed a little bit more light on who’s on this team and exactly where they’re meeting?

MR KIRBY: Well, as I think the Secretary indicated, part of the effort will be in Geneva. I don’t have additional details in terms of who exactly is on the team.

On the first question, I mean, we’ve actually talked about this many times. I mean, this isn’t about enforcement in sort of a kinetic, physical way. It is about monitoring and being able to analyze compliance and then, when able – and there have been times in the past couple of months when the task force has been given the information that they’ve been able to receive to actually prevent violations from occurring. Largely it’s about analyzing the data and the information we get on reported violations. And as you might suspect, some of these are parallel reports, and so you might get two or three or four reports on the same violation. That doesn’t mean you had four violations. You had one, but it was observed from different corners.

And so this will give us a better – this will enable us to do it better, more effectively, more efficiently, and we – as the Secretary indicated in his conversations with Foreign Minister Lavrov, there’ll – we also to intend to redouble our efforts at using our influence – Russia using their influence on the Assad regime; the United States using its influence on certain opposition groups – to keep them in observance of the cessation of hostilities.

QUESTION: John.

MR KIRBY: Said.

QUESTION: Follow-up. Now, the Secretary talked – he basically warned the Syrian regime that this war will not end. Is he basically saying that if the – in the event that the ceasefire collapses, that we will implement plan B, which is basically to go and arm and maybe aid militarily directly to the opposition?

MR KIRBY: What the --

QUESTION: Is that he was saying? Because he was very strong.

MR KIRBY: He was, but what he was saying was that the whole process has to succeed or the war won’t end, not just the cessation. The cessation and the humanitarian delivery all are key components, but so to – and he talked quite a bit about the political process and getting the political talks back on a productive track. And they have – obviously, they have stumbled. They have not been enormously successful so far. So that’s the real key here, and what he said was if those things can’t happen, particularly the political process, then the war won’t end. There won’t be any incentive for it to end, and that’s what he’s really focusing on.

Now, your question about plan B – we’ve talked about this. The focus is on the process that’s in place because – I think the Secretary said it very well for himself. I mean, he still firmly believes that that is the right approach and that’s the approach that we’re putting our energies into. It would imprudent, it would be irresponsible if there weren’t other places in the U.S. Government that were thinking through options and alternatives to that. We have to do that. And the Commander-in-Chief has made it clear that he wants everybody to do that. But that – but even he has said that whatever alternatives there may be to, quote-unquote, “plan A,” they’re not good ones. They’re not great. They’re not the ones that we want to pursue. We want to pursue this particular track, and the Secretary still believes firmly that (a) it’s the right thing to do, and (b) that it can succeed.

QUESTION: Now, also the Secretary used the term “carve out” – if Assad keeps trying to carve out a – some land in Aleppo and so on. I mean, Assad is really the president of Syria; it’s the government that is recognized by most everybody in the world. While you have whatever opposition that is aided by foreign governments, by all accounts – I mean, even the Secretary himself mentioned countries like Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and so on. So is he saying that there is some sort of equanimity between, let’s say, the Syrian Government that is recognized by you guys and by those opposition forces? And if not, then why don’t you recognize them?

MR KIRBY: I don’t think that’s at all what he’s saying, Said. I mean, I think, again, I can’t say it better than he did, that Assad has – and we’ve said it before – has lost legitimacy in his own country, and it’s clear from what’s going on – the civil war over five years, the growth and the influence of Daesh in the last two years – all are strong indications that there is no legitimacy coming from the regime, and you can’t call yourself a government and gas and barrel bomb your own people, starve them to death, which is what he’s doing.

So this isn’t about recognizing legitimacy at all. Quite the contrary, it’s about trying to get us – the international community, but more importantly the Syrian people – to a government there that is responsible, responsive to their needs, and can be recognized as legitimate throughout the country.

Yeah, go ahead. I’ll come – Margaret, I’ll come right back to you.

QUESTION: The cessation of hostilities that the U.S. and Russia are now working to establish or re-establish, particularly in Aleppo, will it involve not attacking al-Nusrah?

MR KIRBY: Will it involve not attacking al-Nusrah? No. Al-Nusrah – the Secretary talked about this – they are not party to the cessation. They are a recognized terrorist organization by the UN and are not party to the cessation.

QUESTION: Sir, last week a U.S. military spokesman, Colonel Steve Warren, said that it’s primarily al-Nusrah who holds Aleppo. I know that the U.S. and Russia have been working to delineate terrorists from rebels. How is that work going?

MR KIRBY: So a couple of points there. As I – I think I got asked this question too, and as I said at the time, we still – and I think you heard the Secretary talk about it today – I mean, Aleppo is a very mixed, fluid, dynamic environment. And we have seen examples where groups like al-Nusrah and Daesh intermingle themselves with others so as to help protect themselves from attacks. So it’s very fluid, very dynamic. Aleppo remains that way.

Your second question, in terms of how it’s going – I think, again, I’d point you back to what the Secretary just said. I mean, the – we continue to work very closely with the Russians towards a better application of the cessation of hostilities and better compliance throughout the country. That’s why these teams are meeting today, and hopefully later today – hopefully – we’ll be able to lay out with more detail exactly what the progress is that’s being made in terms of reaffirming the cessation in additional places throughout the country.

QUESTION: So the FSA put out a statement saying, “We, the armed groups from across Syria, will form a single bloc. Any offensive that takes place in an area where our units are present will be regarded as an attack against all the units throughout the Syrian territory and we reserve the right to respond to it.” Thirty-seven military units endorsed this statement. Given the fact that some of these units are in Aleppo and they are known to be difficult to separate from al-Nusrah, what do you think about their position that if any one of them is attacked in Aleppo, that the whole cessation of hostilities across Syria is out the window?

MR KIRBY: Well, I haven’t seen the comments, but let me just --

QUESTION: It’s a quote.

MR KIRBY: No, I’m not disputing that. I haven’t seen it, but I’m happy to address the issue. It is – their frustration is understandable given the constant attacks that they’ve been under by the regime, particularly in Aleppo. But you heard the Secretary say himself in his opening comments that we want all parties – and that means all parties – to abide by the cessation of hostilities and to not look for opportunity to escalate the violence either there or elsewhere throughout the country. We want everybody to abide by it, and that’s why he went to Geneva the last couple of days, that’s why he had – he talked so intently with Foreign Minister Lavrov yesterday, and it’s why our teams – the U.S. and Russian teams are right now working on trying to get this cessation reaffirmed in other places.

QUESTION: But do you support this particular position expressed by the other side?

MR KIRBY: I think I would just point you back to what the Secretary said himself, which is we want all parties – everybody – to abide by the cessation of hostilities, and when we are able to come to an agreement on some additional modalities, to agree to that. And as the Secretary said, we, the United States, we have a responsibility here too because we do have influence over some groups and we – he is going to hold us to account. And his expectation is that we will use that influence in an appropriate way on those opposition groups that we have influence on, just like our expectation is that the Russians will use their influence to appropriately shape and mold the conduct and behavior of the Assad regime.

QUESTION: Just one more. The FSA said that they support the decision of the High Negotiations Committee to withdraw from the Geneva talks. What is the U.S. communicating to the FSA with regard to this?

MR KIRBY: Well, we obviously want the talks to continue, and our message has been consistent and the same – that we want to see the UN-led peace talks resume and to achieve some success here. As the Secretary said when we were in Moscow, we agreed with the Russian Government that we would set 1 August as the timeframe to do that. So we obviously want to see that succeed. Our message has been the same to the opposition, the HNC, and all opposition groups: We want to see them back at the table.

We also recognize their frustration. We recognize the concerns that they expressed during this last round, and why, out of frustration, they stopped talking – because the regime had been violating the cessation so blatantly, so overtly, in particular in Aleppo. So there’s obviously more work to be done here, but our message is exactly the same.

QUESTION: Kirby, the Secretary talked a lot about press freedom. Can you tell us if the Assad regime is still holding Austin Tice, is he still alive, and what his status is?

MR KIRBY: The truth is I think there’s still more information that we need. Austin is never far from our minds and I can tell you that we continue to very energetically try to get more information about his whereabouts and to stay in touch with his family as much as we can about that. But there’s still a lot we don’t know. I can just tell you that it’s very much – very much and very close on our minds here.

QUESTION: Syria?

QUESTION: So it’s still unknown if he is with the Assad regime, just that he remains in Syria?

MR KIRBY: I think – I think we’re still trying to get better information about his whereabouts and his condition. I think I have to leave it at that.

QUESTION: Syria?

QUESTION: I have a question on Iraq but I don't know if you need to come back to me on that.

MR KIRBY: Are you going to go to Iraq?

QUESTION: Syria.

MR KIRBY: Syria, okay.

QUESTION: Yeah. We were not --

MR KIRBY: All right, we’ll stay with you and then we’ll come back.

QUESTION: There are some local media reports – I don't know if you have seen them – in the Middle East that they’re suggesting there are talks between the United States and the Assad regime, and some media reports are also hinting at the possibility of a meeting between – of a talk between Secretary Kerry and Foreign Minister Walid Muallem of Syria. Is that – does that have any truth to it?

MR KIRBY: No, they’re not true.

Margaret.

QUESTION: On Iraq, Baghdad seems to be in the middle of a major political crisis at the same time that you saw this fatality of a U.S. serviceman today. And I’m wondering what the assessment is as the U.S. tries to get diplomatically engaged here – I mean, how much that crisis imperils the combat mission.

MR KIRBY: Well, so a couple of points there. You referenced getting engaged diplomatically. I would argue that we have remained engaged diplomatically with the Abadi government. I mean, the Vice President was just there; Secretary Kerry was there just a couple of weeks ago. We very much continue to support the political reforms that he’s putting in place and we recognize the political challenges that he’s facing in Iraq. But he is trying to enact reforms that are in keeping with the Iraqi constitution, and again, we’re going to continue to support him in that effort.

And I think the Pentagon spoke to this earlier today and I will just restate it – that there has been no impact on the military mission to go after Daesh inside Iraq as a result of the political challenges that Prime Minister Abadi is facing right now. We continue to – at least the United States continues to be a major contributor to the coalition. Just over the weekend, nearly 60 airstrikes were conducted against Daesh targets. So that effort continues apace. It doesn’t mean that we’re – it doesn’t mean that we’re not continuing to engage with Prime Minister Abadi, not continuing to talk with him, not continuing to watch the situation there closely, but there’s no impact on coalition operations.

QUESTION: But he’s the commander-in-chief and his political stability seems to be in question. So at what point does that not imperil the ability or the mission to shore up his government, which is what the U.S. is doing fighting alongside his military?

MR KIRBY: Well, I don’t --

QUESTION: I mean, if he can’t keep his government together, doesn’t that hurt the U.S. effort to support his military to try to fight ISIS?

MR KIRBY: I don’t think it would be valuable to speculate right now in terms of what might happen in the future or what the effects might be on the military effort. What I can tell you is that he is working through these challenges and they are difficult, but we continue to support him as he does that. And the reason why, Margaret, is because we believe and have believed from the outset that the best antidote and the most sustainable antidote to a group like Daesh in Iraq is good governance and it is political reform, the kinds of reforms that he’s trying to pursue. So there is a linkage here in terms of being able to sustain a defeat of a group like this, but I don’t believe we’re at a point now where I can say with great specificity that while this is the line, this is where it – this is where it impacts it. Thus far he continues to work these challenges through the constitution with the support not just of the United States but other coalition members. And the Iraqi Security Forces continue – even as you and I are talking today continue to – the fight against Daesh in places out in Anbar and, as a matter of fact, just recently secured some success in Haditha.

So they are, even for all the challenges he’s facing in Baghdad, elsewhere in the country – not everywhere but elsewhere in the country – the Iraqi Security Forces are doing a good job and they’re going after – going after these guys. We’re certainly helping that effort. You mentioned the casualty today as a stark example of that, that advise and assist mission. But we have not seen a diminution of the effort to go against Daesh as a result of these political challenges, and I don’t think it would be wise to try to speculate as to at what point one way or another you would see that happen.

QUESTION: Is the U.S. trying to mediate between the Sadrists, the Abadi government, and all these other fractured parties to try to keep Baghdad together?

MR KIRBY: We’re not inserting ourself into internal Iraqi politics in that way. Obviously, our ambassador there, Stu Jones, is in contact with the Abadi government, as he has been, as we have been for a while now in terms of supporting the kinds of reforms that Prime Minister Abadi is putting in place. But we’re not taking a mediation role.

Yeah, Nike.

QUESTION: Yes, I have a quick question on Aleppo and some other questions. We see some reports on the safety zones inside Aleppo. Could you explain how that work and does the United States support that?

MR KIRBY: Actually, Nike, I think, again, the Secretary talked about this quite a bit at the top of the briefing today. I don’t know that I’m going to elaborate much more than that. This is – it’s about reaffirming the cessation of hostilities in places where it is working and maybe can work better and in places where, obviously, it has fallen down and broken down, such as Aleppo. It’s not about – it’s not about safe zones. It’s about a nationwide cessation of hostilities. As I said yesterday, what we’d like to see is the entire nation of Syria be safe so that the millions of refugees can come home and they can have a government that’s responsive to their needs and they can earn a living and raise their kids in safety and security. That’s what we want to see.

And so the focus here is on a nationwide cessation of hostilities. Yes, there is some effort now to try to specifically get it in better condition in certain places where it has proved challenging lately, but it’s not about – it’s not about zones.

Okay? You had another question?

QUESTION: Can I ask about World Press Freedom Day? Do you have another journalism to – journalist to feature since today is the day? And I remember last week, according to a press release, the State Department is going to feature every reporter until today.

MR KIRBY: We did. Yesterday was the last day of that, and then today being World Press Freedom Day, we brought the Secretary out to talk about the initiatives and what we’re doing to support press freedom around the world. That was the schedule. I wasn’t – I mean, we – yesterday was the last day we had planned to identify a single example. Obviously, there are many more than the six that we profiled over the last week, but we chose those six based on their specific circumstances.

QUESTION: Can I also ask about Ukraine? Do you have anything on the congressional efforts to tighten sanctions in – on Russia and not recognizing the annexation of Crimea? It was introduced by Congressman Eliot and some leadership from the Congressional Ukraine Caucus last week.

MR KIRBY: Well, so, as you probably expect, we’re not going to speak specifically to this recently introduced pending legislation. Broadly speaking, our existing sanctions were imposed on Russia to pressure the Russian Government to respect Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, including the restoration of Ukraine’s control over eastern Ukraine. And we’re committed to maintaining the sanctions that are in place until Russia fulfills its commitment under – commitments under the Minsk agreements. Sanctions related to Crimea are going to remain in place as long as Russia’s occupation and purported annexation continues.

QUESTION: Do you think that will increase or – whether or not – one way or the other will increase the leverage for Washington to deal with Moscow?

MR KIRBY: Well, all I can say is we’re going to continue to consult with Congress going forward here, but I think I’m going to leave my answer where I left it for right now.

QUESTION: One final question: Last month you put out a statement to condemn the Honduras activist – the murder of her, Berta Caceres. And yesterday arrests has been made regarding her case.

MR KIRBY: Yes.

QUESTION: Do you have any update on that?

MR KIRBY: Well, we welcome the announcement of the arrests in her murder. We’re going to continue to closely follow the matter as the investigation continues and as the judicial process moves forward, but I think I’m going to leave it there for right now.

Yeah, Tejinder.

QUESTION: On Pakistan.

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: After your statement yesterday, Pakistan is saying they are disappointed, but they are also saying if they cannot get the F-16s from U.S., they will find jets from other places. They’re indicating from China. Do you fear that this will strain your relationship with Pakistan?

MR KIRBY: These are sovereign decisions that nations make with respect to their defense needs, and I wouldn’t – it’s up for – it’s up to Pakistan to speak to how they’ll fulfill their defense needs. As for the relationship, as I’ve said many, many times, it’s an important one. It’s critical; it’s vital in that – particularly in that part of the world; and it’s a relationship we have absolutely no intention of losing focus on or diminishing in any way. But these are obviously sovereign decisions that Pakistan has to make.

QUESTION: A Pakistani minister of a cabinet rank has described the U.S. aid to Pakistan as “peanuts.” Do you think this is appropriate description of U.S. aid to Pakistan?

MR KIRBY: I would just simply say that, again, it’s an important relationship. We’re going to continue to support that relationship. We are – we fully stand behind the kinds of support that we have provided Pakistan over the last many years with respect specifically to their counterterrorism capabilities and counterterrorism needs, and we’re going to continue to look for ways to improve that cooperation as best we can.

QUESTION: But you don’t have anything to say on the peanuts comment? It is peanuts, orange, apples --

MR KIRBY: I think I’ve answered the question.

QUESTION: World Press Freedom Day. This question was going to be for Secretary Kerry, but now to you. (Laughter.)

MR KIRBY: But I didn’t call on you.

QUESTION: John, over the last three, four years during the Secretary’s tenure here in this building, Turkey’s freedom records in every aspect, whether press freedom or freedom of assembly or minorities and all that, have been backsliding very badly and dramatically. Do you think that this administration could have done something different or better, or do you see any responsibility on your aspect to make Turkish administration handle these issues better than they have been handling?

MR KIRBY: Well, a couple of points there. We’ve talked about before that the trend we’re seeing in Turkey is not a good one. It’s not going in the right direction. I think I’ve described it as worrisome, and I think we still believe that. We don’t believe that restricting freedom of the press is healthy for any democracy, and yet, we still believe that Turkey can live up to all its democratic principles, the ones that are enshrined in its constitution, and we want to see them do that and we want to see Turkey succeed. We don’t believe the path to success, democratically speaking, is by harassment or – of the media or restricting their ability to do their job, and we’ve said that many, many times.

We’re going to continue to make that case as clear and as concise as we can privately and publicly with Turkish leaders. I don’t think you’re going to see that diminish. I don’t think you’ll see, as long as there’s issues of press freedoms there, you’ll see me shying away from it here from this particular podium either because it matters to us, not just because it matters to us – and the Secretary talked about how much it does – but because Turkey matters to us, and we want to see, again, Turkey succeed. They are a vital partner and a vital ally on some very significant regional issues, and we believe that a strong relationship, strong bilateral relationship with Turkey, which we have, is made stronger by having this trend – this press freedom trend that we talked about – improve.

Okay.

QUESTION: Turkey again, follow-up.

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: Another violence erupted yesterday in Turkish parliament. The representatives of HDP Kurdish party – one of them was actually, I think, Armenian but member of the Kurdish party. They were attacked by the majority party, AKP Party. Do you have any comments on this?

MR KIRBY: I’m afraid you’re going to have to let me take the question. I haven’t seen those reports, and so because I haven’t seen them and I’m not in a position to verify them, I think you’re just going to have to let me take that one.

Yeah.

QUESTION: I have a question. I have two questions, actually. The first one is about that military service member who was actually killed near Erbil a while ago. So how is the U.S. DOD is engaged in the fight against ISIS other than advisory and training roles?

MR KIRBY: Say – I’m sorry, say that question again. How are we what?

QUESTION: So the U.S. military presence in Iraq, how they’re – are they engaged directly in the fight against ISIS? Other than advisory and training roles, what other role they will – they’re actually playing? And if you could just tell us why he was killed. Was he engaged directly in the fight? That’s the first question.

And my second question was – is about the visit of the HDP leader, Selahattin Demirtas, the Kurdish member of the Turkish parliament who was here last week. There were some reports he had meetings here at the State Department. Could you confirm that, please?

MR KIRBY: So let me take your second question. I don’t think I have anything on that.

On the first one, first of all, our thoughts and our prayers, our deepest condolences go out to the family of the service member who was killed today in Iraq. And I think all of us should just pause and remember that there is a family out there that’s grieving right now and I think we all should keep that foremost in mind.

I’m going to refer you to the Defense Department for more specifics about the circumstances under which that service member was killed. That’s – they would have better information than I would. Broadly speaking, and again, I’m only going to stay at a very tree-top level on this because this is really a better question for the Defense Department, but broadly speaking, our central role – we have two central military roles in Iraq: One you’ve obviously seen is supporting coalition efforts through airpower. Number two, it’s an advise and assist mission. The Pentagon spoke to this. I believe Secretary Carter spoke to this this morning with respect to this particular U.S. service member who was killed, that he was involved in the advise and assist mission when he was killed. But again, as for the specific circumstances, I think I’d point you to them, okay?

QUESTION: But if the situation deteriorates because of the local problems in Baghdad today, do you think that the U.S. will need to actually be more engaged just to make sure that ISIS does not gain more territories or the Iraqi army will not leave other territories to ISIS?

MR KIRBY: What’s important is that the Iraqi Security Forces execute their campaign plan to defeat Daesh. That’s what’s really critical. We’ve talked about this many, many times. And again, I don’t want to veer out of my lane here, but the forces that matter most in Iraq are indigenous forces, Iraqi Security Forces, and that is why we are supporting them from the air and that is why we are supporting them in an advise and assist capacity. And the United States has been very engaged in this effort, but we want to do this smartly and we want to do this through, by and with the Iraqi Government and Iraqi Security Forces. They are the ground forces that matter most.

And they are having success. They are pushing back on this group in Iraq. And Daesh has lost territory. They’ve lost fighters. They are struggling to recruit now. They have certainly lost territory and they are losing a significant amount of revenue in just – just since the fall they have lost a significant amount of revenue, about a third of what they once had total and more than half of once – what they were getting from oil revenues. So there has been success against this group.

I’ve got time for one more and then we’re going to have to call it.

QUESTION: John.

MR KIRBY: I’m going to go here to Janne.

QUESTION: Thank you, John. Long time. (Laughter.) On South Korea – I just (inaudible) South Korea.

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: As you already know that South Korean President Park visited Iran and met with Iranian President Rouhani, would you please some comment on normalization of relationship of – between Iran and South Korea.

MR KIRBY: I – Janne, I think I’d refer you to officials in Seoul to speak to their – excuse me – to speak to their bilateral relations. That’s not for us to speak to and certainly the president’s --

QUESTION: The U.S. --

MR KIRBY: The president’s travel is for her and her staff to speak to.

In terms of the U.S., we do not have diplomatic relations with Iran. I am not – I know of no plans to change that. We have engaged with Iran to secure the Iran deal and we engage with Iran specifically and limited to their participation in the International Syria Support Group, but there’s no efforts to broaden that at this time. I mean, Iran still is capable of and continues to conduct destabilizing activities in the region. They are still a state sponsor of terrorism. We have significant differences with Iran. And would we like to see that change? Would we like to see their conduct change? Absolutely, but we see no indication that even as a result of the Iran deal that it is. And so we are going to continue to maintain the kinds of pressure on them and in that arena as we have, and certainly reserve the right to increase that pressure as appropriate going forward.

Guys, I’ve got to go. It’s getting late.

QUESTION: Do you have any update on this program that you’ve talked about it being a good thing to relocate people who are under threat?

MR KIRBY: Oh, I don’t have an update for you on that, Matt. It remains an option, but – and we’re still discussing this inside the interagency, but I don’t have a decision for you.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR KIRBY: Thanks, everybody.

(The briefing was concluded at 3:25 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 - April 22, 2016

Elizabeth Trudeau

Director, Press Office
Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC

April 22, 2016








Index for Today's Briefing

SYRIA



LIBYA



IRAN



SYRIA



AFGHANISTAN/PAKISTAN



MIDDLE EAST PEACE



SOUTH SUDAN/ETHIOPIA



NORTH KOREA



ARMENIA



MACEDONIA



ECUADOR



IRAN




TRANSCRIPT:

.2:05 p.m. EDT

MS TRUDEAU: Hi, everyone. It’s Friday.

QUESTION: Hi. It is.

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah. I have to apologize, we’re going to --

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MS TRUDEAU: Well, of course, Said, if you want to move up. (Laughter.) I have to apologize, the Secretary will be speaking at 2:30 so we’re going to do this quickly so you can all watch that. So I have a few things at the top, then we’ll get right to your questions.

So first, on Syria. Today Special Envoy de Mistura said he’s continuing his discussions with the regime over the humanitarian situation in Syria, and that he plans to continue the current round of talks in Geneva into Wednesday. Over the last several days, Mr. de Mistura has held daily technical meetings with the HNC delegation and cited his discussions with the Syrian opposition as useful and productive. The HNC will have technical teams in Geneva until Tuesday. Mr. de Mistura said he plans on continuing working with the regime and other Syrian groups until next Wednesday. Mr. de Mistura highlighted that after three-plus years of efforts, the discussion of a political transition is now at the center of the process.

On Libya. The United States welcomes the continued and positive steps in Libya since the Government of National Accord entered Tripoli on March 30th, including early progress on peaceful, orderly transition of authority over key ministries and institutions. However, we are concerned by reports this week that spoilers again blocked a vote in the house of representatives on endorsing the cabinet of the new government through tactics that included physically blocking access to the building. As they did in February when the hardline minority also stood in the way of the democratic process, a majority of the house of representative members responded by endorsing the new Libyan Government through a written statement. We stand with those house members who are working to advance the political process despite intimidation. We continue to condemn efforts to undermine the Government of National Accord and the implementation of the Libyan political agreement. We urge all Libyans to continue facilitating a peaceful handover of power so Libya’s new leaders can move forward with the hard work of restoring stability to their country.

And with that, I’ll go to Nicolas.

QUESTION: Thank you. Can we start with Iran --

MS TRUDEAU: Of course.

QUESTION: -- and the announcement that the U.S. Government is going to buy 32 tons of heavy water to Iran?

MS TRUDEAU: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Could you just elaborate – what’s this contract about?

MS TRUDEAU: Sure.

QUESTION: And just a technical question: What exactly is heavy water? And is it part of the JCPOA? And don’t you fear that politically at home, it will – you will be – the U.S. Administration will be accused again to please the Iran Government given the reaction of the Republicans this morning to this – to this deal?

MS TRUDEAU: Okay, so there’s a lot there. So let me start with some sort of broad information. I’ll answer your question on what is heavy water, because I had to – I had to get a little research on that, and then we can go on further.

So you’re correct, the U.S. Government, via the Department of Energy, is making a license purchase of 32 metric tons of heavy water from a subsidiary of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran. This heavy water will fulfill a substantial portion of the U.S. domestic demand this year for industry and domestic research applications. This material is not radioactive and does not present safety concerns. This transaction provides U.S. industry with a critical product while also enabling Iran to sell some of its excess heavy water, as contemplated in the JCPOA. Iran’s compliance with the JCPOA meant this material had already been removed from Iran, ensuring it would not be used to support the development of a nuclear weapon.

Our purchase of the heavy water means it will instead be used for critically important research in non-nuclear industrial requirements here in the United States. We expect the heavy water to be delivered to the U.S. in the coming week, initially stored at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and then resold to – at commercially reasonable prices to domestic commercial and research buyers.

So on technical details about what heavy water is and details on its implementation, I’m going to refer you to the Department of Energy, but I will say heavy water is used in the development, production, and sale of compounds used in chemistry, biomedical and diagnostic research, environmental analysts, and physics.

So I know you had a question too on U.S. domestic reaction, and our response would be no. This was actually an allowable event that happened. So the U.S. was under no obligation to purchase heavy water from Iran, nor is it obligated to do so in the future, but the JCPOA required Iran to reduce its heavy water inventory below the 130 metric ton limit. One way to do that was to sell the excess to countries or companies. And I’d just note in the future it’s possible other countries may wish to purchase that. This was a purchase that was arranged through the Department of Energy for that.

QUESTION: Can I follow up on that?

MS TRUDEAU: Of course you can, Pam.

QUESTION: Thank you. House Foreign Affairs Chairman Ed Royce was – is among those who have been critical, saying the deal actually encourages Iran to produce more heavy water to sell. House Speaker Paul Ryan also had some criticism, saying it seemed to be part of an effort to sweeten the nuclear deal with Iran and would directly subsidize Iran’s nuclear program. Is there a State concern about this criticism in that the U.S. may be seen as enabling Iran with this purchase?

MS TRUDEAU: No. This limit ensures Iran cannot stockpile heavy water for use in a covert reaction. The IAEA’s monitoring and verification measures will ensure that we know if Iran attempts to exceed the limit or divert any of the heavy water for illicit production of plutonium. So, no.

QUESTION: Did the Secretary discuss this with Saudi officials and with other GCC members ahead of the purchase? And if so, what was their reaction?

MS TRUDEAU: So I’d say the discussions regarding this commercial transaction have been ongoing for some time, primarily between the Department of Energy and their Iranian counterparts. And while the contracts were signed today in Vienna, this was a bilateral transaction between the U.S. and Iran.

QUESTION: Can we go to Syria?

QUESTION: No, stay on this topic.

MS TRUDEAU: Wait, are we done on Iran? And then we’ll go. Yeah.

QUESTION: Elizabeth, aren’t you concerned, though, that you – the United States is subsidizing Iran’s nuclear program?

MS TRUDEAU: No. This was a commercial transaction. It actually met a U.S. need, as I outlined in this, and it also helped Iran meet its obligations under the JCPOA.

QUESTION: How much money are we talking about for this?

MS TRUDEAU: It’s under 10 million.

QUESTION: But aren’t you concerned that some of this “under 10 million” will fund terrorist activities in the future?

MS TRUDEAU: So we’ve talked about this quite extensively from this podium, as well as elsewhere, Lucas. No one’s blind to Iran’s unhelpful activities in the region. On this, what we can say is this was a commercial transaction, it was allowable, it fills a need here in the United States.

QUESTION: Will this transaction happen with U.S. dollars or U.S. taxpayer dollars?

MS TRUDEAU: So on that I’m going to refer you to the Department of the Treasury.

QUESTION: But why can’t you answer that question? It’s a simple yes or no.

MS TRUDEAU: Because that’s a question for Treasury.

Thanks. Said.

QUESTION: And what about the sanctions, Elizabeth?

MS TRUDEAU: So this is actually allowable under the JCPOA. If you’re talking about future decisions on sanctions, I’m not going to preview that. Okay.

Said.

QUESTION: Can we go Syria real quick?

MS TRUDEAU: Of course.

QUESTION: But by the way, who is transporting the heavy water? Is it U.S. transports or --

MS TRUDEAU: I don’t know that. Why don’t I have – I’ll have our technical people look at that. I think it’s probably a question for Energy, but we can take a look.

QUESTION: I want to go to Syria.

MS TRUDEAU: Of course.

QUESTION: You mentioned at the top what Staffan de Mistura said. He also said that the cessation of hostilities is facing a looming danger that it could collapse at any moment. And now, I know Mr. de Mistura is not someone who has a penchant for being hyperbolic or anything.

MS TRUDEAU: Sure.

QUESTION: So he gave it, like, a three-day window, till Wednesday and so on. Can you share with us any information that you might have on this issue, or how to go forward --

MS TRUDEAU: So the President just spoke to this as well, from London. As we’ve said several times on this, as the President just said, as Mr. de Mistura just said, the cessation of hostilities faces serious threats due to persistent violations by the Assad regime. This is something that we continue to see, we continue to raise. President Obama has stressed to President Putin the importance of pressing the Syrian regime to halt its offensive attacks on that. I’m not going to give a timeline. I don’t think I can from this podium. Mr. de Mistura has spoken on this. But we are absolutely concerned.

QUESTION: Okay. How is this, in your opinion, juxtaposed against reports that say that the Syrians, the Russians, and with the help of Iran, are poised to attack Halab, Aleppo in the next --

MS TRUDEAU: In terms of the battlefield movement or these --

QUESTION: So it’s almost imminent that --

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- they are going to move in to liberate Aleppo. Do you have any information on this? Or this could be tied to it in any way?

MS TRUDEAU: I can’t say that. I can’t say that there’s a grand strategy, taking a look at this. I would say the cessation of hostilities, though it has certainly not been perfect – and no one is blind to that – has improved the life for tens, hundreds of thousands of Syrians on a daily basis, which is what we wanted to happen. Is it under threat? Absolutely. The President spoke to this today, as did Mr. de Mistura. Do we think its continued – that there’s validity that we continue to press it? Absolutely, because there’s no alternative. This provides the ability, as Mr. de Mistura said, where the political transition finally is in place to talk. Okay.

QUESTION: Syria?

MS TRUDEAU: Syria.

QUESTION: Thank you. The tensions between the Kurdish forces and the Assad regime have recently built up. And over the past two days, there have been clashes, resulting in the deaths and wounding of a number of people. Does the United States have a position on that, on this new tension between Assad and the Kurds, who have remain neutral, more or less, towards each other?

MS TRUDEAU: Well, certainly we would say the Peshermga – the Kurds have been some of the most effective fighters on the ground against ISIL, and that’s something that we welcome, we’ve supported, that we have highlighted repeatedly. In terms of these new tensions, I can’t speak to that specifically, but I would say certainly the Pesh have been very focused where we need them to.

QUESTION: I’m talking about the Syrian Kurds, not the Peshmerga in Iraq.

MS TRUDEAU: Okay.

QUESTION: The Syrian Kurds who’ve --

MS TRUDEAU: Is the fight between --

QUESTION: The Assad forces and the Syrian Kurds. It’s in Syria.

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah. Okay. So on that, I’m aware of those reports. I don’t really have anything to add on that. This is yet again a concern as we take a look at the cessation of hostilities. Okay.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS TRUDEAU: I know I want to go to Lalit here.

QUESTION: Thank you. I wanted to ask you about the Kabul terrorist attack this week.

MS TRUDEAU: Yes.

QUESTION: Voice of America today ran a big story about quoting presidential spokesperson from Kabul saying that this attack has a hallmark of Taliban and the Haqqani Network and they are putting the blame on the Pakistani establishment because they have direct links with the Haqqani Network.

MS TRUDEAU: And I’m sorry, where was that spokesperson from?

QUESTION: Sorry, Afghanistan’s presidential spokesperson.

MS TRUDEAU: Okay. I haven’t seen that --

QUESTION: Dawa Khan Menapal.

MS TRUDEAU: Okay. I haven’t seen that direct statement, but what I can say is that attacks such as this clearly undermine U.S., Afghan, and Pakistani efforts to promote peace and reconciliation in Afghanistan. We have consistently expressed our concerns at the highest level of the Government of Pakistan about their continued tolerance for Afghan Taliban groups such as the Haqqani Network operating from Pakistani soil. And we did again – after this week’s attack, we have pressed the Government of Pakistan to follow up on its expressed commitment not to discriminate between terror groups regardless of their agenda or their affiliation by undertaking concrete action against the Haqqanis.

QUESTION: But your tolerance with Pakistan’s tolerance of this network is not a new thing. You have been tolerating these – Pakistan’s tolerance with Haqqani Network for quite some time.

MS TRUDEAU: Well, I direct you back to what Pakistan authorities have said themselves. They’ve reiterated their commitment that they will not discriminate against those groups. And we continue to call on them to live up to that commitment.

QUESTION: But do you see the words match with their actions?

MS TRUDEAU: I think words matter and we continue to encourage them to have their actions match those words.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: On peace process?

MS TRUDEAU: Yep.

QUESTION: French foreign minister has said today that an international conference in Paris on May 30 is unable to relaunch talks between Palestinians and the Israelis. Did you get more information from the French about this conference? Are you coordinating with them now, and do you support such a conference?

MS TRUDEAU: So we actually just received specifics regarding substance and timing of this conference. We continue to be in touch directly with the French and other stakeholders to discuss the substance on there. We obviously remain concerned about the situation and continued trends on the ground, and it’s why we continue to look at both sides to demonstrate with actions and politics a genuine commitment to the two-state solution.

QUESTION: And --

MS TRUDEAU: In terms of details, content, who’s attending, I just don’t have that level of granularity.

QUESTION: But based on this information, the U.S. will attend this conference?

MS TRUDEAU: Again, with scheduling and who’s going to attend – attendance at all, I don’t have that granularity. We’ve just received that information, so we’ll continue to look and maybe I’ll have an update for you later on.

QUESTION: But you’re --

QUESTION: Is it a good idea to have an international conference on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or do you still favor direct negotiations as --

MS TRUDEAU: Our position on direct negotiations hasn’t changed. But on this, as we’ve just received the information, literally, we’re taking a look at it and we’ll be in touch with the French, and hopefully have an update for you guys as well.

QUESTION: Does this conference contradict the bilateral talks between --

MS TRUDEAU: I wouldn't say contradict. But without getting too far ahead of taking a look at that information, I don’t want to make a decision on that from the podium.

I’m going to go to --

QUESTION: Let me just – can I just follow up on this issue here very, very quickly.

MS TRUDEAU: Of course. Of course, Said.

QUESTION: I’m just – because the French also said it should have guarantees, it should just not be just be another meeting, because they have had so many meetings on the Middle East. Do you agree with that concept or that premise?

MS TRUDEAU: I’d agree – I’d say that we agree with the concept that we need to see progress. In going back to Lalit’s question, again, this is one of those things where words matter and actions need to match words. As you know, we continue to call for the reduction of tensions, the reduction of rhetoric. I can’t speak specifically to this because, again, we’re just seeing the context on this. We’re taking a look at the details. I don’t have anything to share on that.

QUESTION: Could I get you to comment on a report that Israel has confiscated 115 dunams of land, which is about 40 acres and so on, for settlement building today?

MS TRUDEAU: And I actually did the math on that to see exactly what a dunam was. So we are aware of the reports. This appears to be the latest step in what appears to be an ongoing process of land seizures, settlement expansions, and legalizations of outposts that is fundamentally undermining the prospects for a two-state solution. As we have repeatedly made clear, we continue to look to both sides to demonstrate with actions and policies that commitment to a two-state solution.

I’m going to go to the gentleman in the back because – one second, Michel – because he was here yesterday and we didn’t get a chance to call on him.

QUESTION: Okay. Thank you, Elizabeth.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MS TRUDEAU: Yep.

QUESTION: Thank you, Elizabeth. Last Friday heavily armed gunmen from South Sudan crossed the Ethiopian border into Gambela region and killed 208 innocent Ethiopians, including women and children. And they also kidnap more than 100 children. As you probably heard, Ethiopia declared two days of national mourning for the 208 people killed. Ethiopia also announced that on Wednesday that its military force entered South Sudan and surrounded the attackers who abducted the children. My question, Elizabeth: What is the United States position regarding this attack on Ethiopian soil?

MS TRUDEAU: Okay. So first I’m going to say there’s a lot there. So first, our condolences and our thoughts are with the victims and those impacted by this. We are concerned by the reports of the attacks in Gambela region of Ethiopia.

At this point we don’t have information on the motive of attack. We’ve been informed that the Ethiopian authorities are responding to the immediate needs of those affected communities. They’re carrying out the investigation. I’ve also seen reports that the Ethiopian forces are pulling out the children in that; for that I’m going to refer you to the Government of Ethiopia and South Sudan, because I just don’t have clarity on what’s going on on the ground.

Okay. Yep. And you guys – you’re going to hate this. I can take two more, because I want to get you out before S goes on.

QUESTION: Sure. The foreign minister of North Korea spoke at the UN yesterday, and essentially he blamed the U.S. for failure in progress on talks and said that the only way to meet the threat from the U.S. was for them to have nuclear weapons. Do you have a response to that?

MS TRUDEAU: We disagree.

QUESTION: And --

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- he also had a chance to speak with Foreign Minister Zarif. Is there any concern, given the history between North Korea and Iran, that they might be talking about any illicit --

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah, I can’t speak to a meeting of two foreign leaders like that.

Sir.

QUESTION: Thank you. Elizabeth, the Armenian American lobby groups learned from a representative of Administration that President Obama won’t call the events of 1915 as genocide during his statement that will come out soon. The question is --

MS TRUDEAU: It actually came out.

QUESTION: It already came out today?

MS TRUDEAU: Yes, sir, it did.

QUESTION: Okay. And then, obviously, there – we learned – as we learned before, there is no genocide term in the statement. Can you please tell why this Administration avoids using the genocide term when about already 30 countries – approximately 30 countries, starting from allies like – democratic allies like Germany and France to not most democratic, maybe, country like Venezuela, has already called the events of 1915 as genocide? And President Ronald Reagan in 1981 as President also called the events of 1915 as genocide. Why can’t this Administration do the same? Thank you.

MS TRUDEAU: Okay. In terms of the President’s statement, you know I’m going to refer you to the White House. What I would say, though, is read this statement. It’s a very powerful statement; came out just about an hour ago. He marked – he remarked on – he actually termed it the first mass atrocity of the 20th century. He noted the 1.5 million Armenian people who were deported, massacred, marched to their deaths in the final days of the Ottoman Empire. The President also remarked on the remarkable resilience of the Armenian people. So I would refer you to the White House to speak specifically on this, but I would say read the statement, because it’s very powerful and he speaks.

Pam.

QUESTION: I’m sorry, can I follow up really quick --

MS TRUDEAU: I just – actually, let me go one more, and then I’m happy to talk.

QUESTION: Okay, come back to me, please. Thank you.

MS TRUDEAU: Hi, Pam.

QUESTION: Two quick ones, if I can.

MS TRUDEAU: Sure.

QUESTION: The first one: What’s the State perspective on the widening political crisis in Macedonia, which, of course, has resulted in the massive pro and anti-government demonstrations this week?

And then secondly, do you have an update concerning U.S. relief for the earthquake victims in Ecuador?

MS TRUDEAU: Okay. So on Macedonia, we and the EU have made our concerns known about the importance of credible elections in Macedonia. Time is short. Much remains to be done. We strongly urge President Ivanov to rescind his decision and let the special prosecutor’s office and the courts do their job. I would refer you to some of the statements that we’ve made on that.

Quickly on Ecuador – and thank you for the question, because I think sometimes things move very quickly on, and the people of Ecuador are very much in our thoughts. The United States is responding to the humanitarian needs in Ecuador in several different ways. USAID has deployed a team of disaster experts to assist the Government of Ecuador by assessing damage, identifying priority humanitarian needs, providing information and analysis of the situation on the ground.

They have also deployed a small team of structural engineers with urban search-and-rescue partners from the Los Angeles County Fire Department; Fairfax, Virginia Fire and Rescue. They’re surveying buildings and critical infrastructure in the most affected areas.

They have also deployed a small support team to work with UN’s Disaster Assistance and Coordination Team to help coordinate the flood of international rescue activities. They provided an initial $100,000 to support the distribution of emergency relief supplies to communities impacted and they’re contributing $500,000 through the UN World Food Program to provide food vouchers in especially hit areas. Additional U.S. Government assistance may be forthcoming based on assessments and also the Government of Ecuador’s request.

One more. You’re it, my friend.

QUESTION: Thank you. What do you tell critics who say that the United States is rewarding Iran’s behavior for producing excess plutonium or heavy water that could be used to produce plutonium?

MS TRUDEAU: So I think it’s important to realize that actually Iran was below the 130 metric ton threshold before this was purchased.

QUESTION: And why can’t you say whether this is Iran’s sanction money or new U.S. dollars or U.S. taxpayer dollars being used to purchase this heavy water?

MS TRUDEAU: I’m sorry, I don’t think I understand your question.

QUESTION: What kind of dollars are being used to purchase this heavy water from Iran?

MS TRUDEAU: Okay, so this was actually facilitated through the Department of Energy, so I’m going to refer you there.

QUESTION: And --

MS TRUDEAU: Thanks, guys.

QUESTION: Okay.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:28 p.m.)

DPB #68

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 - April 20, 2016

John Kirby

Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC

April 20, 2016









Index for Today's Briefing

UAE/DENMARK/COUNTERTERRORISM



JAPAN



SECRETARY KERRY'S TRAVEL



SYRIA



SAUDI ARABIA



CUBA



ISRAEL/PALESTINIAN TERRITORIES



IRAN



TURKEY/RUSSIA



EGYPT



BRAZIL



JAPAN



TURKEY



SYRIA



INDIA




TRANSCRIPT:

1:27 p.m. EDT

MR KIRBY: All right, just a couple things here at the top. On the counter-Daesh coalition and the fight against Daesh, the United States welcomes the vote yesterday by the Danish parliament and the announcement by the United Arab Emirates to expand their contributions to the coalition to counter ISIL. Denmark’s vote to increase authorized personnel on the ground and the redeployment of F-16 fighter aircraft for operations in both Iraq and Syria will complement their existing contributions to the coalition and will certainly complement the broader coalition kinetic efforts as well.

Also, again, yesterday, as I alluded to, the United Arab Emirates announced a $10 million contribution to the UNDP’s Funding Facility for Immediate Stabilization, otherwise known as FFIS, to help accelerate the rehabilitation of civic infrastructure and community development initiatives in areas that have been newly liberated from Daesh. As part of Denmark’s vote, they also committed to strengthening civilian efforts by increasing support for stabilization efforts in Iraq and Syria and to counter Daesh’s propaganda.

We obviously appreciate these additional steps that we believe will help ensure the coalition continues to both seize and sustain the momentum that we have already gained in this campaign. Defeating Daesh is a top priority of the United States and we are going to continue to work with countries like Denmark and the UAE and a broad range of partners across the international community to further degrade and obviously destroy this barbaric group.

I also want to highlight that the Secretary did reach the Japanese Foreign Minister Kishida by phone earlier today to express condolences, of course, for the loss of life and the injuries as well as the damage and devastation sustained from recent earthquakes there in southern Japan. He, of course, reiterated our commitment to continue to support the Japanese Government’s relief efforts. I talked a little bit about that support yesterday; that will continue, and the Secretary made sure that that was clear that we would continue to do that and also reaffirm the course that we, as always, stand firmly beside the Japanese people in this time of need.

Just a quick travel note, and I think all of you know this already, but the Secretary will travel to New York City on Friday. He’ll be coming straight from Riyadh to New York City to represent the United States at the signing of the Paris agreement. This is a historic climate agreement that was reached in Paris last December, as you know, by the 196 parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. The signing ceremony is hosted by the UN and will take place at the UN headquarters. The Secretary will also participate in an event along with representatives from a number of other nations that are committing, as the United States, China, and others have, to join the agreement this year.

He’ll also take advantage, as he always does, to have bilateral meetings in New York City, which we will be able to announce tomorrow once the schedule is a little bit more finalized. And I think as you know, we often do readouts or provide opportunities for media access at the beginning of these meetings. I would expect a similar amount of openness and transparency for these bilateral meetings on Friday. And again, we’ll have more information probably tomorrow about who they are and when they are.

QUESTION: A real quick point on that. Didn’t the Secretary indicate yesterday that he would be meeting with Foreign Minister Zarif on Friday?

MR KIRBY: He did. He did, and I would expect that when we’re able to give you the full list of bilateral meetings, that you will very likely see one with Foreign Minister Zarif on that schedule, yeah.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR KIRBY: That’s very much his expectation.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Can we – can we just start with a quick one on Syria?

MR KIRBY: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: And I know we’ve addressed this, or you’ve addressed this, to some degree in recent briefings, but the head of the Syrian delegation to the talks in Geneva is arguing that the departure or suspension of the participation of the opposition groups in the talks could be a good thing, that it may remove an obstacle to actually reaching an agreement. And he’s continuing to push this notion of a broad-based government of national unity, which, although it doesn’t explicitly – doesn’t explicitly say this, seems to be a way of ensuring that the Assad regime, if not Assad himself, continues to play a part in the – in a transitional government. Can you address not just your views about Assad himself but also your views on such a national unity government that might include large portions of the current governing structure?

MR KIRBY: Sure. Well, obviously our views on Assad and the degree to which he can be part of the long-term future of Syria have not changed, Arshad. Nothing at all has changed about our views of him or his lack of potential to continue leading the Syrian Government. So no change there. I’ve seen these comments. Frankly, we would not associate ourselves with them. We do not believe that the answer, that the way forward is any removal by the opposition from these talks; in fact, quite the contrary. As I said yesterday and we have been saying, we want to see all parties actively participate in these talks. We understand certainly the frustrations expressed by the opposition as they asked for a pause, and we respect the decision by Special Envoy de Mistura to grant that pause. But we still want to see the talks continue. We still want to see them get going again, and we believe that, in fact, is the best way to get to a political transition inside Syria.

Now, on the third point about this broad-based unity government or however he phrased it, I think I’d leave it to them to describe what they exactly mean by that. What I can tell you is that we remain firmly committed to using the Geneva process to describe and to articulate and to flesh out what a transitional government and governing body should look like, and that’s really what these talks are designed to do. In fact, when Special Envoy de Mistura started them in this round, he specifically said that one of his goals – in fact, his chief goal – was to have – to start to have a dialogue and a discussion about the political transition itself and about what a transitional governing structure could look like. He didn’t say that he thought that in a couple weeks’ time they were going to get at it and necessarily have the final answers, but he wanted to start having that conversation. And we agree with him. We think that it is time to start having that. But it has to be ironed out between the parties. It can’t be dictated at the outset of talks by one or the other. We want them to sit down and to have a dialogue and a discussion about what it should look like.

The last thing I’ll say on this – and I know it’s a long answer, but your question was a good one – the last thing I’ll say is that as the Secretary has maintained all along, this has to be determined between the parties, but also that we recognize that through the transition process, in whatever form it takes, that there will have to be some preservation of some institutions of government to keep order and stability in the country as we work through a transitional period. Transitions are very difficult and they can be very uncertain, and they can certainly lead to unintended consequences and outcomes if you’re not careful. And one of the things we want to do is be careful and thoughtful. And so we recognize that some institutions of government, particularly the security forces – we’ve talked about that – would have to stay in place in some form or fashion. That doesn’t mean that they’re all going to be led by the same individuals, but that the – but that we don’t tear down every root and every – and rip every fabric of government as we work through the transition.

So it’s a long answer, but I hope that got it.

QUESTION: Could I just follow up on this very point? I just want to understand you correctly. You certainly want to maintain the structure that you have now because, after all, the opposition really did not have or does not have much experience in terms of governing and running institutions and so on. Syria has been around for a very long time, these government institutions and so on. You don’t want to see them go in any way?

MR KIRBY: I’m not sure I understand completely what you’re asking.

QUESTION: Let me ask you --

MR KIRBY: But let me just take a stab at it and then you tell me if I got into the ballpark. I mean, what we’ve said is we recognize that some governing institutions, certainly some levers of government have got to stay in place, so that order of stability and security can be maintained as you go through a transition process, which is a very difficult, very trying, very uncertain time. We don’t want to rip everything down and then have to start over again and build up again. And we’ve seen how that doesn’t work in the past. And the Secretary has also said that any role for Assad in that process has got to be determined by the parties. We’re not going to legislate it from – externally. But that clearly, he can’t be the answer to the long-term future of Syria, and that’s why we believe it’s so important to have, as the end product of this transitional process, elections – elections with the diaspora being able to vote, the millions and millions of Syrians that have fled that country, so that they have a voice and they have a vote. And we believe that if they do, there’s no way that they’re going to vote to keep Bashar al-Assad in power.

QUESTION: Independent of Assad, I mean, you keep saying that some must stay, some must go. That’s the assumption. How do you decide which government agencies should stay or which government agencies should go? Because --

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- we’ve learned the lessons from Iraq. I mean, you can’t just collapse the government. I understand that you may not want the same leadership in these institution, whether it’s the ministry of interior or defense or the security agencies or even the ministry of electricity, as they call it, and water and so on or agriculture.

MR KIRBY: Right.

QUESTION: You want these institutions to remain in place --

MR KIRBY: Right.

QUESTION: -- while you may not want the leadership to be there, correct?

QUESTION: Does that include the political parties?

MR KIRBY: Well --

QUESTION: Is everyone who’s a Baathist going to be kicked out in a transitional government?

MR KIRBY: Again, these are the kinds of decisions that we want to be hashed out between the parties through these talks. That’s why we want the talks to continue. That’s why we want to see all sides continue to participate. They’ve got to decide that. It’s not – the ISSG isn’t going to sit down and have a meeting and issue a decree and say the following ministries have got to stay in place with the following individuals in certain leadership positions. That’s – we want them to work this out.

But clearly – I mean, just common sense would tell you that we certainly want to see some security force apparatus in place, obviously, and certainly institutions and levers of government that can deliver basic services like electricity and water, medical support, and some economic foundation, obviously. I mean, some of the very essential elements of government we’d like to see in place, and I think they’re pretty obvious. But the – but what it’s going to look like exactly and who’s going to lead them and how they’re going to be administered – that’s what we want the parties to work out. That’s why these talks are so important.

Justin.

QUESTION: I just wanted to ask you about Saudi Arabia quickly, the – and the 9/11 bill and just try to button this up. Have the Saudis formally expressed to the State Department, to the U.S. Government, that they intend to sell off their assets, their – in U.S. treasuries should the 9/11 bill pass in its current form? Or is that just something that the press has cited officials from Saudi Arabia having said?

MR KIRBY: I’m not going to speak for Saudi officials, Justin, and I would encourage you to ask them about their views of this legislation. I can only go back to what I’ve said the last couple of days and speak for our views of it and point you to what the Secretary said himself in testimony to Congress and our concerns about the legislation as it’s currently written. And again, there’s no change to our views on that, but I wouldn’t speak for Saudi officials and their views.

QUESTION: All right. I wouldn’t want you to. (Laughter.)

MR KIRBY: Thank you.

QUESTION: But wouldn’t --

MR KIRBY: Then you shouldn’t have asked.

QUESTION: Well, that’s --

MR KIRBY: Because you actually --

QUESTION: But he wasn’t asking --

MR KIRBY: Because you actually did want me to.

QUESTION: But he wasn’t asking the views of Saudi officials. He was asking if they’ve raised this with you. Can you not address that?

MR KIRBY: Yeah, I know, and I’m not – I’m just not going to --

QUESTION: And you don’t want to do that either.

MR KIRBY: I’m just not going to speak to that, and I – as you know, we don’t talk about the details of diplomatic conversations.

QUESTION: Do you see it as a real – as a threat? Do you see it as a possible outcome?

MR KIRBY: What?

QUESTION: That – this massive selloff of U.S. assets.

MR KIRBY: I’m not going to speculate one way or the other.

QUESTION: Would you express to Congress, to members of Congress considering the bill, that aside from the risks that the Secretary has spoken about, that this also could be one ramification?

MR KIRBY: I think I would just leave it the way the Secretary left it in testimony to the Congress in terms of our concerns.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Change topic. I wonder if we can get your reaction to the political developments in Havana, in Cuba, where, as you know, Raul Castro and others at the top of the Communist Party have announced that they’ll stay in those positions for the coming five years. Was this something that was expected in this department, and was it a disappointment, and does it cast a dark cloud over the Administration’s pursuit of rapprochement with Havana?

QUESTION: Or a pall, or a shadow? (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Shadow – yeah. Just – what have you got to say?

MR KIRBY: No, I think I got the gist of the question. First of all, we didn’t have and didn’t set expectations for the Cuban Communist Party Congress, and this is for Cuban officials to speak to the results of that congress. We’ve long said that our aspiration is that the Cuban people be able to decide their future and to make choices for themselves. And we recognize the difficulties that they face right now, and in terms of that sort of future. For our part, we’re going to continue to work with Cuba through the bilateral commission, where we are prepared to discuss a wide range of issues with the government, including some of the issues that President Castro mentioned in his comments. Other issues include – and we’ve talked about this before, but economic, cultural, social areas, as well as the more difficult challenges of human rights and outstanding U.S. claims, and of course, the return of fugitives.

So look, there’s a long process of normalization that we are just now embarking on. We believe and have maintained that the best way for us to try to bring about a brighter future for the Cuban people is to engage and to have a dialogue, and to have an embassy, and hopefully one day normalized diplomatic relations with Cuba. And that’s what we’re focused on.

QUESTION: So this doesn’t derail the pursuit of those things in any way?

MR KIRBY: I would not describe it as derailing. I would – we didn’t set expectations for the congress, and we didn’t – we didn’t head into it with expectations one way or the other. The only expectations are the ones we’re placing on ourselves, which is to work towards normalization. And we still believe that that engagement, having – being able to have a dialogue, is the best way that we can help the Cuban people see a brighter future long-term.

But look, it’s going to – we recognize it’s going to take a little while and – to get to full normalization. And there are still real issues that our two governments do not agree on. And the policy in the past of not talking and not having an opportunity to work through those issues obviously didn’t produce anything really good for the Cuban people. We believe that dialogue and a relationship can.

QUESTION: This – sorry. This is one of the things that our governments don’t agree on, is the idea that the Castro brothers stay in power for life. Is that --

MR KIRBY: Look, I mean, again, I’m not – I appreciate the third now attempt to get me to talk specifically about what they decided at the congress.

QUESTION: Yeah, no, I’m trying to get a --

MR KIRBY: I mean, we didn’t have expectations for them going into the congress, and there certainly were no expectations that there was going to be an overnight change in the way the island is governed. There’s never been that expectation. We – our aspiration – and I said it at the outset – our aspiration is that the Cuban people can determine for themselves their future. Obviously, that’s difficult for them to do right now given the governing structure on the island. And there – but there were no expectations that by opening up an embassy – their embassy here and our embassy there – that it was all – that the way Cuba’s governed is going to change overnight. And this isn’t – this has never been about some sort of forcible regime change. This has been about normalization of diplomatic relations and having a discussion and a dialogue, and trying – we believe, through engagement – to be able to help the Cuban people meet their aspirations.

Said.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Question on Iran?

MR KIRBY: Let me go to Said and then we’ll --

QUESTION: Yeah, I have very quick questions on the Palestinian issue. May I?

MR KIRBY: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Okay. First of all, the Haaretz reports that the Palestinian Authority is leaning towards not submitting or not – or a call for an anti-settlement resolution at the United Nations. Are you aware of that, and do you have any comment? There was much talk – in fact, there was an agreement among the Arab group in Geneva that they will submit a draft resolution to the United Nations Security Council – we talked about it last week – calling on a resolution that condemns the settlements. Haaretz now says that the Palestinian Authority is leaning toward not submitting that. Have they talked to you about that? Have you spoken to them about this? Do you have any comment on this?

MR KIRBY: I’m not aware of any discussions that have taken place between the Palestinians and the State Department or the United States Government with respect to now not being in favor of a UN Security Council resolution. Our position on this hasn’t changed. Again, we – as I said the other day, we’re going to consider all options that can lead us to a two-state solution. But I don’t have anything further. I’m not – we’re not going to comment a draft resolution one way or the other.

QUESTION: But would you encourage the Palestinians not to submit such a resolution?

MR KIRBY: I think I’m going to leave it where I left it before, Said.

QUESTION: Also, overnight the Israeli authorities raided a neighborhood in East Jerusalem, Issawiya, and arrested like 32 people, mostly children. I wonder if you have any comment on that. They have this new practice of what they call flying checkpoints where they go from place to place basically making life impossible for a lot of people to go to school --

MR KIRBY: I haven’t seen that report. Why don’t you let me get a little bit more information before I comment on it?

QUESTION: And finally, will the Secretary of State meet with Mahmoud Abbas? You said he’s going to have some bilateral meetings on Friday.

MR KIRBY: He is.

QUESTION: Is he likely to meet with Abbas?

MR KIRBY: And I said I think we’ll have more to say tomorrow in terms of who he’s going to be meeting with. I’m not in a position right now to give you the full list. As I noted earlier to Ros, he did indicate that he has every intention of meeting again with Foreign Minister Zarif. But beyond that, we’re still developing his schedule, and when we have a better sense of it, we’ll certainly let you know.

QUESTION: Yeah, a couple of questions on Iran. First, does the U.S. Government have any more insight into some sort of missile launch that may have been conducted in Iran on Tuesday, yesterday?

MR KIRBY: I’ve seen these reports of another missile launch in Iran. I’m not in a position to confirm those reports, confirm the veracity of them. Obviously, we’re watching this as best we can. Certainly if it’s true, and we’re talking about a ballistic missile launch or the testing of ballistic missile technologies, that’s obviously of concern to us. It’s not consistent, as we’ve said before, with the Security Council resolution, and so we’ll just have to – I don’t want to speculate about any future actions one way or another. We’ve just seen these reports, and again, we’re just not in a position right now to speak to them with any great detail.

QUESTION: Okay. And then in the past couple of hours, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled 6 to 2 that families of victims of Iran-sponsored terror attacks, including the 1983 bombing of the marine barracks in Lebanon, will be able to collect money from frozen Iranian assets to the tune of $1.9 billion. Does the U.S. Government have a reaction to the court’s decision that these families can collect from money that had been frozen during the sanctions regime?

MR KIRBY: Yeah, so a couple of things, I think, on this. First of all, we continue to sympathize with the families of the victims, of those lost loved ones in terror attacks that have been supported by Iran. And as we have before, we continue to condemn Iran’s past and continued support for international terrorism. And as I’ve said many times from the podium, we don’t turn a blind eye to their continued willingness to do exactly that. I would say that this ruling was not unexpected, and it’s consistent with the position that we took when the legislation calling for this compensation was actually signed into law by the President back in 2012, and we have supported consistently compensation for the families in this case.

QUESTION: Do you have any – and I realize you may not – but there are some questions that are outstanding about what happens from here in terms of who actually has custody of the frozen assets right now. Is it – I presume it would be the Treasury Department. But I don’t know if it’s them or State or who has control over the accounts, who would actually make the disbursements, and whether the nuclear agreement itself has or had any influence on the availability of these monies to be transferred to the families of the victims. Do you have any info on any of that?

MR KIRBY: I’m probably going to end up referring you to Treasury for these more detailed questions. But because I don’t know for sure, I’m going to take those questions and we’ll research it and get back to you.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR KIRBY: It may not be that we can answer them, Arshad. But if we can’t we’ll certainly point you to the right place.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: John, I’ve got one on Russia and Turkey. Turkey banned Sputnik’s bureau chief from entering the country. As you know, it comes a week after Sputnik’s website was blocked. And I understand, broadly speaking, your position about – that you had expressed concerns about Turkey’s crackdown on media. But do you object or are you concerned about this specific incident that the bureau chief --

MR KIRBY: We’ve just seen reports on this ourselves. So I’d refer you to Turkey to speak to this. I’ve only really – all I’ve seen are press reports on this. So rather than wade into this one, I’m going to refer you to Turkish authorities. But you’re right, I mean, we have been nothing but clear about our broad concerns about media freedoms in Turkey in particular.

QUESTION: All right. Now that the – do you have any other comment on the website now that days have passed and you’re more than aware of the reports, or --

MR KIRBY: No, I’m – I’m not – I don’t really have additional comment on it.

QUESTION: The reason I bring this up is a Russian lawmaker said today that the U.S. often specifically condemns or calls out Turkey related to specific media organizations when it happens, and he felt that there’s a double standard out there, which raises the question: Is the U.S. reluctant to comment on these specific incidents, be it blocking the Sputnik website or this banning of entry because it’s a Russian news agency, a Russian news agency is --

MR KIRBY: We don’t – look, I mean, we support – we support more aggressively and more assertively than any other government in the world press freedoms. And I would challenge you to go find another government anywhere in the world that talks about it as aggressively as we do, as openly as we do, and frankly, as proudly as we do. Our – I stand 100 percent by our record when it comes to talking about the rights of freedom of expression and the freedom of the press and the job that all of you do and how much we value that, and how important that we believe it is not just to our own process of governing but to the process of governing, of governments all over the world. And we’re not bashful about calling it like we see it.

So I reject any implication that we’re somehow pulling punches here because in this particular case these outlets are Russian. What we want to see is a free and independent media, and I mean that in every sense of the word. It’s not just the responsibility of governments to allow for free and independent media coverage and to recognize that scrutiny applied by journalists is not a sign of weakness of a government, it’s a sign of strength; but it’s also incumbent upon all of you as reporters and journalists to be likewise objective and fair and balanced and aggressive in your scrutiny and the scrutiny that you’re applying. And you and I both know that that’s not always the case with every single outlet.

So media freedom we continue to believe in, but it has to truly be free, and it isn’t always. So I think I’d – I didn’t mean to preach, but I think that’s where I’m going to leave it.

QUESTION: Turkey – Turkey also – they also banned a German state TV reporter from entering the country. Are you aware of that report?

MR KIRBY: Again, I’ve seen that particular press report. I just --

QUESTION: And I was going to ask: Are you concerned by this new tactic?

MR KIRBY: Well, look, I mean, I – I’ve seen that press report too. And we – regrettably, we could probably have this discussion and this back and forth almost every day, and regrettably, that discussion almost every day could involve countries like Turkey that we have said that – and I’ve said publicly – that what we’re starting to see is a worrisome trend here in terms of allowing media, independent media, to do their jobs.

So I don’t – I mean, I – again, I don’t think we can be more clear and more transparent about our concerns with respect to media freedoms, particularly in Turkey. I just have seen this one press report, and I mean, I would just say that our concerns with respect to media freedoms there in Turkey are longstanding, they’re well-known, and absolute – and sadly, unchanged.

QUESTION: Just two – two quick ones. The Secretary --

MR KIRBY: I’ll come back to you in a second.

QUESTION: The Secretary said in his remarks after meeting President al-Sisi that he had committed to the president that he would return very soon. Do you have a date for that?

MR KIRBY: I don’t.

QUESTION: Okay. Second --

MR KIRBY: I don’t.

QUESTION: And I’m – I read his remarks, including the one sentence that made reference to internal events in Egypt. Can you provide any greater detail on the extent to which the conversation touched on or focused on what human rights groups say have been quite significant human rights violations in Egypt since President Sisi came to power?

MR KIRBY: I’m a little reluctant to go beyond the Secretary’s own comments. I think they do speak for themselves in terms of the scope of the discussion that he had with President al-Sisi today in Cairo. But you’re right; he did allude to the issue of human rights, which is an issue that we routinely discuss with Egyptian leaders because we do have concerns with the human rights situation there. I mean, just last week, we put out our Human Rights Report, which I think laid bare in more detail those concerns.

So certainly, they were on the agenda, that as an issue was on the agenda for the Secretary in his discussions. I – but I’m not going to, just as I wouldn’t in any other case, I’m not going to read out more detail than what the Secretary provided. But I can assure you that it was on his list of topics to discuss and that he did bring it up.

QUESTION: And you probably can’t, then, address this, but I want to ask because there was a court decision on this: Do you know if he specifically raised the case of officials from the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights and the Arab Network for Human Rights Information who have been subjected to some sanctions, they say, as a result of their work to promote human rights? And I believe the court case has been postponed for them. Do you know if those came up?

MR KIRBY: I do not know if that particular case came up.

QUESTION: Okay. And then last one for me: Do you have a readout on Under Secretary Shannon’s meeting with the Brazilian lawmaker this morning?

MR KIRBY: I think I do, actually. Don’t I? Let’s see if I can find it in here.

QUESTION: It would be under B, right?

MR KIRBY: One would think so. But you’ve seen these tabs in here.

QUESTION: Is it under W for WHA?

MR KIRBY: Yeah, the – WHA is in the back. It’s all alphabetic. And Brazil is right at the top of the subgroup of WHA issues.

I can confirm that Under Secretary Shannon met today with Senator Aloysio Nunes, the chairman of the Brazilian Senate’s foreign affairs committee. This meeting had been planned for months and was arranged at the request of the Brazilian embassy. I don’t have, unfortunately, a greater readout than that, but they did meet and I do want to stress that this was long on the schedule.

QUESTION: Okay. So as --

MR KIRBY: And not thrown on because of --

QUESTION: Recent events?

MR KIRBY: -- because of recent events.

QUESTION: There’s been speculation in Brazil that the meeting occurred so that the senator could explain sort of why the processes unfolding in Brazil are fully in line with their constitution. Do you – that’s just not the case because this was on the books for months?

MR KIRBY: This was – yeah, this was at their request and had been scheduled for quite some time. I would not deign to speak for the senator’s agenda and what was on his mind and I don’t have a more detailed readout of that.

QUESTION: Okay. Yeah, thanks.

MR KIRBY: Yes, back there.

QUESTION: A quick follow-up on the call with Foreign Minister Kishida. Is the U.S. providing any additional relief efforts to Kumamoto? And what else came up in the call? Did the possibility of another missile test come up?

MR KIRBY: The possibility of another?

QUESTION: Missile test in North Korea.

MR KIRBY: The discussion was a brief one and it was, as I said in my comments, really centered around the earthquakes and restating our condolences and our firm support for Japanese Government relief efforts and whatever we can do.

As I said yesterday – and I would let DOD speak to this with more detail – but the bulk of our assistance so far has been in terms of air support, which is obviously, as you know, in the wake of a natural disaster, that’s critical just in terms of getting information and having – being able to see more of what’s going on. So we are still providing that air support. I don’t know of any additional requests by the Japanese Government or any additional resources that we’re applying at this time.

But again, the Secretary stressed that we’re willing to stay in touch – not willing – we will stay in touch with Japanese authorities. And if there’s other ways in which we can be helpful that they feel is appropriate, we certainly will consider all those kinds of requests.

QUESTION: Can we go back to Turkey?

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: As my colleague was pointing out, the situation on the ground for journalists is much worse than it’s all really coming out. And it seems in Europe and Brussels and – they feel that after the – Erdogan’s visit and meet with President Obama, he’s become bolder, and really, the noose is tightening around the journalists. So are you just – are you in touch? What is the highest-level touch? Have you brought this – the journalists are really suffering there, so what is – is it just a statement? Is it something more than this you can do?

MR KIRBY: I think, again, we have been nothing but clear and assertive in terms of our views of the importance of media freedoms there in Turkey, and we also – look, we – Turkey is an ally and a good friend and a key contributor to the coalition against Daesh. And we want nothing more than to see Turkey succeed and to see their democracy reach its full potential. And we want to see Turkey itself and in its policies live up to its own principles – the principles enshrined in its own constitution. When I say – when I’ve said it in the past, sometimes it’s met with an eye-roll or an eyebrow-raise or something, that Turkey’s democracy matters to us. But it does matter to us and we want to see it succeed, and again, be the best it can be for the Turkish people.

So that’s why when we see, as I’ve described, as a worrisome trend of a limit on press freedom in Turkey, why we say it, why we call it like we see it. And we don’t just do that here from the podium. We do that privately with Turkish officials as well. As I’ve said before, Turkey has no greater friend than our ambassador, John Bass, there. These things matter to us. They matter to us all over the world, but they certainly matter to us in what we’re seeing in Turkey.

Now, I can’t speak to President Erdogan’s motivations, and I wouldn’t do that. I would only say that – I’d only repeat what I said before, and that’s that we value our relationship with Turkey. We certainly value our alliance with them through NATO. And we’re appreciative of the efforts that they’re making as a member of the coalition against Daesh, which are not insignificant – not to mention the fact that they’ve got millions of refugees on their side of the border that they’re taking care of.

But it’s because we value this relationship and it’s because we are – we count ourselves as such good friends that we’re willing and able to have these kinds of very open, frank discussions with them about something like media freedom that concerns us.

QUESTION: Can we go back to the – sorry.

QUESTION: But when you say the most troubling thing on the ground and in – is – that when you call them ally and friend, how do you react to the statement saying that they are your friends and you’re turning a blind eye to what is going on on the ground?

MR KIRBY: How do I – I’m not sure I understand your question.

QUESTION: That they’re your allies --

MR KIRBY: Right, yeah.

QUESTION: -- and friends, and everything they are cooperating on, on different levels.

MR KIRBY: Right.

QUESTION: On this, why not a stronger message is being sent? Or what is – when you ask them, what is the reaction they give you?

MR KIRBY: Well --

QUESTION: Don’t they answer? Or they just keep quiet?

MR KIRBY: I’m not going to characterize their side of the conversations. I mean, they can do that. But I – in the root of your question, there’s this – I guess this idea that because you count yourself as somebody’s friend or an ally, that you aren’t ever going to disagree on things, that you aren’t ever going to see things differently or from a different perspective, or that you are, on either side, going to be afraid to speak up when you see something that concerns you. It’s the sign of a mature friendship and relationship that you can have these frank discussions, and we have, and we will continue. And if you’re asking me are we happy that there hasn’t been a demonstrable change in terms of treatment of journalists --

QUESTION: That’s the question.

MR KIRBY: -- of course not. Of course not. That’s not what we want to see. I wouldn’t get up here every week and talk about this and express our concerns if we were content with what we’re seeing with the way journalists are being treated there. We’re not content. And because we’re not content, because we don’t believe that this is in Turkey’s best interest – not just your best interest but Turkey’s best interest and the region’s best interest and the Turkish people’s best interest – it’s because of that that we’re going to continue to raise this.

I got time for just one more and then I got to get going.

QUESTION: India?

QUESTION: Syria – just very quickly, because I wanted to ask about this. The United Nations is saying that they are beginning to evacuate about 500 people from 4 villages in Syria that are besieged by the regime. So do you consider this as a goodwill gesture, or is that what you want the government to do as part of allowing humanitarian aid to go back and forth? Because --

MR KIRBY: Evacuations?

QUESTION: Because the talks broke down on the premise that the Syrians were obstinate in terms of allowing humanitarian aid.

MR KIRBY: I haven’t seen the specific reports about evacuations, but let me just go to a larger point. What we want --

QUESTION: I mean, they have the towns, like, Zabadani and Madaya, Kefraya, and so on.

MR KIRBY: Yeah. I haven’t seen these reports about evacuations. It – but if the regime was doing what they should be doing for their own people, there would be no need for evacuations. If the humanitarian aid and assistance, the food, the water, the medicine was getting to where it needs to get to in a sustained and unimpeded way, then people will be able to stay home. And if they weren’t being – if they didn’t have to worry about being barrel-bombed and gassed, there’d be no need for evacuations. Again, I haven’t seen these reports, so I can’t speak specifically to it. But we’ve been nothing, again, but clear about what our expectations are of the regime in this process.

Last one.

QUESTION: One on --

MR KIRBY: Last one.

QUESTION: Thank you. Yesterday four congressmen, including Ed Royce, chairman of House Foreign Affairs Committee, wrote a letter to House Speaker Paul Ryan. As for the content of the letter, the Indian Prime Minister Modi is expected to visit the city on June 7th and 8th. Do you have that information? Is he expected to visit?

MR KIRBY: I would ask you to talk to the prime minister about his travel plans. I don’t have anything to announce on that.

QUESTION: But is this something from – this is the kind of information which only the Congress has? The State Department doesn’t have information?

MR KIRBY: No, it’s not about correspondence we have or we don’t have. I just make it a habit not to speak for the travel plans of other foreign leaders. I can really only speak for the Secretary’s travel plans, and Arshad has already stretched the limits of my ability to do that today. So I just don’t have anything for you on this.

QUESTION: Just a quick one.

MR KIRBY: Thanks everybody.

QUESTION: Just a quick one.

MR KIRBY: I’ve got to go.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:09 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 - April 15, 2016

John Kirby

Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC

April 15, 2016









Index for Today's Briefing

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM



RUSSIA



RELIGIOUS FREEDOM



SYRIA



LEBANON



NORTH KOREA



JAPAN



BURMA



UKRAINE



TURKEY



GERMANY



ISRAEL/PALESTINIANS



INDIA



TURKEY



UNITED KINGDOM




TRANSCRIPT:

2:10 p.m. EDT

MR KIRBY: Hey, everybody.

QUESTION: Hello.

QUESTION: Hello, John.

MR KIRBY: Happy Friday to you.

QUESTION: It’s beautiful out there.

MR KIRBY: It is a beautiful day. So let’s just keep it short today.

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR KIRBY: All easy questions – two or three – and we’ll be done.

QUESTION: What’s your favorite color? (Laughter.)

MR KIRBY: Blue.

QUESTION: Purple.

QUESTION: Blue?

MR KIRBY: Blue. Are we done now? Can we go?

QUESTION: Yeah, that’s it. Thank you.

MR KIRBY: All right, thank you.

QUESTION: I may have --

MR KIRBY: All right. A couple of things at the top here. Yesterday, the Department of State notified Congress of the decision to re-designate the following countries as Countries of Particular Concern under the International Religious Freedom Act, also known as IRF. These countries are Burma, China, Eritrea, Iran, North Korea, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and for the first time Tajikistan as a Country of Particular Concern. In accordance with the IRF Act, presidential actions for Burma, China, Eritrea, Iran, North Korea, and Sudan have been implemented. We have waived application of presidential actions with respect to Saudi Arabia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan following determinations that the important national interest of the United States required exercising this waiver authority.

These designations help us shine a spotlight on countries and conditions that require the international community’s attention. Today and every day, as you know, we are committed to working with governments, civil society organizations, and individuals to achieve our shared interest in promoting peace and stability through, in part, the promotion and protection of all human rights including religious freedoms.

Also just a quick note. I think you’ve seen the readout statement I just put out a few minutes ago, but I do want to reiterate it here from the podium that the Secretary did speak today over the phone with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov to reiterate our serious concerns over the ongoing threats to the cessation of hostilities in Syria and the urgent need for the Assad regime to stop its violations of the cessation. And we talked a little bit about those violations yesterday.

The Secretary and the foreign minister reaffirmed the importance of the preservation and solidification of the cessation of hostilities, and they both said that all parties needed to comply with the cessation. The Secretary said that the United States expected Russia to urge the regime to comply with the cessation and its requirements under it and that we, the United States, would work with the opposition to do the same.

The Secretary also registered our strong objections to the unsafe maneuvers executed by Russian military aircraft over the USS Donald Cook in the Baltic Sea.

And on Ukraine, Secretary Kerry urged Russia to end the violence along the line of contact, to fully implement its Minsk obligations, and to immediately release Nadia Savchenko and all other remaining hostages.

With that, Matt.

QUESTION: Let’s start with the religious freedom designations. So you waived sanctions on Saudi and the ‘Stans, right? Is that basically it?

MR KIRBY: Basically.

QUESTION: And so on the countries that didn’t get the waiver, what actual sanctions – additional sanctions or sanctions in the first place – have you imposed on them?

MR KIRBY: So this is not about additional sanctions. It’s about reaffirming, often in many cases, sanctions or actions – they’re not all sanctions – but actions that are already in place. So now it adds a layer of validity to a sanction or an action that’s already in place. So as far as I know, there are no additional measures being taken, but the measures that are in place on those countries are now – there’s another layer of credibility and validity put on to them.

QUESTION: Right. Except for the fact that it’s unclear to me what additional sanctions there were put on these countries for being a Country of Particular Concern in the first place way back when. Do you have that in there?

MR KIRBY: I don’t have a list for each country but – hang on a second because I knew you were going to go there.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR KIRBY: In the Federal Register, in a couple of days it will list all in detail what the Countries of Particular Concern are. I mean, I just listed them, but it will list what measures are being taken with respect to each one. In general, what I can tell you is that in the majority of cases these are sanctions or actions that affect the military-to-military relationship and aid and assistance in that regard. Some of it – some of them regard visa restrictions. And there are some additional restrictions placed on some of these countries with respect to other aid and assistance not militarily – not military related. But by and large, the impact will be felt in the military-to-military relationship, and as I said, in these cases those actions are already in place. This is just an extra – this is another layer of validity to our concerns over that particular country.

QUESTION: Well, for example, Iran. What kind military-to-military engagement do you have with the Iranians?

MR KIRBY: Well, as I said --

QUESTION: None.

MR KIRBY: As I said, in most cases it’s a military-to-military thing. You’re right; in Iran that wouldn’t apply.

QUESTION: On China?

MR KIRBY: Again, Matt, I don’t have the list here.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR KIRBY: And – but it will be made public soon.

QUESTION: All right, I’ll look in the Federal Register.

MR KIRBY: It will be made public soon.

QUESTION: It’s required reading every morning.

MR KIRBY: Well, it should be.

QUESTION: Yes.

MR KIRBY: And I’m glad that it is for you.

QUESTION: Yeah. Then on the Lavrov call --

QUESTION: Can I ask about religious freedom?

QUESTION: Yeah.

QUESTION: Really a very quick question. I wonder if you heard or you’re aware that the Saudi ambassador to the UN called atheists terrorists? You don’t agree with that, do you?

MR KIRBY: I didn’t see those.

QUESTION: I mean, atheists, agnostics, or miscreants are not terrorists.

MR KIRBY: I didn’t see those comments, but we judge a terrorist --

QUESTION: Would that --

MR KIRBY: We judge a terrorist not by religious affiliation or claims of religious affiliation, but rather their actions. So again, I haven’t seen those comments, but I can – go ahead.

QUESTION: Just on the Lavrov call, I’m curious about the Ukraine portion of it. You said that on Ukraine Secretary Kerry urged Russia to end the violence all along the line of contact. Does the United States believe that Russia is responsible for all of the violence all along the line of contact?

MR KIRBY: That there are violent actions or violations being – occurring on both sides, I think is not – we’re not disputing that. But we do know they still have influence over the separatists who are the line of contact and who are still implementing --

QUESTION: So that means --

MR KIRBY: Yes.

QUESTION: -- he called on the Russians to use their influence --

MR KIRBY: For their influence for – on the separatists, yes.

QUESTION: Not – okay.

MR KIRBY: Yes.

QUESTION: Woops, excuse me. On Iran, you will have seen that the head of the Iranian central bank is in town. Presume that he – this is one of his first visits here because I believe he would have been covered by some kind of sanction before. He has made it clear that they expect more from you and the EU in the way of sanctions relief. Is that something you’re prepared to consider now, having heard it from the head of the central bank?

MR KIRBY: More in terms of sanctions relief?

QUESTION: Yeah, that they’re not getting – that they have not yet received the full measure of relief that they believed is due to them --

MR KIRBY: We have met – I think the central piece of his argument was that we’ve not met or fully complied with our commitments under the JCPOA, and we would dispute that.

QUESTION: He’s saying that to meet your commitments you have got to do something that you have said you’re not going to do, and that is allow some form of u-turn transaction.

MR KIRBY: Well, I think we’ve talked about this and that there’s not going to be --

QUESTION: Well, we’ve talked about the u-turn, but there are other ways around it. And I just want to know is that something that you --

MR KIRBY: I don’t have anything additional to speak to with that. But I do want to – I do want to make it clear that we have met all our JCPOA commitments.

QUESTION: Okay. So they shouldn’t – the Iranians shouldn’t be expecting anything more from the United States?

MR KIRBY: We have met all of our JCPOA commitments.

QUESTION: So they shouldn’t be expecting anything more?

MR KIRBY: We’ve met all our commitments under the JCPOA.

QUESTION: Well --

MR KIRBY: So I --

QUESTION: And you’re not going to do anything else?

MR KIRBY: There’s no need to do more when we’ve met all of our commitments. Now, we understand that they still have concerns. We understand that they want more relief faster. Remember, it’s not just a deal between the United States and Iran; it’s the P5+1. So all that I can tell you is we’re comfortable that we have met all our commitments under the JCPOA, and we will continue to meet those commitments going forward.

QUESTION: Can we go to Syria?

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: Real quick. Today, the high committee that said that they are – they are fine with having the Syrian regime being part of a transitional period or transitional government and so on, so is that – do you consider that to be a breakthrough? Is that a good thing? I mean, are we likely to have these talks now pick up steam now that --

MR KIRBY: I’m going to refrain from commenting on each and every utterance made out of Geneva.

QUESTION: So the --

MR KIRBY: But let me --

QUESTION: Go on.

MR KIRBY: Just give me a second.

QUESTION: Sure.

MR KIRBY: That we certainly are encouraged that we’re now on, what, day three of the next round here of talks and that they’re moving forward. I want to refrain from, again, making a judgment call on every day and every little bit of progress. But those comments are certainly – they’re encouraging, but we all recognize that there’s a long way to go here and there’s an awful lot on the agenda to discuss. And one of the things that we would like to see discussed in this round is more particulars on the political transition and more particulars in terms of a process at getting to a draft constitution. So we’d like to see that happen and we’re going to be monitoring it as close we can. Our Special Envoy Mike Ratney is out there as he has been for the previous two rounds, and we’re watching this as closely as we can.

QUESTION: So you don’t see any of the – there is the confrontation, let’s say, in and around Aleppo as being a hindrance in any way to these talks, especially now that the high committee has --

MR KIRBY: We don’t want it to be, which is one of the reasons why the Secretary raised it with Foreign Minister Lavrov today. I can’t be perfectly predictive here to you and tell you that it absolutely will not impact or that it absolutely will. We don’t want it to. We want the cessation to continue to hold, and it has been, by and large. It’s – there’s a fragility there. I don’t dispute that. And it is that fragility that the Secretary wanted to make sure he discussed with Foreign Minister Lavrov.

And I would add – again, as I put in the readout, both men agreed that there’s a fragility here and that we need to keep working at it to keep it into play – keep it in place. But I can’t be predictive in terms of what impact it might have.

QUESTION: Just to continue on the call, though, the calls – in your readout of the call, Kerry calls on Lavrov to rein in the Syrian forces. Is it your position that the Russian forces are not involved in this offensive in Aleppo?

MR KIRBY: I – no, I didn’t say that. He certainly – as I said yesterday, we know that some of the regime actions in and around Aleppo are being supported by Russian airstrikes. I mean, that’s a matter of fact.

QUESTION: Did Secretary Kerry ask Lavrov for the Russians to stop striking around Aleppo?

MR KIRBY: He made it clear that we’re concerned about the violence in and around Aleppo and that the – and our concerns about reports, which we believe are – have credibility, that there are violations of the cessation happening in and around Aleppo. And to the degree that they’re aided and abetted by Russian airstrikes, yes, that’s a matter of concern for us. But as I said in the readout, he felt it was also important to make the point that we need Russia to continue to use their influence on the Assad regime to stop those violations. And he promised that we would do the same on our part for the opposition groups that we’re supporting.

QUESTION: And still on the call, there’s another issue to come up in Moscow today. Apparently, Qasem Soleimani, the commander of the Qods Force --

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- is in Moscow. He’s an individual who’s still under some U.S. sanctions, I believe. I don’t know whether he – Secretary Kerry raised that with Lavrov, and if not, would you like to raise it from the podium?

MR KIRBY: (Laughter.) He did raise it in the call with Foreign Minister Lavrov. We’re aware of reports that General Soleimani has traveled to Russia. I can’t and we’re not in a position to confirm whether that’s actually true. But as we’ve said when there have been previous reports of similar travel, there are UN sanctions on General Soleimani that remain in effect. So such travel, if true, would be a violation of UN Security Council resolutions, and we believe, then, a serious matter of concern to both the UN and to the United States.

QUESTION: Can I ask – go back to the Dr. Araj’s killing, the assassination. Do you have any more certain information that he was premeditatedly targeted by the Syrian regime?

MR KIRBY: I don’t have additional information on that strike from yesterday, but, I mean, our concern are – still remains true.

QUESTION: Different?

QUESTION: Just about the Soleimani thing.

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: So what was the foreign minister’s response? I mean, and what did Secretary Kerry say? Did he ask if these reports were true? Did he say, “Is General Soleimani in Moscow or somewhere else in Russia?”

MR KIRBY: I don’t believe it was an extensive part of the conversation. He said – he basically referred to the press reporting that he had seen and that it was a matter of concern for him. I’ll let Foreign Minister Lavrov speak for himself on this.

QUESTION: Independent of the press reporting, does the United States have any reason to believe that this is true?

MR KIRBY: We don’t have any indication that it’s either true or untrue. We have press reporting that we’ve seen that has given us concern. So we’re not in a position to say one way or the other that we think it’s true or not.

QUESTION: Okay. And the foreign minister did not say whether it was true or not?

MR KIRBY: Well, I’ll let – I’ll let the foreign minister speak for himself on that.

QUESTION: Well, I mean, at --

MR KIRBY: But the Secretary did raise the issue and raised our concern.

QUESTION: Fair enough. But after the conversation, were you led to believe that they accepted the concern and --

MR KIRBY: We don’t have any additional information after the phone call that would lead us to believe – to be able to confirm the veracity of these reports.

QUESTION: So you are – basically you’re, for lack of a better word, clueless about this --

MR KIRBY: I would not use that word, Matt.

QUESTION: -- about whether he’s there or not?

MR KIRBY: I would use – I would not use that word particularly, but I would tell you that, as I said previously, we don’t have information right now, even after the call, to confirm the veracity of these reports.

QUESTION: Right. Which suggests that the foreign minister said it’s not true.

MR KIRBY: I’ll leave it where I left it.

Samir.

QUESTION: On the Treasury, what is the significance of the new – what do you call it? – regulations announced by the Treasury today to implement the act against – sanctions act against Hizballah?

MR KIRBY: Yeah, hang on a second.

QUESTION: And what – how is this going to impact the economy of Lebanon?

MR KIRBY: So this is another one of those cases where I’m going to be precise, because I know Matt really appreciates that.

QUESTION: Oh, I do.

MR KIRBY: For the full details of the Treasury OFAC regulations on the Hizballah act, which was published today, I’m going to refer you to the Treasury Department. That said, however, what I can say is that these regulations are a continuation of the U.S. Government’s efforts against Hizballah and they give the U.S. Government additional sanctions authorities to go after this terrorist organization and its support apparatus worldwide. Of course, at the same time, the safety, soundness, and security of the Lebanese financial system is a great priority to the United States, and the U.S. Government will act only on the strongest evidence and the most solid evidence in our efforts to isolate Hizballah from the international financial system. But we’ll do it in such a way that will support the Lebanese economy, that will support the Lebanese financial system, and will not target innocent people.

QUESTION: What of the timing today?

MR KIRBY: I’d refer you again to the Treasury Department for more detail on that. That’s really – this is really their issue to speak to, but I did want to make those broader points at the bottom.

QUESTION: They coincide with the visit of the governor of the Iran central bank today.

MR KIRBY: Again, I would point you to the Treasury Department to speak to the specifics and the timing.

QUESTION: So that’s broad precision?

MR KIRBY: That’s broad precision, yeah. I think we’ve coined a new phrase.

QUESTION: How exactly are you going to isolate Hizballah and not impact the Lebanese economy given the role that Hizballah plays in the Lebanese economy?

MR KIRBY: Well, there’s no question there’s a – there’s no question about that influence. And that’s why we --

QUESTION: Right. So can you be --

MR KIRBY: -- that’s why we’re going to be very careful as we do this.

QUESTION: But can you be precise about what that means?

MR KIRBY: I cannot be precise about what that specifically means. I would refer you to the Treasury Department. But it doesn’t mean that we’re not sincere about the effort and the --

QUESTION: A precise referral to another agency.

MR KIRBY: Yes.

QUESTION: I guess it’s better than being referred to North Korea on something, but thank you.

MR KIRBY: You’re welcome.

QUESTION: On North Korea?

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: Do you have any --

MR KIRBY: Here we go.

QUESTION: Do you have a response --

MR KIRBY: We’re off to the races.

QUESTION: -- to the report that North Korea launched a missile last night and which apparently failed?

MR KIRBY: Yeah, I’ve seen – we obviously have been seeing these reports of a failed missile launch. I don’t have any additional specific information to confirm it one way or the other. We certainly have been monitoring it. I think, again, just worth pivoting to the larger point here that these kinds of activities – which they’ve done before – and while I’m in no position to confirm that it happened yesterday, I’m also not in a position to say that it didn’t. And if it did, it would certainly be yet another example of them violating their international obligations and just further destabilizing the peninsula. And once again, we call on them to cease these activities and prove that they’re willing to return to the Six-Party Talks process.

QUESTION: Can I stay in the region? On Japan. Do you have any update on assistance to the --

MR KIRBY: Yes, thank you for that. And I meant to say something at the top, and I didn’t, and I apologize. We’ve just seen these reports of yet another earthquake today, this one, as I understand it, on Kyushu Island. We are not aware of any requests for U.S. assistance at this time. But as I said yesterday, we stand ready to provide any and all assistance that the Japanese Government may require. Obviously, our thoughts and prayers go out to everybody affected by the earthquake – this second one as well. And we’re monitoring as best we can. We’re in touch with authorities in Japan, but I don’t have anything specific to announce today with respect to assistance.

QUESTION: Are you aware of any U.S. persons who have been caught up in this?

MR KIRBY: I’m not at this time, no. But as I said, it just happened, the one yesterday and then another one just a little bit ago, so we’re watching this as closely as we can.

QUESTION: How about travel advisories?

MR KIRBY: We did issue the – we did issue an alert yesterday, our embassy did, to Americans in the area. But I don’t know of anything additional from the one yesterday?

QUESTION: Can I stay on the region?

MR KIRBY: Sure.

QUESTION: On Burma. On the top of the briefing, you mentioned that religious freedom and actions, and Burma is one country – can – do you know, is that mil-to-mil related, or visa? I mean – and does the recent democratic development in Burma has any one way or the other affect the decision today?

MR KIRBY: This decision was made based on a report, the religious freedom report. These designations were made based on the Religious Freedom Report that we are required to submit every year by Congress. So I don’t know specifically – I mean, there was a lot of factors that went into it. I don’t have specific information with respect to the – what you’re asking me.

And on the sanctions or measures that will be – that this will add a layer to, again, I’d point you to what’s going to come out in the next day or two in the Federal Register. I do not have the list of everything that’s in place on Burma. So we’ll – I’ll point you to the Federal Register when it comes out.

QUESTION: And then can I follow up quickly on the phone call between Secretary Kerry and Lavrov? On Ukraine, do you see any spike in the conflicts in eastern Ukraine?

MR KIRBY: Spike?

QUESTION: Mm-hmm.

MR KIRBY: What we’ve seen is a continued trend now over recent weeks of violations along the line of contact. And we have reason to believe that the majority of those are caused by the Russian-backed separatists, and so it remains a concern. And again, Minsk is very clear about what the requirements are about pulling forces back, withdrawing heavy weaponry, and about progress towards elections. So again, that was – this fact that we have seen now over recent weeks this continued fighting – sporadic though it may be, continued – is a reason why the Secretary felt it was important to raise today. And it’s Ukraine – not a surprise, I don’t think, to you, but it’s obviously a topic that he very frequently raises in his conversations with Foreign Minister Lavrov.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Turkey blocked the website of Russian news agency Sputnik within hours of the Russian president’s critical comments of Turkish leaders. Do you see this as an extension of the Turkish Government’s crackdown on media?

MR KIRBY: Hang on a second. I think I’ve got something on that.

So we are aware of reports that there’s no access to Sputnik – the Sputnik website from Turkey. We’d refer you to Turkish authorities for further information about that. But broadly speaking and not specifically on this, as you know, we encourage all governments to take every precaution to protect freedom of expression.

QUESTION: Well, immediately, almost immediately after the March crackdown on the Zaman newspaper, you said, “We see this as the latest in a series of troubling judicial and law enforcement actions taken by the Turkish Government targeting media outlets and others critical of it.” Do you not see it as part of – do you see this as part of a series of troubling actions taken by Turkey?

MR KIRBY: As I said, broadly speaking, we have made – have been very clear about our belief in the freedom of expression in Turkey and elsewhere. As for this particular report, which, as I – as far as I know, we’ve only just become aware of, I’d refer you to Turkish authorities. We’re aware of reports that Sputnik is blocked in Turkey. The Turkish Government is the place to go to ask these --

QUESTION: Does that concern you?

MR KIRBY: -- particular questions. As I said, broadly speaking – not just on this case, but broadly speaking – we have made our views about freedom of expression well known.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Can I change topics?

QUESTION: Well, can we stay on that subject broadly? Do you have any thoughts at all about Germany going ahead with potential prosecution of this comedian who allegedly insulted President Erdogan?

MR KIRBY: What I would tell – well, so I’m going to refer you to the German Government for this --

QUESTION: With precision.

MR KIRBY: -- but I would – yes. I thought I had it here. I’m going to refer you to the German Government on this, but I would in so doing again note – which I think you realize – that Chancellor Merkel has indicated an effort separately to amend this law. But I’d refer you to German authorities on this.

QUESTION: Yeah. But just in general – I mean, do you think it’s a good – you think it’s okay for governments to prosecute entertainers based on complaints from foreign leaders?

MR KIRBY: As I understand that this is a German law that, again, the chancellor is looking to amend and --

QUESTION: Well, that’s great, but it doesn’t – it’s on the books now and they’re looking into prosecuting this guy for it – under it. So that’s my – I’m asking you about that. I’m not asking you about whether the law --

MR KIRBY: I know what you’re asking me about. I’m saying we’re going to refer you – I’m going to refer you to the German Government to speak to this particular case, and I would note what the chancellor has both said and tried to do in relation to this case. But – so I’m not going to comment further than that. As I said in my previous answer, our views on freedom of expression are well known, but I’d refer you to the German Government for comment on this.

QUESTION: So you think that the freedom of expression should be upheld in Germany as in Turkey?

MR KIRBY: We believe and I think – we just released the Human Rights Report a couple of days ago, which makes it clear that obviously we support --

QUESTION: I know. I’ll look in the Human Rights Report on Germany.

MR KIRBY: We --

QUESTION: Does it talk about this law? Does it say that the law is a bad thing?

MR KIRBY: We support freedom of expression around the world. You know that. It’s a longstanding core principle of us.

QUESTION: I’m just trying to get you to say that in relation to Germany specifically.

MR KIRBY: I am going to refer you to the German Government for details on this particular law and the application of this – in this particular case. I am not going to wade into that today. Again, I would just point you to what the chancellor has said herself about this.

QUESTION: I did look at the Human Rights Report page on Germany. You do criticize Germany’s record in repressing the freedom of speech of neo-Nazis and the religious freedom of Scientologists. Perhaps in next year’s report we can add satirists.

MR KIRBY: Well, let’s wait till next year’s report.

Said.

QUESTION: Well, but wait a second. If you didn’t – if it’s not – if this law isn’t mentioned in the report – and I haven’t looked at the German page, but I will – why isn’t it mentioned if this is an issue of concern?

MR KIRBY: I don’t have a good answer for you there if it’s not listed. We – the Human Rights Report, as you know, is a year or more in the making, so --

QUESTION: But this law has been on the books for, like, a century.

MR KIRBY: Yeah, I get that. I get that. It’s a pretty comprehensive list of our concerns and it’s pretty --

QUESTION: All right.

MR KIRBY: -- open and candid about it. Yeah.

QUESTION: Can I ask a couple question about the Palestinian-Israeli issue --

MR KIRBY: Sure.

QUESTION: -- very, very briefly? The organization Americans for Peace Now issued a report saying that unlike what the Israelis claim, the units advanced a couple days ago almost at the same time as you were doing your Human Rights Report – actually are new units, new – new settlement units and so on. So I wonder – I know – I mean, I sound redundant because we always talk about the settlements --

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- but I want to give you a chance to respond to this particular one.

MR KIRBY: We have seen reports that settlement plans were advanced for units – as you say, new units in Israeli settlements throughout the West Bank. We’re still looking into the details on this. And we’ve also seen the prime minister’s statement that acknowledges that at least some new units were advanced. Our position, as you know, on settlement activity remains very clear and consistent. We strongly oppose all settlement activity which we believe is counterproductive to the cause of peace.

QUESTION: So, I mean, in that context, going back to Michael’s question yesterday and my question, seeing that the Israelis are basically there, they seem to be quite dismissive of your position on settlement, why not go to a forum like the United Nations and have a unanimous kind of resolution that calls for the end of settlement activity?

MR KIRBY: Said, I think we talked about this yesterday.

QUESTION: I understand, but I mean if they keep doing --

MR KIRBY: I’m not going to have a different answer for you today. We --

QUESTION: All right. Let me ask you a couple more questions. I want to ask you about Gaza. Gaza – yesterday marked, like, the 12th year since it’s been in the dark, so to speak, since the Israelis hit the power plants. They have, like, two or three hours a day, and truly the situation is getting quite – deteriorating. I wonder if you are doing anything to sort of perhaps appeal with the Israelis to allow cement, to allow a power plant, allow all these things that just make life livable for the population.

MR KIRBY: Well, what we’re doing is – and we’re – look, we’re all mindful of the situation in Gaza – the unemployment, the fact that power is often only on for a portion of the day, and the difficulty getting aid and assistance in. So we’re mindful – very mindful of the situation there. So to your question, “What are we doing,” we’re calling – as we have consistently called – on the international community to deliver on the pledges that were made in the 2014 Gaza reconstruction conference that was held in Cairo. And I would add that the U.S. has fulfilled all of our pledges with respect to that conference to the tune of about $414 million. So we’ve done – we’ve met our pledge to this situation and we are going to continue to call on other countries to meet theirs.

QUESTION: And finally, my last question regarding the wall in the Bethlehem area, the Cremisan Valley, which will prevent 60 Palestinian families from reaching their farms and so on. I wonder if you have – the EU issued a statement expressing their concern. I wonder if you’re doing the same thing or if you have a comment on that.

MR KIRBY: Well, we have been consistent on --

QUESTION: Right.

MR KIRBY: -- and we’ve been clear in our support for Israel’s right – in fact, their obligation to defend itself and to defend their citizens. Security measures to that effect, which include a separation barrier, should balance the need, we believe, to provide security with mitigating the impact on the vast majority of Palestinian civilians not engaged in terrorism. So the separation barrier, in short, should not be used to demarcate or to prejudge political boundaries as Israel themselves – as the government there has previously pledged it wouldn’t do.

QUESTION: So that’s fine, but you do call on the Israelis to build the – all the barriers that they want on their own side of --

MR KIRBY: No, that’s not what I said at all. I said we – they have a right to defend themselves --

QUESTION: Right, but --

MR KIRBY: -- and to protect their citizens.

QUESTION: -- but this wall is in Palestinian land, it’s in occupied land. So that definitely just complicates (inaudible) to say – I mean, to --

MR KIRBY: Well, I said --

QUESTION: -- to understate it (inaudible) --

MR KIRBY: As I said, what we want to see – if there’s going to be a separation barrier – a wall, if you will – we want to see it serve a proper balance between the need for providing security and with mitigating the impact on the lives of the vast majority of Palestinian civilians that are not terrorists.

Yeah, Goyal.

QUESTION: India. John, a couple of questions on U.S.-India relations. This month, especially this week, a lot happened between U.S.-India relations starting with the National Security Summit and also then U.S. Secretary of Defense Ash Carter was in India and now the Indian defense – Indian Finance Minister Mr. Jaitley is here. He has been talking at the World Bank, IMF, and also at the Carnegie Institute, talking about the future goals of U.S.-India economic trade and other relations. So where do we go from here? What – finance minister said that India is growing faster than many countries here meeting in Washington. So they – India – he said they need further help, more help to grow. So where do the relation stands now on these fronts: defense, economic trade, and also give and take politically?

MR KIRBY: I mean, look, our ties and our relationship with India are very strong and we look to make them stronger, and that’s why you saw Secretary Carter sign this joint statement with his Indian counterpart to improve our defense cooperation across a wide range of military activities. And you said – you just said it yourself, India’s participation in the Nuclear Security Summit, yet another area of cooperation between the United States and India. So broadly speaking, this is an important relationship that we very much value and look forward to trying to improve going forward across all the sectors.

QUESTION: And one more. As far as education is concerned between the U.S.-India Education Initiative – Knowledge Initiative, there are over 125 Indian students in various universities and institutions around the U.S. But many people have set up here fake universities – and they get not necessarily fake visas, but they have real visas, but fake universities – and 21 people now in jail in New Jersey. And they brought over 1,000 students and they are in limbo now, those students, but they have a student visa somehow from India consulates or embassies and all that. So what is their future now? And what is, therefore – what they’re asking is that we have the legitimate visa and we were told –

MR KIRBY: I understand that.

QUESTION: -- given the legitimate institute to be study here in the U.S.

MR KIRBY: I understand that. And you’re not going to like this answer, but this is an – it’s an ongoing investigation and I’m not going to speak to it. I get everything that you’re saying, but this is really a matter for law enforcement agencies to speak to, not the State Department. And again, I understand completely and I understand the concerns expressed by Indian authorities and even some of these young individuals. But as there is an ongoing investigation looking into this, it would be inappropriate for me to speak with – to any more detail.

QUESTION: What can we do in the future so not to lure all these students from the various Indian universities to come here and bring – tell them that we have jobs for you and you will be going in the best universities in the U.S., but they find there’s no university and there’s no building or nothing?

MR KIRBY: Again, Goyal, I understand the question and the basis for it, but I’m really going to have to refer you to law enforcement agencies on this one. Okay?

QUESTION: Thank you, sir.

MR KIRBY: Go ahead.

QUESTION: Can I go back for a moment to Turkey’s blocking the --

MR KIRBY: You can go back to whatever you want.

QUESTION: Thank you. Can you say that you disapprove of such action?

MR KIRBY: I’ve answered your question, ma’am. You know very well, because you sit in these briefings and you know what we’ve said about freedom of expression, and you’ve heard very well the concerns that we’ve expressed about Turkey in particular when it comes to media freedoms and the worrisome trends that we’ve seen there. You’re asking me to hitch this particular donkey to that wagon, and what I’m telling you is we’ve made very clear what --

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR KIRBY: What? I thought it was a good analogy.

QUESTION: It’s great. And you --

QUESTION: Why is this --

MR KIRBY: We’ve made very clear what our concerns are on freedom of expression, particularly in Turkey. These reports are fresh, we just saw them, and I don’t have anything additional to add to this. And Turkish authorities, as I’ve said before in other cases, are the best place to go for looking into the justification for this. But again, just seen the reports. I’m aware of reports that Sputnik is blocked.

QUESTION: Can you get whales and icebergs in there too?

MR KIRBY: I can try. (Laughter.) I can try.

QUESTION: Can I go to the --

MR KIRBY: I got a bunch of animal analogies.

QUESTION: Nigel Farage, the leader of the UK Independence Party, said that President Barack Obama is the most anti-British President in U.S. history. Obviously, he’s not aware that George Washington and James Madison declared war on the United Kingdom. But leaving aside this precise point --

MR KIRBY: Who said what?

QUESTION: Nigel Farage, the head of the UK Independence Party. He’s one of the leaders of the Brexit campaign.

MR KIRBY: Said that President Obama --

QUESTION: The most anti-British President in American history.

MR KIRBY: I haven’t seen those comments, but clearly --

QUESTION: I have a more pertinent question based on those.

MR KIRBY: Okay. All right.

QUESTION: I’m not going to necessarily ask you to defend President Obama’s love or non-love for the United Kingdom. But he has – his planned visit will involve a speech in favor of staying in Europe, so he has intervened in a domestic debate, and it’s obviously, judging by the opinion polls, going to be quite a tight debate, so he’s going to offend 49 or 51 percent of the British people with this. Does intervening in the debate for – in what is a domestic debate, does that put into difficulties the traditional special relationship?

MR KIRBY: I’m not going to speak to the President’s agenda, and I’m certainly not going to get ahead of remarks that the President may or may not make. So I would refer you to my White House colleagues on the specifics of what – the President’s schedule and his remarks. It’s really not my place to speak to.

I’ll only say two things. One, as Secretary Kerry has said, we believe in a strong UK and a strong EU, and the Secretary has said that more than once. Number two, these are matters for the British people. And then, I guess if I would add a third, I mean, I don’t see anything today, tomorrow, or anything on the horizon that’s going to disrupt the special relationship we have with the people of Great Britain or the government there. It is as close a relationship as we have with any other nation anywhere in the world, and we do define it as a special relationship. And I see absolutely nothing changing that going forward.

QUESTION: So the President’s also having lunch with the queen. Does that he mean that he supports monarchy as a form of --

MR KIRBY: I think it’s support – I think it shows that he supports having lunch.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR KIRBY: And lunch is a good thing. Thanks, everybody.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR KIRBY: Have a great weekend.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:49 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 - April 12, 2016

Mark C. Toner

Deputy Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC

April 12, 2016









Index for Today's Briefing

SECRETARY'S SCHEDULE



ISRAEL/EGYPT



IRAQ



PHILIPPINES/SOUTH CHINA SEA/REGION



CHINA/KENYA



SOUTH SUDAN



INDIA



SOUTH SUDAN



AFGHANISTAN



NORTH KOREA



MIDDLE EAST PEACE



BRAZIL



SOUTH AFRICA




TRANSCRIPT:

2:06 p.m. EDT

MR TONER: Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to the State Department. Just very quickly, one brief thing. Oh, I’ll wait for – sorry, I didn’t give a full two minutes. Please, sir. Have a seat, Justin.

QUESTION: Thank you. Please.

MR TONER: (Laughter.) Quickly at the top, and then I’ll get to your questions. And this will go out right after the briefing, but just a notice to the press that Secretary Kerry is going to deliver remarks at Miami Dade Honors College. He’ll do that on – at 7:00 p.m. on April 14th, so Thursday at the Miami Freedom Tower in Miami, Florida. Secretary Kerry’s remarks will congratulate the MDC Honors College students on their academic accomplishments and leadership contributions and reflect on the future challenges and opportunities that they will face. And during this special ceremony, MDC’s Honors College students will receive their honors medallions in recognition of the completion of their course of work. And that will, of course, be open to the press.

And that is all I have at the top, just in time for Matt’s arrival.

QUESTION: Yes.

MR TONER: Sorry, it was a quick two minutes. I apologize.

QUESTION: Sorry. No, no, no, it wasn’t you. I had to run back to my desk.

MR TONER: Yes, sir.

QUESTION: But I’m here. So I don’t really have anything huge to begin with.

MR TONER: Okay.

QUESTION: But I do want to ask you – last week, there were – this. Last week, there were reports that the U.S. was considering withdrawing some of its troops from the mission in the Sinai. And I asked about it here, and you said they were completely false. You said – I said, “So these reports and chatter are wrong?” And you said, “Yes.” You said, “We remain fully committed to our Multinational Force and Observers mission and the maintenance of the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt. So no change in policy, no change in our force structure or whatever.”

Well, this morning the Pentagon says that, in fact, you are talking about withdrawing some of your troops from the force and having drones or unmanned surveillance take their place. So I’m not blaming you personally, but what gives here? I mean, why can’t we get a straight answer out of this building?

MR TONER: Sure. Well, first of all, we’re not planning to withdraw from the Sinai.

QUESTION: No, but that wasn’t the question.

MR TONER: Right. No, no, no, I agree, or I – just laying that out. There was a story last week that you brought up based on leaked information. Admittedly, I did not have the full picture at the time, so I take that hit. But as you note, the Pentagon did speak to this earlier today. There is a modernization, I guess, effort – that’s how I would put it – or a restructuring effort that is going to take place with regard to the Multinational Force and Observers in the Sinai. And again, the Pentagon spoke to this earlier today.

QUESTION: Well, was it being considered last Friday when I asked the question? I mean, my issue here – I realize this is a Pentagon thing, it’s not a State Department thing necessarily, although it is kind of a State Department thing --

MR TONER: It is.

QUESTION: -- because it results from a treaty that was negotiated by this building. And how can we expect to get – I mean --

MR TONER: It’s a legitimate – look, I am --

QUESTION: Again, I don’t want to make this about you --

MR TONER: As I said, I --

QUESTION: -- because you obviously have --

MR TONER: No, no, no, but I take the hit, Matt, because that’s my job to get up here and to give you accurate information.

QUESTION: Yeah, but I don’t want – I don’t want it to be about you and what --

MR TONER: Yeah. No, I understand what you’re saying.

QUESTION: -- specifically you. I want it to be about this building and this government, through any administration, actually telling the truth. What – I mean, I really don’t understand. I mean, did the Pentagon just decide over the weekend that it was going to do this? I don’t think so.

MR TONER: No, of course not. That said, and there is – I can’t really talk about the timeline, but the timeline for notification and for looking at this process – and again, DOD is the experts on this – had not yet been decided when that story did leak out. So it caught --

QUESTION: Yeah, but apparently --

MR TONER: -- folks by surprise.

QUESTION: -- Secretary Carter has sent letters telling the Egyptians and the Israelis about this idea.

MR TONER: In the interim, yes, he did.

QUESTION: So that was done over the weekend? Or --

MR TONER: It was done over the last couple of days, is my understanding.

QUESTION: So it hadn’t been done on Friday?

MR TONER: Yes, that’s correct.

QUESTION: The letters had not been sent?

MR TONER: That is correct, yes.

QUESTION: Can I ask a related question on this?

QUESTION: So – well, hold on a second.

MR TONER: Let him finish and I’ll get to you.

QUESTION: I just want to make --

MR TONER: Yeah, that’s okay.

QUESTION: So although the letters had not been sent on Friday when you said that this was --

MR TONER: I don’t think it was Friday, by the way. I think it was earlier in the week.

QUESTION: Sorry.

MR TONER: But maybe you were right.

QUESTION: It was April – no, it was the 6th.

MR TONER: Okay, that’s fine.

QUESTION: Whatever day the 6th was.

MR TONER: So there has been some time that passed. It’s been about a week.

QUESTION: Yeah. But this is not --

MR TONER: But – yeah.

QUESTION: This idea or this possible change in force posture has been being considered for more than a week, right? I mean, it just didn’t pop into someone’s mind on April 7th.

MR TONER: Of course not. Of course not. But as these processes go, there was a back and forth, there was a discussion, there’s been looking at how to do this and how to handle it.

QUESTION: I just don’t want you to be in the position like you were with the --

MR TONER: Understood.

QUESTION: -- with the --

MR TONER: Your point is taken.

QUESTION: -- where spokespeople get up and say --

MR TONER: No, no, your point is taken, Matt.

QUESTION: All right.

MR TONER: Your point is taken. Ros.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: Okay, let’s take a look at the fact that this treaty was negotiated 37 years ago, and now for the first time, because of the rise of ISIL and because of the attacks on Egyptian forces, the U.S. military is telling us that now a substantial change in the way that it complies with the terms of that agreement are being changed for the safety of U.S. forces. Did the U.S. Government ever consider that preserving an essential treaty such as the one between Egypt and Israel could be threatened by some non-state actor, one that has proven to be extremely dangerous, and possibly endanger the very future of the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel?

MR TONER: So a couple of points on your – the premise of your question, Ros. First of all, this was not done in response to any real or perceived threat by ISIL forces on the ground in the Sinai. This is part of an ongoing effort – again, my understanding, our understanding – to look at how to modernize the MFO, including utilization of technology, including greater efficiencies of operations, but to look at how to change its posture on the ground in order to do its job more effectively. Whether and how significant a force reduction that will entail I can’t speak to at this point in time, but what I can say is in no way does it speak to a lessening in our commitment to the objective of the MFO mission. It doesn’t in any way signal a plan to withdraw from the Sinai. We are fully committed to the MFO mission and the maintenance of the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel.

QUESTION: Well, the timing of this – but the timing of this modernization is quite curious, because on September 15th a number of U.S. forces, four or five people, were injured as part of an attack allegedly carried out by ISIL fighters. The U.S. has been using drone technology for the better part of 15 years now. It seems rather curious that the U.S. would seriously consider not only moving personnel out of the area, but possibly reducing the number of personnel on the Sinai after – after all of this time of using this technology. So is it not true that the U.S. is very much concerned that its forces are a target now by ISIL and that they’re taking advantage of the precarious security situation on the Sinai, and that’s why this is happening?

MR TONER: Again, I would refer you to DOD. They spoke to this already today. This is about modernizing our force structure on the ground in the Sinai. It’s not about responding to, as I said, the threat of ISIL on the ground. There have been – I think there’s been one direct attack that we have determined against MFO forces on the ground that wounded, actually, several personnel in the MFO. There have been other attacks, but we believe that those have been actually targeting Egyptian forces. But in no way is this a lessening of our commitment.

And it also – this is part of – I mean, we’re in constant consultation – and I spoke about this with Matt just now via the letters – but we’re in constant consultation with Egypt, with Israel, about when we look at how to restructure, how to re-posture ourselves on the ground in the Sinai. These are not – these are part of ongoing consultations.

QUESTION: But it’s rather curious that the U.S. would consider changing the way that it deploys its 900 or so officers and enlisted personnel as part of this protection force when Egyptian forces have been attacked and the U.S. has not before now thought, oh, let’s offer this technology to support our Egyptian allies as they try to secure the area, particularly as they’re not dealing just with ISIL but they’re also trying to deal with Hamas fighters who have been infiltrating Egypt to carry out their own work. The timing is rather curious, Mark.

MR TONER: Again, all I can say, Ros, is that as we look at our force structure on the ground – and the Department of Defense is – are the ones who really should speak to this in greater detail – but we constantly look at how to modernize them, how to achieve greater efficiencies, and how to better use technology on the ground. Whether and how that means or what that means in terms of the number of troops we need on the ground is a matter for DOD to decide, and indeed the whole MFO. I mean, we’re just one contingent within the MFO.

QUESTION: Well, I can’t imagine, though, that the Pentagon is the only one having conversations --

MR TONER: Of course not.

QUESTION: -- with their Egyptian and Israeli counterparts.

MR TONER: Of course not.

QUESTION: What conversations have been had between this building, the Egyptian defense ministry and foreign ministry, as well as the Egyptian counterparts, about this decision? This is a rather sizeable change in something that has been going on for nearly four decades.

MR TONER: Well, again, I’m not going to read out in detail what our consultations have been with either Egypt or Israel as we’ve looked at this restructuring. All I can say is that it’s part of ongoing discussions that we have, consultations that we have on the ground, and I think the end goal is to create a force on the ground in the Sinai that is more nimble, more able to carry out its tasks. And again, it’s in no way meant to diminish our commitment to our treaty obligations.

Please, sir.

QUESTION: So, accepting the premise of your response, why was the threat posed by ISIL not a factor in deciding how to modernize the force?

MR TONER: Why was – I’m sorry.

QUESTION: The threat posed by the Islamic State and jihadist groups in Sinai. You argue that you’re simply modernizing it in order to conduct the same mission as before: monitoring the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel.

MR TONER: Yep. Right.

QUESTION: So why --

MR TONER: Oh, why was it not – I’m sorry. Why was it not considered?

QUESTION: Why did you not take into account the increased threat by non-state actors?

MR TONER: Well, I can say that in recent period – and again, there has been, as Ros just detailed – there have been some attacks by ISIL forces in Sinai. We have provided the MFO with some additional force protection, as well as communication, medical, and other support. I just – timing aside, I think this is more of a comprehensive look at how to restructure the force going forward. Of course, we take in all – we take into consideration all factors on the ground, including the security, but with the clear understanding that we’ve got a mandate with the MFO to fulfil, and so we’re not going to diminish the capability to do that.

QUESTION: What is the building’s message to those Israelis and Egyptians living in Sinai, near the Sinai, having counted on the presence of U.S. forces to not just maintain the peace between the two countries, but also to deal with Hamas, with – dealing with ISIL and others --

MR TONER: That will --

QUESTION: -- that the movement of people away from where they have traditionally been stationed is going to maintain their security?

MR TONER: The message is that we remain fully committed to the MFO mission, the maintenance of the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt. We’re going to support the MFO and its ongoing efforts to carry out its mission to verify the treaty, and we’re going to do that in a smart, modernized way. So this isn’t a matter of simply putting more troops on the ground or more boots on the ground or throwing more money at it. This is an attempt to, I think, modernize and look at how to make the force that is there more agile.

Please, sir. We done with – we moving on, or you on Sinai?

QUESTION: I just want to talk about Iraq.

MR TONER: Great. Happy to talk about Iraq.

QUESTION: So there’s a KRG delegation here in the United States. Before they get here, the KRG spokesperson said they are here at the request of the United States. I was wondering if the United States has actually invited them to be here. And they are here, obviously, from what they say, requesting for more financial help for the Peshmerga forces, especially when it comes to the liberation of Mosul. That’s my first question.

The second question: I think it was last Friday when Secretary Kerry was in Baghdad, and it was notably – he didn’t go to Erbil. So the decision not to go to Erbil by Secretary Kerry – how much this decision has to do with the refusal of President Barzani to step down from presidency?

MR TONER: Well, a couple things. First of all, on the KRG delegation, there is a delegation led by Deputy Prime Minister Qubad Talabani, who’s in – rather, scheduled to be in Washington. I think they arrived yesterday. They’re scheduled to be here till the 15th. They’re going to meet with Administration officials to discuss the economic crisis facing the Iraqi Kurdistan Region as well as humanitarian assistance and, of course, overall U.S. support for the fight against Daesh.

As to who invited whom, I can’t speak to that, but I know they’re scheduled to meet with several Department of State officials, including Deputy Secretary Tony Blinken, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Iraq Joseph Pennington, Special Envoy and Coordinator for International Energy Affairs Amos Hochstein, and Under Secretary for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights Sarah Sewall – Sewall, rather.

In answer to your second question about why the Secretary didn’t travel to Erbil, all I can say is that he was on the ground in Baghdad for a day. Obviously, there are security concerns always when he’s moving about in Iraq. I don’t think it was mean to be – send any signal to the people of the region of – Kurdistan Region, rather – Iraqi Kurdistan Region. We’ve been very supportive of their efforts to combat Daesh. They have played an absolutely vital role, in fact, within the overall Iraqi command and control structure in pushing Daesh out of key parts of the country.

And – sorry – Special Presidential Envoy Brett McGurk did remain in Iraq, and he also, I believe, met with Iraqi Kurdistan Region officials as well over the last several days. So we’re fully focused on the Kurdistan Region. We’re committed to helping them as much as we can in providing what assistance we can.

QUESTION: So you’re saying it has nothing to do with the issue of presidency in the Kurdistan Region?

MR TONER: No.

QUESTION: Because last time he went to Erbil.

MR TONER: I understand that. I think it was more a matter of scheduling priorities or scheduling demands.

QUESTION: And just one more --

MR TONER: Yes, sir.

QUESTION: One last thing on the --

MR TONER: Yes, sir.

QUESTION: -- KRG delegation.

MR TONER: Yes.

QUESTION: Do you have news – financial support of the Kurdistan Region or – I mean, they met with the Secretary in Baghdad and now they are here with a request of more financial help from the U.S. Is there any new humanitarian or military or financial assistance to the KRG --

MR TONER: I mean, I don’t have anything to announce beyond the 155 million that Secretary Kerry announced when he was on the ground in Baghdad, which is obviously going towards humanitarian assistance for displaced conflict-affected areas. And that’s on top of, I think, nearly 800 million since the start of Fiscal Year 2014. But of course, we’re always looking at ways we can provide more support.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR TONER: Please.

QUESTION: Hi, Mark.

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: On a different topic, South China Sea.

MR TONER: Sure. Okay.

QUESTION: So Manila is to restart a military airport, to revamping, South China Sea on the illegally occupied island, Zhongye Island. So what is the U.S. point of view on this? What kind of stand do you hold?

MR TONER: Well, I’d refer you to the Government of Philippines to talk about their activities. I mean, overall our position regarding the South China Sea hasn’t changed.

QUESTION: But Mark, Manila once announced a suspension to the construction, but now you see they restart the construction. So do you think they are playing the hypocrite? What’s your point of view?

MR TONER: Look, I’m not going to characterize their actions, beyond saying that our position regarding the South China Sea is very well known. We don’t want to see construction activities on disputed features. We don’t want to see any kind of militarization of outposts. What we want to see, frankly, is a de-escalation of tensions and refraining from provocative actions – excuse me. With regard to Philippines specific plans or proposals for – in the South China Sea, I’d just have to refer you to them.

QUESTION: But one last thing, that this surely --

QUESTION: But why? But why, Mark? You – when the Chinese do things that you say are provocative and unilateral in terms of construction on disputed areas, you tell them that – you say it’s bad and they should stop and you call on them not to do it. Why won’t you do that in the same vein for the Philippines?

MR TONER: For one thing, I don’t have specific details about what they’re planning to do or not do on the islands, and we’d have to wait to get more details about that.

QUESTION: Well, but I mean, you said – the other day when you were asked about this lighthouse that was going up on – a Chinese lighthouse was going up --

MR TONER: And I said we’ll have to certainly wait and see what it looks like.

QUESTION: Yeah. But you said they shouldn’t do it.

MR TONER: Well, I also – I think in response to her second question, I did say our policy has not changed.

QUESTION: So the Philippines should not go ahead with any plan it has to build an airstrip on --

MR TONER: That’s not – that specific policy is not exclusive to --

QUESTION: China.

MR TONER: -- to China.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: But Mark, the Philippines actually unilaterally initiated the arbitration case. So now Manila has this kind of action. Does this fully prove this arbitration case is a political provocation under the cloak of law?

MR TONER: Not at all. I mean, look, we have called on all claimants to clarify their claims in accordance with international law. That’s what we believe is the best route and the most peaceful route, frankly, to resolve any claims or disputes over the South China Sea. And that includes, as you note, rules-based mechanisms like international arbitration, which is what they are pursuing. So we believe that case should move forward in accordance with international law.

QUESTION: So what is – what is the message behind the inconsistency of Philippines’ words and action?

MR TONER: I mean, I don’t have any more detail to provide. Frankly, I would again have to refer you to the Philippine Government to speak for itself in terms of what its actions are, what its motivations are behind its actions. All I can say is what our policy, and that hasn’t changed. We want to see rules-based – or adherence to rules-based mechanisms to resolve claims regarding South China Sea. Thanks.

Please, sir.

QUESTION: Yeah, follow-up. Same topic.

MR TONER: You and then you, please.

QUESTION: Kind of separate.

MR TONER: Yeah, sure. Okay.

QUESTION: So the Chinese foreign ministry criticized the G7 foreign ministers’ statement on the South China Sea and the East China Sea, saying that the G7 should focus on global economic governance and members should stop making irresponsible remarks. Do you have a response to that?

MR TONER: I really don’t. I’ll let the G7 statement speak for itself. We certainly signed it and agreed to it, but I’m not going to get into an argument back and forth over whether it was valid or not. We believe it was.

Please.

QUESTION: Do you think that the strong reaction from China is indication that the continued focus on this issue is having an effect of pressuring the Chinese on the topic?

MR TONER: Hard to say. There are – as you well know, there’s a lot of sensitivities about South China Sea and about territorial claims surrounding it. Again, what I think it speaks to is the need for peaceful, diplomatic, legal mechanisms to resolve these issues to the point where we’re not seeing, as we just discussed, reclamation projects, construction projects, any kind of thing that’s going to lead to escalated tensions and provocations.

Please.

QUESTION: I just wanted to follow up --

MR TONER: Yes.

QUESTION: -- on Matt’s point. Last week when China finished building the lighthouse, you immediately expressed your objection. So when it comes to Philippine, are you trying to turn a blind eye to Philippines’ action in South China Sea?

MR TONER: I think what I said – and I have – as I said, we’ve seen the reports stating that China will begin operating a lighthouse on Subi Reef – and again, I just haven’t seen nor do I have any greater detail on what, frankly, the Philippine Government is proposing to do. So all I can say is revert back to what our stance is, our position is regarding any kind of attempt to construct new facilities or in any way develop the South China Sea islands. So I’ll stop there.

QUESTION: So you wouldn’t condone Philippines’ action in South China Sea if it’s confirmed true?

MR TONER: We don’t – again, not – without singling out the Philippines, I think broadly, yes, we don’t want to see any kind of development on any of the islands that will further escalate tensions.

QUESTION: Are you concerned if China take any counteraction to go against Philippines --

MR TONER: Well, again, I mean, we’re certainly concerned, and that’s one of the reasons why we always speak to our concerns about these kinds of actions is that we don’t want to see – as they often do set off an escalation of tension. That’s the last thing we want to see.

QUESTION: Also on China, Kenyan authorities have deported 37 Taiwanese citizens to China on Tuesday, and the Taiwanese Government said the Kenyan police used force and tear gas to send them onto a plane. Do you have any comment on that?

MR TONER: Excuse me. I’m aware of the reports. We’re looking into it. I don’t have any further details. You’re talking about the – excuse me – the 37 Taiwanese citizens who were – yes – sent back to China by the Kenyan authorities? Again, we’ve just seen reports so far. We’re trying to get more details about it.

QUESTION: I suppose this is included in that, but the Taiwanese are also saying that one of the citizens is a joint Taiwanese-U.S. citizen. Are you aware of that?

MR TONER: Also aware of that report. We just don’t have a Privacy Act – due to privacy considerations, we can’t speak to that right now. Again, as we get more details, we’ll obviously share them with you.

QUESTION: Just one more. The Kenyan Government cited one-China policy as the basis of this deportation action. Is it consistent with your interpretation of the one-China policy in this regard?

MR TONER: Again, I think we need to see more details and more – yeah, more details behind what the Kenyan Government’s – or what motivated the Kenyan Government, what its actions were trying to do, what it was trying to accomplish here, in order to make any kind of judgment about what they did.

Please, sir.

QUESTION: Are you considering taking any measures against the referendum in Darfur to discredit it or to influence the government in Sudan?

MR TONER: Hold one moment, please. You’re talking about – well, I mean, we – I put out a statement last night, obviously, condemning some of the recent attacks by the Sudanese People’s – or Sudan People’s Liberation Army, the SPLA, which destroyed a declared opposition cantonment site in Wau County in South Sudan. And we’ve made clear both to President Kiir and opposition leader Machar that neither we nor the international community will accept any kind of return to war, and that the responsibility for implementing the agreement rests on the shoulders of both parties to the conflict.

QUESTION: I was asking about --

QUESTION: He was asking about --

MR TONER: Wait.

QUESTION: -- the referendum.

MR TONER: I apologize. Oh, Darfur. I apologize. I thought you were talking about South Sudan. I’m sorry.

QUESTION: North Sudan.

MR TONER: Yeah. No, I have no – I have nothing to say about --

QUESTION: You issued a statement, but are you going to take any measures to discredit it or to pressure the Government of Sudan or with the African Union or any --

MR TONER: But the statement I issued – I apologize, I was confused. I was speaking about South Sudan. We haven’t – I don’t know what you’re talking about in Darfur. No visibility on that, sorry, sorry. Like a lot of issues today I seem to be surprised up here about. Appreciate that.

QUESTION: Don’t do be too harsh on yourself, Mark.

MR TONER: Thank you. Thank you, Matt.

QUESTION: You’re only as good as the briefing book.

QUESTION: On India, Defense Secretary Carter’s visit to India. The two countries decided to increase their defense relationship, including letting the other country’s military base and facilities be available to the militaries of other countries.

MR TONER: You’re talking about Secretary Carter?

QUESTION: Yes, Secretary Carter.

MR TONER: Well, obviously refer you to DOD on specifics about his visit. Our defense cooperation with India, as you know, is strong. It’s a leading pillar of our broad relationship. We support, obviously, India’s rise as a capable actor in the region, and part of that is deepening our defense cooperation.

QUESTION: The agreements that the two countries have decided to sign, was the State Department consulted on those?

MR TONER: Was consulted? Of course, we were. Yeah. I mean, we would be – as we would in any kind of interagency discussion.

QUESTION: How you think this – will this have any implications on China?

MR TONER: I mean, how so specifically? Just in terms of --

QUESTION: Because the U.S. military can go and use Indian facilities; same the Indian military can come here and use the U.S. facilities. Would that have any implications on U.S. relations with China?

MR TONER: Look, I mean, I’m not going to conjecture. All I’ll say is that we support positive, peaceful, stable relations with all countries in the region, and that includes India and China. There’s no zero-sum game here.

Please. Hey, Nike.

QUESTION: Can I ask South Sudan?

MR TONER: There you go.

QUESTION: Right. Now you just mentioned SPLA. Just --

MR TONER: That’s right. I just spoke to it already. I’m already ahead of myself. That’s how impressive I am today. (Laughter.) Sorry, go ahead, Nike. I’m sorry.

QUESTION: Right. Yesterday you put out a statement condemning the recent attacks by SPLA.

MR TONER: Yes.

QUESTION: Now the opposition leader, Riek Machar, is arriving Juba next Monday. He’s supposed to arrive there to swear in as the first vice president. Are you concerned that recent attacks by SPLA will heighten the tensions prior to his arrival?

MR TONER: So this is going to sound familiar, but of course, as I just said, we did condemn recent attacks by the SPLA. We’ve expressed concerns about opposition forces and associated groups that have been attacking recently government forces in the area as well. And as I said, we’ve made clear to both President Kiir and to opposition leader Machar that we won’t accept a return to conflict, to war, and that the responsibility for implementing the agreement rests on the shoulders of both parties to the conflict, and both sides need to avoid exacerbating tensions and should return for Machar’s safe – rather, should prepare for Machar’s safe return in a safe and orderly fashion.

QUESTION: Well, can you --

MR TONER: Please, sir.

QUESTION: -- be a little bit more specific about what you mean by saying we can’t – we won’t accept a return to conflict or war? What does that mean?

MR TONER: Well, I’m just – look, I mean, we’ve seen this happen too many times with South Sudan --

QUESTION: Well, what are you going – yeah, what are you going to do?

MR TONER: I mean, there’s a number of possibly – of actions that we could take. But we’re also – well, I mean, there’s – again, I’m not going to preview anything that we’re not ready to announce. But I think what we can – what we’re trying to very clearly state is that this is going on too long, that we’re at a juncture here where it looks like they’re sliding back into conflict, and that both sides bear responsibility to put this thing back on track.

Please.

QUESTION: Afghanistan?

MR TONER: Afghanistan.

QUESTION: The Taliban had announced that they are going to launch a spring offensive and promised large-scale attacks. Is the State Department considering stepping up its assistance to the Afghan Government, and if so, how?

MR TONER: So we – that announcement obviously came as no surprise. We always see the announcement of the spring fighting season. We are preparing, as we have been, to assist the government in defending against the Taliban. We have – working through both U.S. and coalition forces, we have been working with Afghan forces on the ground to improve their capability, their ability to fight and push back. They have the primary responsibility now since 2007 – ’15, rather. And we’re going to continue those efforts.

I don’t have anything specific in terms of increased assistance. I mean, we are working closely with President Ghani and Afghan security forces to ensure that they, as I said, have the training necessary and the equipment necessary to preserve the gains that they’ve made over the last 14 years. And of course, NATO’s got its Resolute Support Mission on the ground there that’s going to continue. As we’ve often stated, the goal here is to support and build up the capacity for Afghan forces to provide for the security of the country. And recognizing the ongoing security challenges, the decision was made, of course, to maintain a level of troops, to keep the 5,500 American troops in Afghanistan beyond 2016 in order to continue to carry out that essential mission on the ground. And that includes counterterrorism operations against remnants of al-Qaida and, of course, ISIL and other terrorist groups in the region, but also, as I said, just continuing to build up the capacity for Afghan security forces to provide security for the country.

Yes.

QUESTION: The Taliban also said that they were going to try and avoid civilian casualties and hitting infrastructure. What do you make of that?

MR TONER: Well, I’ll just say that all of this – this announcement, this pledge to, again, begin the spring fighting season – it just underscores the need for the start of a peace process, and a peace process that’s Afghan-led and Afghan-owned. That was a central message of the Secretary when he visited there this past week. It just underscores also that this conflict is not going to be resolved on the battlefield.

QUESTION: But how serious the peace process is? Hasn’t it met a dead end because Taliban have now announced for the offensive?

MR TONER: Well, I mean, it has – it has not proceeded as quickly as I think many would have liked. Again, without being able to – I’m not – I would refer you to the Taliban, frankly, to talk about – but they have undergone some leadership changes and have been unresponsive to this effort to get these peace talks going. That only underscores, frankly, the urgency going forward.

QUESTION: So are you giving them --

QUESTION: Did you just refer us to the Taliban?

MR TONER: I did. You’re welcome to. I’m sure the BBC has spoken to them many times.

QUESTION: Yeah.

QUESTION: Are you giving them a benefit of doubt to the Taliban – new Taliban leadership on --

MR TONER: Not at all. I’m just saying the ball is in their respective court. The Government of Afghanistan has said it would be ready to hold these peace talks.

QUESTION: If there’s – if there’s need, are you willing to reinforce more troops inside Afghanistan based on how --

MR TONER: I don’t have anything to announce, certainly, other than the President’s decision to maintain current – the current levels through 2016.

Please.

QUESTION: On North Korea, it’s being reported that North Korea’s is preparing for a possible mobile ballistic missile launch that could hit portions of the U.S. Can you confirm that or do you have a response?

MR TONER: I don’t – I mean, not specifically to that allegation or that threat out there. I mean, we’ve seen, obviously, North Korea continue to take actions, irresponsible actions, in pursuit of – or rather, just in an effort to destabilize the region. None of these actions are particularly helpful, only escalate tensions further. But I don’t have anything in response to that particular threat.

Are we good?

QUESTION: Wait, I got a couple --

MR TONER: Oh. Yes, sir.

QUESTION: They’re far-flung, but they’ll be very quick.

MR TONER: Far-flung.

QUESTION: One: Yesterday you seemed to leave open the door to the idea of supporting a UN resolution that the Palestinians have --

MR TONER: Did I?

QUESTION: -- are showing around New York. You said – in response to one question, you said, “We might take it to…[the] Security Council.” Did you mean to leave that impression?

MR TONER: I can firmly shut that door.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR TONER: No, look, I mean, I – that was, I think, the second day in a row I’d gotten that question. Nothing’s been thus far formally introduced or circulated at the Security Council --

QUESTION: No, no, I understand that.

MR TONER: No, no, I get it, right.

QUESTION: Is the Administration open to the idea of such a resolution that would condemn settlement activity or is that something you think should be left out of the Security Council?

MR TONER: I’m going to say that our position hasn’t changed in terms of action on this issue at the UN Security Council.

QUESTION: Which means that you’re opposed to it?

MR TONER: Opposed to it.

QUESTION: Yeah, okay. Then I had – I asked you about – but it got – then we got sidetracked onto the situation – the case in the UAE yesterday, so I don’t know if you actually --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- registered the taken question about these Palestinian human rights activists who are coming to town next week.

MR TONER: Let me – yeah.

QUESTION: Anyway, if you could, because it kind of got lost in the --

MR TONER: No, I agree. I apologize for that.

QUESTION: One’s from Gaza, one’s from the West Bank. I’m just wondering if --

MR TONER: I thought we took – I know we took the question.

QUESTION: Okay. And then if you could get the – an answer --

MR TONER: But I will get you an answer for that, of course.

QUESTION: -- as to whether they have any meetings here with people. They haven’t been here in a while.

MR TONER: Absolutely.

QUESTION: And then lastly, two – these are the --

MR TONER: Those aren’t that far-flung, by the way. Those are pretty --

QUESTION: Well, no, no, no. These are the far-flung ones.

MR TONER: Okay.

QUESTION: I’m just wondering if you guys have any thoughts, any comments about the situation in Brazil politically, and also --

MR TONER: I think – yeah, sure. Go ahead.

QUESTION: -- whether you have any kind of a position on the Egyptian decision to return – to give these two Red Sea islands to Saudi Arabia.

MR TONER: On the Egyptian decision, I’m going to take that question. I just don’t have any details about that.

On the Brazilian question – and I think we’ve said this – I’d obviously refer you to Brazilian authorities. But we believe Brazil’s democracy is mature, it’s strong enough to ensure that its current political challenges are met and get resolved in a way that allows Brazil to prosper.

QUESTION: All right. And would you say the same thing about South Africa?

MR TONER: Yes. I mean --

QUESTION: Because they’re having their own --

MR TONER: I’m aware of the --

QUESTION: Do you think that their democracy --

MR TONER: I’m aware of their own – yeah, I mean --

QUESTION: Do you think their democracy is mature enough? What’s the maturity – the age of maturity for democracy these days?

MR TONER: It’s like a wine. Look, I mean, South Africa has some pretty significant challenges in terms of its political growth, but it also has democratic institutions in place that we believe can work to resolve these kinds of issues. And again, these are tests for any political system, including our own, when these kinds of allegations or investigations or issues come to the fore. It’s – I don’t think anyone can say unequivocally that their democracy is superior or more mature than any other, but I think it speaks to the strength of anyone’s democracy that they can weather these, that they have the processes and the institutions in place to weather them.

So yes on both counts.

QUESTION: Okay. You do – you do go – U.S. officials from all administrations, secretaries of state, go around talking about how the United States is a mature democracy and the oldest democracy, so --

MR TONER: But we also make no claims as to whether our ambassador – our ambassador – our democracy is superior than others.

QUESTION: All right.

QUESTION: Iceland’s had an elected parliament for a thousand years and they just lost a prime minister. (Laughter.)

MR TONER: There you go.

QUESTION: Last one, quick one.

MR TONER: Of course, I’m so sorry. Yeah, please.

QUESTION: A top State Department official is being cited as saying that the numbers for ISIS are the lowest that they’ve ever been since the U.S. started monitoring them in 2014. Can you confirm that that’s the case, and do you have any numbers for what those might be?

MR TONER: I do not, so let’s talk about this offline. Thanks, yeah.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:48 p.m.)

DPB # 61

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 - April 8, 2016

Mark C. Toner

Deputy Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC

April 8, 2016








Index for Today's Briefing

BURMA



SYRIA



EUROPEAN UNION



SYRIA



NETHERLANDS/UKRAINE



CHINA



RUSSIA/JAPAN



IRAN



PALESTINIANS/ISRAEL/ UNITED NATIONS




TRANSCRIPT:

12:36 p.m. EDT

MR TONER: Hey, everybody. Welcome to the State Department. Happy Friday.

QUESTION: Thank you. Happy Friday to you.

MR TONER: (Laughter.) It’s nice to have that thrown back at me. So it is indeed – you try, you can look up from the coal mines where you work and toil every day.

Anyway, welcome to the State Department. And guys, if you’ll indulge me once again, I have to be fairly quick. I know some of you also have stuff to get to this afternoon; I do as well, so I can give you about 30 minutes and then I have to run. I apologize.

I just have one thing at the top, and that is related to Burma and the release of political prisoners there. We do welcome reports that the new democratically elected, civilian-led Government of Burma has released a number of political prisoners, including dozens detained during peaceful protests on education reform last year and who had been awaiting trial. Respect for and promotion of human rights and fundamental freedoms, including freedoms of expression and peaceful assembly, are critical components of a vibrant democracy, and we commend the new government’s early demonstrated commitment to human rights. The United States stands ready to support Burma on further democratic reform.

Matt, over to you.

QUESTION: So let’s start with Syria and --

MR TONER: Of course.

QUESTION: Can we do Burma quickly?

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: Does that include sanctions relief?

MR TONER: Nothing to announce on that front.

QUESTION: On the release of this freelance photographer --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- can you say anything more than what Kirby said in his brief statement about his release, specifically what led up to it, what was the State Department’s or U.S. officials’ involvement in it, the circumstances, and where he is now?

MR TONER: Okay, I’ll give you what I can say, and I have to start by saying we now have not confirmed the identity of this individual. We can confirm that a U.S. citizen was released by Syrian authorities, but obviously privacy considerations, as always, prevent us from commenting further about the identity of this individual. And as Kirby noted – John noted in his brief statement that we do applaud the work of our Czech protecting power in Syria, which helped – helped us both gaining access to this individual, but also in getting his release.

I can say that this individual was released in the last few days, just to give you a sense of the timeframe. He is no longer in Syria. And beyond that, I don’t have too much else to – or if you have any other questions, I can try to answer what I can.

QUESTION: Well, I mean, is he in --

MR TONER: Yeah, please.

QUESTION: Is he – he’s no longer in Syria, understood. But I mean, is he in your or U.S. Government protection or custody at the moment, or is he just free?

MR TONER: I believe he is free.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: In the U.S.?

MR TONER: I can’t say that.

QUESTION: So if he was released in the last few days, it’s not right to say he was released today, right?

MR TONER: That’s correct, yeah.

QUESTION: Okay. Besides the Czechs, were – or who else participated in facilitating this release?

MR TONER: Well, I can say --

QUESTION: Were the Russians involved?

MR TONER: So in response to that question, we are appreciative of efforts on the part of Russian – the Russian Government that it undertook on behalf of this U.S. citizen in Syria.

QUESTION: So the Russian – but just to be clear --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- it probably goes without saying, but the Russians were in no way involved in his detention?

MR TONER: No.

QUESTION: They were only involved in helping --

MR TONER: Correct, correct.

QUESTION: -- secure his release?

MR TONER: Correct.

QUESTION: John’s statement talked of U.S. citizens in Syria. Can you tell us how many U.S. citizens are missing in Syria?

MR TONER: I don’t have a precise number – excuse me – but we obviously continue to work through our Czech protecting power to – on behalf of these citizens. One --

QUESTION: Can you confirm --

MR TONER: Sorry, one of those individuals, just to – is Austin Tice. We continue to work on the welfare of, whereabouts of him in particular, but we also obviously take seriously our responsibility to get access to and protect other U.S. citizens who may be detained there.

QUESTION: In terms of the circumstances of his – can you give – I mean, did he – was he – you thank the Russians, you thank the Czechs. Can you be any more specific about what either the Russians or the Czechs actually did or how he came to get outside – from custody, Syrian custody, to outside of Syria and safe?

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: Was he – did the Czechs play a role in the physical removal of him, or was it just the Russians, or what?

MR TONER: So I can – no, that’s okay. So the Czechs obviously would have, as protecting power, provided whatever consular support on the ground that we, U.S. officials, would have been able to provide or would have wanted --

QUESTION: Right.

MR TONER: -- to provide during his – this individual’s detention. I can’t speak to the logistics. And in response to your question about the Russians, what was it? I’m sorry, I apologize. You just were asking about what Russians played in terms of – yeah.

QUESTION: Well, I’m just wondering what was the progression of him --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- of this individual’s release from Syrian custody.

MR TONER: I see.

QUESTION: Did he go to the Russians and then to the Czech embassy and then out or did he – what – how did it work?

MR TONER: So --

QUESTION: And was there any direct U.S.-Syria discussion of this person?

MR TONER: So I don’t want to – other than to thank – or express our appreciation for Russia’s assistance in this, I don’t want to try to characterize their role beyond what I’ve already said. But I can say that we have also been in direct periodic contact with the Syrian Government regarding consular issues in general and American citizens detained in Syria.

QUESTION: And that means not through the Czechs?

MR TONER: That’s right.

QUESTION: And is that – would that be the way it’s happened in the past at the UN through Ambassador Power and the Syrian --

MR TONER: I can’t qualify that. I apologize.

QUESTION: Would you – is it fair for us to describe this person as a freelance photographer?

MR TONER: I can’t speak to his identity. I’m sorry. It’s because of the Privacy Act waiver. So we can confirm a U.S. citizen. I can’t go beyond that in identifying him. I apologize.

QUESTION: But there’s an FBI missing persons report about the individual you’re not identifying online and that’s a U.S. Government thing. Are you able to confirm --

MR TONER: Confirm the authenticity of that report?

QUESTION: -- that that person is no longer missing?

MR TONER: I would say that reporting that we’ve seen thus far is not inaccurate in describing the individual released, but I really can’t go beyond that. I apologize.

QUESTION: Because the FBI, in fact, took down that missing persons alert --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- just this morning.

MR TONER: And I am just – that’s as far as I’ll go. Sorry.

QUESTION: Can you give us any update on Austin Tice? I mean, does this release mean that you feel more positive about what’s happening with him?

MR TONER: So, a good question. So we continue to work through the Czechs on the ground to get information on the welfare and whereabouts of Austin Tice. It’s something we raise all the time. We can’t provide any individual – any additional details at this time. We are obviously in direct contact with his family as well as the families of any U.S. citizens detained there.

QUESTION: Since the Russians came through in this case, are you also going through them on the Tice case?

MR TONER: Again, without speaking to – in great detail about individual cases, I would say we welcome Russia’s support wherever we can get it in terms of ascertaining – or getting the release or the – of any Americans who are held and detained in Syria.

QUESTION: Mark, can you talk at all about why he was detained, why the Syrian Government held him since --

MR TONER: I can’t.

QUESTION: -- October 2012?

MR TONER: I don’t have any details about why he was originally detained.

QUESTION: Do you – well, do you believe that he was improperly detained?

MR TONER: Again, I just can’t – sorry, I apologize, but I just can’t speak to the details.

QUESTION: Did the Syrian regime get anything in return?

MR TONER: What was that?

QUESTION: Did the Syrian regime get anything in return?

MR TONER: No, I’m not aware of that. I don’t think there was any kind of tit-for-tat exchange. Again, we work through the Czech protecting power. We had the assistance of the Russians. But beyond that, I’m not aware that there was any kind of exchange of – in any way, but we’re just gratified that an American is released.

QUESTION: And when you say that there are other Americans, are they in the Syrian regime custody or with ISIL or with the opposition? Can you – can you be more specific?

MR TONER: I don’t have any more specific details beyond that. Again – excuse me – in terms of Austin Tice, I mean, I think we’re still trying to get specific information about his whereabouts.

Please.

QUESTION: Mark, exactly what assistance did you get from Russia? Can you go through that?

MR TONER: I can’t. I already said that – I mean --

QUESTION: It wasn’t directly --

MR TONER: I just wouldn’t --

QUESTION: It wasn’t going through – was it getting him out of there or was it particularly involved in his release? I mean --

MR TONER: So --

QUESTION: -- in actually negotiating his release?

MR TONER: So we’ve expressed our appreciation for – that they did play a role in this. I don’t want to go beyond what I’ve already said because it’s really up for them to characterize what role they played in this.

Please.

QUESTION: Can you say if the special envoy for hostage affairs was the lead negotiating agency in this effort?

MR TONER: I don’t believe so. I can check that.

QUESTION: You – so who was?

MR TONER: I’ll have to check on that.

QUESTION: Okay. So --

MR TONER: Yeah. I just don’t have a --

QUESTION: -- you don’t know who, then, was leading this effort to secure his release?

MR TONER: I’ll try to get clarity on it, Justin.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: Was he held in --

QUESTION: Mark, do you have the number of --

MR TONER: Yeah, Barbara.

QUESTION: -- U.S. citizens detained? Is that like a single digit – single digits or double digits? Can you give us some general sense?

MR TONER: Yeah, let me see if I have any – I apologize, I should – I mean, we have – in general, I don’t have a concrete number. We are aware of reports of U.S. citizens who have gone missing in Syria, and obviously, we take all those reports seriously and, as I said, try to get as much information as we can on their welfare and whereabouts. But I don’t have a specific number, other than, obviously, the Austin Tice case.

QUESTION: But it’s more than just him, right? It’s plural.

MR TONER: Yes. Yes, yes, yes.

QUESTION: It’s more than one?

QUESTION: It’s double digits?

MR TONER: No, no, no. I said – did you say more than 10 or more than just him?

QUESTION: No, more than one.

MR TONER: Yes.

QUESTION: More than one. Sorry.

QUESTION: How is it best to describe this individual – a hostage, a detainee?

MR TONER: Detainee.

QUESTION: A detainee. You wouldn’t describe him as a hostage then?

MR TONER: No.

QUESTION: Can you tell us, was he – where he was held or where was he released from? Damascus?

MR TONER: I believe it was Damascus. I don’t have that level of detail. I believe he was released in Damascus, yeah.

QUESTION: All right. Move on?

MR TONER: Are we done with --

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR TONER: -- this particular case? Yeah. Go ahead.

QUESTION: So I’m sure you are probably aware that the EU is, next week, going to start looking – or begin a discussion about whether or not to require visas from Americans and Canadians, but I don’t expect you to speak on behalf of the fine country of Canada or its citizens.

MR TONER: (Laughter.) Our northern neighbors.

QUESTION: Exactly.

MR TONER: Close allies. Yeah.

QUESTION: So as it relates to American citizens --

MR TONER: Right.

QUESTION: -- what are your thoughts about this? Are you prepared to open up the Visa Waiver Program to the EU countries that are not currently included in it as a way to stop this from happening?

MR TONER: Well, a couple thoughts on that, Matt. So this is – it was a January 2014 amendment to the EU Visa Code requiring the European Commission to seek visa-free entry for all EU member-states to countries that can enter the EU visa-free. So we have maintained an open dialogue with the EU, as well as those officials from member-states that require visas for travel to the United States, on this matter. And those are – I can name them – it’s Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Poland, and Romania. Fundamentally, they just haven’t met the requirements for Visa Waiver Program. And this is something – we’ve talked individually about some of these countries, some of the requirements. They haven’t met the legal requirements, and we’re working with them and with the EU on how they can take the steps that will help them meet those requirements. So – and just to finish, these are requirements that are set by law. It’s – it is – and they have to be addressed on a case-by-case bilateral --

QUESTION: So --

MR TONER: -- basis. Sorry, go ahead.

QUESTION: No, no. Don’t apologize. So you – well, the EU makes the case that this a time-honored practice of reciprocity. You would argue with that, yes? You don’t think that this is reciprocal treatment, requiring Americans to have visas if – to visit Europe if some EU members haven’t met the requirements for the U.S. Visa Waiver Program?

MR TONER: Well, look, we understand the concept, obviously, of reciprocity. We --

QUESTION: I would hope so.

MR TONER: I was about to say, we subscribe to it ourselves. I just would say that we have always treated the Visa Waiver Program as on a case-by-case or individual bilateral relationship. I understand --

QUESTION: But the EU wants to treat it as --

MR TONER: I understand that.

QUESTION: -- a group thing. So you would disagree with that, and – I presume? And if I’m correct in that, have you made that case to them or are you going to make the case?

MR TONER: Well, certainly we have. And I think what we’re trying to convey to them is we are more than willing to work proactively with these countries to help them address some of the issues that are preventing them from obtaining visa-free travel to the United States, stuff like low non-immigrant visa fraud – refusal rates, rather, immigration violations. All those things can be addressed, and many countries who have had problems have overcome them and gained visa-free travel. That’s always been – I guess rather than – I understand the reciprocity mindset or argument in this case. We’re just simply arguing that, based on U.S. law, we have to look at the numbers and whether these countries individually are complying with the standards.

QUESTION: Right. I get that.

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: But then – all right. So if you don’t want them to --

MR TONER: And so – I’m sorry. Just to finish my – sorry, I apologize.

QUESTION: Go ahead.

MR TONER: But just to finish the thought, so that’s our argument to the EU. We want to work with these countries and we’re happy to have that dialogue with the EU going forward, but we believe we can help these countries address --

QUESTION: Would you object if the individual EU countries that do not – that are not in the Visa Waiver Program ended visa-free travel for American citizens to them?

MR TONER: We never want to see that – obviously that right and privilege rescinded. To say we’d object, I mean, we certainly would argue against it.

QUESTION: How about if Europe just required visas from people from Florida, Illinois and Arkansas? (Laughter.)

MR TONER: Well, depending on the refusal rates and their overstays, I guess that’s an argument. But I’d have to see those numbers.

QUESTION: Or Florida gets its own passport. That might be the case.

MR TONER: There you go. Please, Michael.

QUESTION: Syria’s chemical weapons?

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: The UN earlier today said it was going to start coordinating with the OPCW on another investigation into another round of allegations of chemical weapons use in Syria. Are – is the U.S. – are you trying to confirm these allegations yourself, and are you going to cooperate with this investigation? The head of the UN said, in a speech earlier today, that they were coordinating with the OPCW --

MR TONER: OPCW? I don’t --

QUESTION: -- on the second round of allegations.

MR TONER: Oh, a second round?

QUESTION: This is the second phase. He was responding to a question that Jaysh al-Islam took responsibility for a chemical weapons attack in Syria, and he said yes, we’re looking into a second round of --

MR TONER: I see. Well, we will continue to hold Daesh or ISIL accountable for its actions, and that extends to any efforts to use WMD. It’s not surprising that they would resort to the use of WMD or, rather, chemical weapons. We do believe and have acknowledged that Daesh has been responsible for several small-scale sulfur mustard attacks in Iraq and Syria, including one in particular in Marea on August 21st, 2015.

And I think with regard to whether we’re going to work with the OPCW, I think we would – we have full confidence in their ability to carry out these investigations. We support them in carrying out these kinds of investigations. We all – it’s not surprising that we all take a common view towards just the abhorrence of using chemical weapons, and we did work, obviously, in conjunction with other partners, including Russia, to remove stockpiles of the regime’s, the Syrian regime’s, declared chemical weapons. So these are allegations anytime when we see them that we take very seriously.

QUESTION: Do you think you’ll work with Russia on these instances?

MR TONER: I mean, it’s something we continue to discuss with Russia as well as other members of the ISSG.

QUESTION: Are there other measures that can be taken to mitigate this risk?

MR TONER: Well, it’s very difficult, I mean, obviously. And it’s very difficult when these groups can get these kinds of – get access to these kinds of chemicals they can – and are able to use them in small quantities, as we’ve seen. It’s very hard to – other – beyond carrying out kind of airstrikes when we have intelligence that allows us to do that, but other than that we’ll continue to monitor it closely.

Please.

QUESTION: One more?

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: What about the reports that Jaysh al-Islam was involved, who have taken responsibility for this, and they’re one of the parties that have a delegation in the intra-Syrian talks?

MR TONER: Yeah, and I apologize. I just don’t have any information on that at this point. I’d have to look into it.

QUESTION: Are you concerned that that’s something --

MR TONER: Of course we’d be concerned for any – again, any group –

QUESTION: Yeah.

PARTICIPANT: Serious, credible allegations that they used chemical weapons we would be concerned about.

QUESTION: And in the context of affecting the intra-Syrian talks, do you think --

MR TONER: Well, again, I don’t want to comment on it before I have the full picture.

QUESTION: Mark, on China?

MR TONER: Do you have Syria? Okay.

QUESTION: Uh, close. (Laughter.) In the region.

MR TONER: Good enough. All right.

QUESTION: Okay. Just one quick one.

MR TONER: Yeah, sure.

QUESTION: I think I know your answer, but in the Secretary’s meetings with Prime Minister Barzani, did the case of American Mohamad Khweis come up at all? Is the State Department seeking his extradition back to the U.S. from Kurdish custody?

MR TONER: Yeah, Justin, you know what, I don’t have that level of detail or granularity in the readouts of his meeting, so I’ll have to take the question. Apologize.

QUESTION: U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt --

MR TONER: Yes, sir.

QUESTION: -- has said that United States Government will continue to support Ukraine on its path to EU association. So what does it mean? Does it mean that U.S. Government urge to ignore, like, the will of Dutch people, or --

MR TONER: No, I wouldn’t say that at all, and I spoke to this yesterday. We – while we’re disappointed in the results from the Dutch referendum, we also respect its democratic process. That said, it’s unclear to us what the next steps are. Obviously, this is not the culmination of this process within the Netherlands, so I would refer any questions about kind of what next in terms of that to the Dutch Government.

For our part, we have consistently argued that we believe that the association agreement is in the best interests of Ukraine, best interests of Europe, best interests of the United States. We strongly stand behind Ukraine’s efforts to engage more closely with the EU and with European institutions and build its own economy and build its own democratic institutions.

QUESTION: Are going to put pressure on Dutch Government to sign the agreement or some --

MR TONER: We work closely with the Dutch. We have candid conversations them. They’re a close ally and partner, including on Ukraine, and we’re going to continue to hold those kinds of discussions with them. But again, we respect the Dutch political process and democratic process, and they did hold a referendum. The referendum results were credible and valid, so we’ll have to take it from there.

QUESTION: Mark, can we go to China?

MR TONER: Please, in the back. Yeah.

QUESTION: Yes.

MR TONER: A few more, guys.

QUESTION: Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said today that territorial disputes – particularly, in this case, South China Sea disputes – shouldn’t be on the agenda at the G7 summit. Do you have a response?

MR TONER: Well, I mean, I would just say that we believe that any time that we get together with our Asian partners or with our – the key partners in the region that we should be able to talk about all – the full range of issues, including security issues and concerns about security in Asia. And so, in that regard, what we want to see happen in South China Sea is important. It’s important to the region, it’s important to the stability of the region, so I would suggest that those topics should be on the table.

QUESTION: Follow-up?

QUESTION: So Secretary Kerry will be bringing up the issue?

MR TONER: I can’t say that for sure. I just don’t know yet.

QUESTION: Follow-up.

MR TONER: Please.

QUESTION: On South China Sea, Senator John McCain said in a statement to Navy Times that “the White House aversion to risk has resulted in an indecisive policy that has failed to deter China’s pursuit of maritime hegemony while confusing and alarming our regional allies and partners.” Do you have any comment on his statement?

MR TONER: I don’t, respectfully. Our policy has been very clear. We don’t want to see any efforts to increase or escalate tensions in the South China Sea. We believe in freedom of navigation.

QUESTION: I got two brief ones.

MR TONER: Sure. Let’s you and then to you, and then I’m going to have to cut it off. I apologize. Please.

QUESTION: Foreign Minister Lavrov is expected to meet with Foreign Minister Kishida on the 15th of this month, and President Putin is expected to meet with Prime Minister Abe next month. I don’t expect you to speak for either country, but Secretary Kerry was in Moscow a couple of weeks ago and will be in Japan in a couple days.

MR TONER: Of course.

QUESTION: So do you welcome closer ties between Japan and Russia? How do you see these meetings?

MR TONER: I would just say in response that we never see these things in terms of zero-sum games – gains, rather. We believe that a country like Japan can have close relations with us and close relations with Russia. It shouldn’t be mutually exclusive.

Please, Matt.

QUESTION: Two very briefly.

MR TONER: Yep.

QUESTION: In Bahrain yesterday --

MR TONER: Yes, sir.

QUESTION: -- the secretaries made mention of the U.S. being open to a new arrangement with Iran to deal with missile tests and their misbehavior, as you would put it. What – can you be any more specific?

MR TONER: No, I don’t have any more specifics. And I don’t think he was being specific that there’s some kind of new policy to be launched here or new arrangement in the terms of concrete actions. Simply, he was just emphasizing or underscoring the fact that if Iran chooses to act more constructively in the region, then we can have a different kind of relationship with Iran.

QUESTION: So he wasn’t suggesting that there’s some kind of a new – that you’re open to a negotiation with Iran over ballistic missiles or other stuff?

MR TONER: No, no.

QUESTION: Okay. That’s off the --

MR TONER: Yep.

QUESTION: All right. And then secondly, the Palestinians say that they are going to introduce or get someone to introduce on their behalf a resolution condemning Israeli settlement activity at the UN, or they’re going to introduce a resolution at the UN that would condemn Israeli settlement activity.

MR TONER: Right.

QUESTION: What’s your position on that? Is this something that the United States would support or veto?

MR TONER: Well, so we understand there is an early draft that the Palestinians have shared informally in New York. And I’m not going to comment on what is really an informal draft resolution. Nothing has been formally introduced or circulated at the Security Council, and nothing has been introduced by a Security Council member.

Excuse me. So, I mean, I guess I would say that this is not an uncommon practice at the UN, but we just don’t have any comment on – like I said, this is a very early, early stage.

QUESTION: What’s not an uncommon practice? For the Palestinians to want to --

MR TONER: For drafts to circulate like this at a very early stage, but not – there’s been no formal draft offered.

QUESTION: Okay. So you don’t have a position on a draft?

MR TONER: We don’t. We don’t, other than beyond our general position on settlements.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: But tied to that, the UN today was talking about – was pushing other countries to raise political pressure on Israel. They said that with more than 540 demolitions and confiscations in the occupied West Bank so far this year, the Israeli military has already matched or exceeded total of 2015. Does one – do you – do you feel that that is a worrying trend, that --

MR TONER: Well, I think we’ve spoken from here and elsewhere about our concerns about ongoing settlement activity, and that we believe they’re illegitimate and counterproductive to the cause of peace in the Middle East. And that hasn’t changed.

QUESTION: And that doesn’t change what the Palestinians then are trying to --

MR TONER: Again, so I just want to set that apart and say that’s a very draft resolution. It’s not ready – as we say, not ready for prime time yet. So we’ve seen it, but we’re not going to comment on it at this current form.

QUESTION: It’s a “very draft resolution?”

MR TONER: I’m sorry, that was terrible. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Is that a technical UN term? (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Very drafty. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR TONER: Very drafty, thank you. Much better.

QUESTION: Is it written in pencil?

QUESTION: Yeah, written in white ink so it can’t be seen.

MR TONER: On that note – (laughter) --

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR TONER: -- I’m going to call it a week, guys.

(The briefing was concluded at 1:06 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 - April 7, 2016

Mark C. Toner

Deputy Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC

April 7, 2016









Index for Today's Briefing

BANGLADESH



PANAMA



YEMEN



BAHRAIN



PAKISTAN/INDIA



PAKISTAN



UAE



SYRIA



NETHERLANDS/UKRAINE



JAPAN



TURKEY



ISRAEL/PALESTINIANS




TRANSCRIPT:

1:47 p.m. EDT

MR TONER: Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to the State Department.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Thanks.

QUESTION: Home opener today. Let’s get out of here quick.

MR TONER: Very good. All right, to the task at hand.

QUESTION: Is your book thicker today?

MR TONER: What’s that?

QUESTION: It’s thicker, the book. (Laughter.)

MR TONER: It’s all your questions, Said. They add to my burden in more ways than one.

QUESTION: So you call on both sides to show restraint. (Laughter.) There’s only a political solution to this.

MR TONER: Please.

No, seriously, welcome to the State Department. I do have one thing to state at the top of the briefing, and it is a serious issue: The United States strongly condemns the barbaric murder of Nazimuddin Samad, a law student who was apparently killed for speaking out against violent extremism in Bangladesh, and we offer our condolences to Mr. Samad’s family and our unwavering support to the Bangladeshi people in their struggle against violent extremism. Nazimuddin knew and Bangladesh’s history has shown that violence can – will not defeat Bangladesh’s proud tradition of free and independent discourse. So we stand with the Bangladeshi people in rejecting this vicious act and uniting to preserve a tolerant and inclusive society that protects freedom of expression. The United States will continue to support the Government of Bangladesh in its efforts to combat terrorism, counter violent extremism, and bring to justice those who commit such heinous acts.

Matt? Sorry.

QUESTION: Well, actually, let’s just start with that. This is not the first time this has happened in Bangladesh, and the authorities there in the past have attributed these murders to radical Islamists. Are you prepared to make the same connection here? You said “violent extremists,” but --

MR TONER: We don’t have – so we’ve seen no claim of responsibility yet for the attack. As you note, previous attacks of this nature have been claimed by al-Qaida on the Indian subcontinent, but we just don’t have clarity on this right now.

QUESTION: And then related to that --

MR TONER: Yeah, sure.

QUESTION: -- a couple months ago, human rights advocates wrote a letter to Secretary Kerry that talked about this wave of killings and asked him to see if it was possible that – to give people who are threatened in this way refuge in the U.S. Do you know what the status of that is?

MR TONER: So I think you’re talking about humanitarian parole --

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR TONER: -- which is a DHS-run process. But my understanding is that for a select number of bloggers who continue to be under imminent danger, that that is one option that’s under consideration. I don’t know – I’ll have to see if that’s actually – if there are individuals who are taking advantage of that. I just don’t have clarity on it.

QUESTION: Well, are they able to take advantage of it, or is it just that it’s under consideration?

MR TONER: My understanding is that – I’ll get a little bit --

QUESTION: All right. Well, we can ask at – DHS runs this?

MR TONER: That’s correct.

QUESTION: So State has nothing to do with it?

MR TONER: Well, we can probably get an update whether it’s actually been – it’s actually in train. I just don’t know.

QUESTION: Okay. I want to go to something that came up the other day, but – and – but now it’s taken on an added element, and that is this Panama papers leak. President Putin, you will have seen, said today that the leak of this, particularly the items that have to do with Russian nationals and Russia, are part of Western or U.S. plot or campaign to undermine Russia. What do you make of that?

MR TONER: Look, I mean, we’ve, I think, made pretty clear that we’re not going to talk about the content, obviously, of these confidential papers that were leaked. I just reject – I would reject the premise or the assertion that we’re in any way involved in the actual leak of these documents.

QUESTION: Okay. So it’s his accusation that the United States had anything to do with – or the assertion by him or by anyone that the U.S. Government had anything to do with this is – you say it’s – that’s completely wrong?

MR TONER: That’s right.

QUESTION: In a kind of unusual battle between the group that released this – or at least one of them – and WikiLeaks, WikiLeaks has pointed out that one of the groups that produced the story based on the Russia-related documents is funded by USAID.

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: What’s the deal with that?

MR TONER: So this is – I think you’re referring to the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project.

QUESTION: Right.

MR TONER: So they have received support from various donors, including the U.S. Government. They – this organization conducts investigative journalism, primarily, I think, in Europe. Obviously, these are the kind of organizations that USAID has and continues to fund, but not specifically for – to go after any particular government, but – or any particular individual, but simply to conduct what – and what we’re supporting here is the conduct of independent investigative journalism that we believe can shine a light on corruption, because, as the Secretary on down have said, corruption continues to have a corrosive effect on good governance around the world. So it’s part of our – a core tenet of our foreign policy that we support organizations that go after corruption.

QUESTION: Do you believe that these leaked documents show corruption?

MR TONER: I think we’re still looking, frankly, at whether they show corruption. I realize it’s a several-day-old story now. We talked about the fact that Treasury OFAC would actually look into some of these allegations or some of the content of this, and that is their writ to do so. I don’t have anything to pronounce today, though.

QUESTION: All right. Because there was a USAID-funded organization that was involved, did you guys have any prior notice that this was coming?

MR TONER: Not to my knowledge, no. No. I just don’t --

QUESTION: I mean --

MR TONER: I personally, when I say “not to my knowledge,” I personally do not know.

QUESTION: Well, I mean, USAID --

MR TONER: And I’m not aware – so Matt, I’m not aware that we had any prior knowledge.

QUESTION: USAID has had – has given money for a --

MR TONER: No, no, I – yeah.

QUESTION: -- variety of things, some of which some people believe are kind of suspect, such as the whole Cuban Twitter – or whatever it was, the ZunZeo or – I can’t remember the name of it. But – so --

MR TONER: I – so --

QUESTION: And they knew that that was going on.

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: So I mean --

MR TONER: So again, to the extent of my knowledge and understanding of this incident or this issue, we had no prior knowledge. And in fact, we have no editorial control, certainly, over what this organization does or doesn’t do with the money that we give it or what it does in its – to conduct its investigative journalism.

QUESTION: But obviously you believe in the cause that it’s --

MR TONER: Of course, yes. Of course.

QUESTION: -- doing, and so you --

MR TONER: That’s why we support it.

QUESTION: -- give it – you believe that its work – that the work that it produces is --

MR TONER: Valuable.

QUESTION: -- valuable and fair and --

MR TONER: Yes.

QUESTION: -- credible?

MR TONER: Yes. I mean, again, we just – but --

QUESTION: So in fact, then, in essence you would – you support the publication of this stuff, right?

MR TONER: Look, so this organization – and again, I would remind you that it was part of, I think, some 200 or so journalists --

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR TONER: -- and over 100 of the most well-known and respected media outlets around the world. So it was hardly this organization alone that brought this story to light.

QUESTION: Right, no, I understand that. But --

MR TONER: Without – and let’s also – a lot of professional organizations – AP included, Reuters included – covered the WikiLeaks and used what we deem classified material and covered their stories. So I mean, it’s not like – it’s not as though news organizations – credible, professional news organizations – have not mined quote-unquote “classified information” in the past.

QUESTION: Sure. I’m not trying to – I’m not in any way trying to question --

MR TONER: Oh, okay.

QUESTION: -- this organization’s credibility.

MR TONER: I understand. Okay.

QUESTION: I’m just trying to find out what the U.S. Government’s position is as it relates to that.

MR TONER: I’m just – sure. I’m just saying we have no editorial control over what --

QUESTION: Okay.

MR TONER: Over their reporting. They’re allowed to and permitted to cover --

QUESTION: Right.

MR TONER: -- whatever they want.

QUESTION: So you would say it’s not up to you to --

MR TONER: Right, correct. Thank you.

QUESTION: -- stand by or to --

MR TONER: Correct. That is correct.

QUESTION: -- not stand by their reporting?

MR TONER: That’s correct.

QUESTION: Okay. Last one on this. In the cases of WikiLeaks and the Snowden documents, the U.S. Government quite loudly talked about how these were – this was stolen, this material was stolen, and that you want to prosecute him. In fact, you – one – Bradley – or Chelsea Manning has been prosecuted and you have made no secret of the fact that you would like to see Mr. Snowden brought back and him to stand trial. In light of this, do you think that the hacking – which the law firm says that it was a victim of – is theft? Do you regard these documents as having been stolen?

MR TONER: I would say that’s a question for the Panamanian legal system or legal process to decide on. This happened in Panama. I don’t have enough – I don’t think we have enough details about --

QUESTION: Well, the firm is in Panama. I don’t know that --

MR TONER: Right --

QUESTION: Do you know that it happened in – I mean --

MR TONER: That’s a fair question. I don’t know whether we’ve made a determination whether we believe this was actually stolen or that it was criminal activity.

QUESTION: Well, they say that it was.

MR TONER: I understand that.

QUESTION: The law firm says that it was.

MR TONER: I understand that.

QUESTION: So --

MR TONER: And like I said, we’ve – what we’ve seen is that --

QUESTION: But you think that the law firm --

MR TONER: -- these documents were --

QUESTION: You called them confidential before --

MR TONER: Correct.

QUESTION: -- so it’s not a – they’re – the law firm’s not a government. It doesn’t – it can’t classify things.

MR TONER: Correct.

QUESTION: But if someone comes across hundreds of thousands of pages of confidential documents and publishes them, and they were clearly not meant to be seen by the public, you don’t think that that’s theft?

MR TONER: Again, I just --

QUESTION: I mean, the firm clearly didn’t want this stuff out there.

MR TONER: Of course.

QUESTION: They wouldn’t have given it out themselves.

MR TONER: Of course. And we have spoken in the past about the fact that every profession, including the legal profession, should have some degree of confidentiality. I just don’t – I can’t speak at this time whether we’re going to pronounce on whether this was theft or not.

QUESTION: Can I change the subject?

MR TONER: Sure thing.

QUESTION: You’ve probably seen the Human Rights Watch report overnight, which said that the – they have evidence that U.S.-supplied bombs had killed 97 civilians and stuff in Yemen on March 15. Is it your understanding or have you got any independent verification that these were U.S. – that the investigation outcome is true?

MR TONER: So Lesley, we don’t. And the Secretary actually spoke to this in the press avail that he did recently in Bahrain. He was asked this very question.

QUESTION: Apologies.

MR TONER: No worries. So no clarity is what he said. We just don’t have the clarity right now what type of weapon may or may not have been used. But then, of course, he said very strongly that we need to see an end to all combat operations in Yemen. We need to see the continuation of the peace process and we need to see a ceasefire take place. But I just would say we obviously take these reports very seriously. Certainly we’ve spoken in the past and continue to speak out against civilian casualties. And we’ll just look into it. We just don’t have any more details here.

QUESTION: So is there going to be any investigation from your side?

MR TONER: I think we’re looking into it. I don’t know if – I don't know that I’d --

QUESTION: So you don’t know if that’s a formal investigation?

MR TONER: -- classify that as a formal investigation, but I’m certainly aware that we’re looking into the details.

QUESTION: Do you know, Mark --

MR TONER: Yes, sir.

QUESTION: -- if the type of bomb that was described by Human Rights Watch is a type or is --

MR TONER: I don’t.

QUESTION: -- among the things that the State Department, in coordination with the Pentagon, actually gives – signs off on? So, no?

MR TONER: Yeah. I don't have that.

QUESTION: On that topic --

MR TONER: Yeah, please. Yeah.

QUESTION: -- and other issues in the press conference. But on this very issue, I mean, most everybody thinks or suggests or knows that the Saudis use – almost 100 percent of their weapons are American weapons in this case. Why would you not conduct an investigation?

MR TONER: Well, again, we’re certainly concerned by any credible allegations of civilian deaths or attacks on civilians. Our understanding is that the coalition is going to conduct an investigation into the incident. We’ve encouraged them to do so in a prompt manner. We believe the need for an investigation – or there is a need for an investigation. I know that the Saudis have also formed a committee or announced the formation of a committee that will evaluate military targeting writ large that they say will ensure the protection of civilians and investigate these kinds of incidents. We’ve encouraged them to do so, to carry out an investigation. So we’ll wait and see the results of that investigation.

QUESTION: So you are fine with Saudi Arabia investigating itself in this case?

MR TONER: I think they have said they are going to do it. They’ve established this commission. We’ll wait and see what the results are.

QUESTION: Yeah. Also during the press conference --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- the Secretary was almost or came across – I may be wrong – as noncommittal on the issue of human rights in Bahrain and other areas. Are you guys sort of trying to – whatever – repair damage maybe with the Saudis and the Gulf countries at the expense of human rights? Or perceived damage – I don’t know if they are damaging the relationship.

MR TONER: No, I mean, I – I mean, frankly, he spoke a fair amount on human rights, I mean, certainly at the press availability that he did with the Bahraini foreign minister. And I know that he did also meet this afternoon in Bahrain with members of the opposition and civil society. It was a brief meeting but they did discuss – or provided an opportunity for him to hear their perspectives on the political situation in Bahrain and also hear from them directly about their views on human rights, on expression and dissent in the kingdom. And he spoke also in his press avail that – about some of the steps that Bahrain has made – and they have made some steps and we’ve talked about these before – but that more work needs to be done.

QUESTION: What are these steps? I mean, he talks about an inclusive --

MR TONER: Well, they established these --

QUESTION: -- power sharing, more liberalization. What are these --

MR TONER: Well, so I mean, there was a serious effort, we believe, by the Bahraini Government a few years back. There were a number of entities created with an ombudsman and with the goal of bringing people together. The opposition did boycott the previous election, but they did discuss today the upcoming election 2018 and the prospects for those elections and, frankly, some of the work that needs to be done over the next few months so that these are full, free, fair, and transparent elections. And I think that’s where the focus is right now.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: India-Pakistan?

MR TONER: Please. Sorry.

QUESTION: The Pakistanis have arrested what they say is an agent of India in Balochistan. They say that he was fomenting the insurgency that they have there. And since they protest this arrest, the Pakistani ambassador to Delhi has said that the talks between the two countries are frozen while this is being looked into, that there’s been a breakdown in the Pakistani-Indian rapprochement as a result of this. I don’t know if you have any information about the arrest itself, whether the U.S. is aware of that particular case, but also more broadly on the geopolitical implications if there is a – if there is --

MR TONER: I don’t have anything for – I am aware of the reports about the arrest. I don’t have anything – any details of the arrest. More directly to your question about the suspension of peace talks, the peace process, we believe and it’s been our longstanding position that India and Pakistan stand to benefit from the normalization of relations and practical cooperation, and we encourage them to do so, to engage in direct dialogue that’s aimed at reducing tensions between the two governments and two countries. And we strongly support those efforts, because we believe it, obviously, will lead to greater stability and peace in the region and is to the benefit of both countries.

Please, in the back. Do you want to --

QUESTION: To return to human rights – sorry.

MR TONER: That’s okay. No, that’s okay. We can go – I’ll go with you first and then to you.

QUESTION: Sure.

MR TONER: Please. Are you still on Pakistan or are you on a different --

QUESTION: I’m on human rights in the Gulf.

MR TONER: In the Gulf, okay. Do you want to go to Pakistan and we’ll finish that up? Apologize.

QUESTION: Sure. I’m on the Gulf. Yeah.

MR TONER: Yeah. Great. Thanks so much.

QUESTION: So for the last couple of days, the Panama papers hitting the headlines all around the world. We have seen the prime minister of Iceland already step down after the allegation of corruption. So the family of Pakistani Prime Minister Mr. Sharif was also involved in the offshore companies and the corruption, and there is immense pressure on him to resign. So, how United States watching this situation?

MR TONER: Look, I mean, there’s lots of churn, if I could put it that way, coming out of the leaking of these documents. We’ve not, frankly, commented on some of the allegations or some of the reporting that’s going on about this. We don’t necessarily want to comment on the findings. We don’t normally comment on the – what we consider to be leaked information.

I think globally speaking – and we talked about this – that if there is a perception of corruption then that is damaging, and that’s up to governments around the world to address if it affects them or speaks to their conduct. We can’t say categorically that corruption is taking place or that this is criminal – somehow criminal activity. We just don’t have that kind of clarity on this information. But we continue, through our own Department of Treasury, to look at the details of some of these findings in order to have a better sense of what might be happening in global markets and global financial system, to get a better understanding of whether corruption is taking place. But we just don’t have anything to pronounce on any of these findings thus far.

QUESTION: Second, Pakistani security forces have launched their operation, the military operation in the province of Punjab, and they have arrested the top Taliban commanders and leaders of the extremist groups. So but they are not getting – according to the army, they are not getting support of the Punjab government due to the World Bank in southern Punjab.

MR TONER: You’re talking about the protests in Kashmir?

QUESTION: No, sir. Not Kashmir. It’s the southern Punjab, they recently started operation there. But they are not getting support of the Punjab government because they have big World Bank there. So I mean, are you in contact with the Pakistan on this?

MR TONER: I’m not aware of the incident. I’d have to look into it. I apologize. I just don’t have --

QUESTION: Sir, I have one more question.

MR TONER: Yeah. Sure, please.

QUESTION: The former prime minister of Pakistani Kashmir side has told the parliament in Pakistan that he informed the State Department that the Kashmiris are again crying for the jihad in Kashmir because of the Indian forces’ brutalities there. Is it a concern for the United States?

MR TONER: Well, and that’s – forgive me, I thought that’s what you were referring to in your last question. I’m aware of those allegations. Look, our policy regarding Kashmir has not changed. As we’ve long said, the pace, scope, and character of those discussions or any discussions on Kashmir must be for the two sides to determine. We support any and all positive steps that India and Pakistan can take to forge closer relations. Obviously, I talked about that in response to Dave’s question, but I think I’ll leave it there.

QUESTION: One last question, please.

MR TONER: Sure, of course.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) Asia Bibi, a Christian woman, who was in the jail for the last many years on blasphemy laws. So the Ambassador Saperstein told a gathering here the United States is working closely with Pakistan for her release. Is there any update on that?

MR TONER: I’m sorry, one more time, the person you’re talking about?

QUESTION: Ambassador Saperstein, the religious freedom --

MR TONER: Oh, right. Yes. Well, I mean, our – you’re talking about remarks about Asia Bibi?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR TONER: Yeah, of course. I’d just say that our stance on religious freedom around the world is well documented, obviously, in our annual Religious Freedom and Human Rights Report. We oppose blasphemy laws throughout the world. Freedom of religion is a fundamental human right. It’s something we regard as a fundamental human right. And certainly, the work of Ambassador Saperstein is part of our regular engagement with the Government of Pakistan to advance this right.

Please, sir.

QUESTION: So --

MR TONER: Now we’re on – I apologize.

QUESTION: The Gulf. Yeah, the UAE.

MR TONER: Okay.

QUESTION: So there are these two Americans, Mohamed and Kamal al-Darat. They’ve been in jail in the UAE since August 2014, and Monday is their final court appearance. The charges against them were initially related to terror, and the UAE ambassador here, Yousef al-Otaiba, said they were thought to be linked to groups designated by the UAE and the U.S. Those charges have been dropped and the families are now worried that that shows they’re going to be convicted and sentenced on Monday. Does the change in charges raise any concerns about due process, which the UN has already said isn’t being provided to these Americans? And does it change the American approach from you guys to helping these families?

MR TONER: So we do understand that at a hearing held on March 21st that the prosecutor did amend the charges providing – from providing material support to terrorist groups to charges of supporting armed terrorist groups without permission from the UAE Government. And this charge – this change, rather, placed the case under a 2008 antiterrorism law instead of the 2014 law.

I’d say we’re concerned about several aspects of the al-Darats’ case – certainly allegations of mistreatment as well as their ongoing health issues, their lack of access to legal representation, as well as a lack of consular access certainly at the start of their detention. And we’ve raised all these issues with the UAE Government, and we continue to call for their – we continue to call for an expeditious resolution to this case via a fair and transparent legal process in accordance with local law.

QUESTION: Change topics?

MR TONER: Yeah – do you have a follow-up?

QUESTION: I just had a follow-up saying --

MR TONER: It’s okay, it’s okay.

QUESTION: -- “via a fair and transparent process” – would that mean you don’t consider the current process, which will conclude on Monday, a fair and transparent process?

MR TONER: I’d say we have concerns thus far, as I clear – outlined. And so what I think we want to see is a quick resolution to this case, and as I said, some – through a process that’s free and fair.

QUESTION: And just since March 21st --

MR TONER: Okay.

QUESTION: -- has the approach changed at all from your end, given that the charges changed?

MR TONER: I’m not sure. I mean, we continue to obviously follow the case very closely. Our personnel from the U.S. embassy, diplomats, attended the January 18th hearing, the February 15th hearing, February 29th hearing, as well as the March 21st hearing, and we’re going to continue to attend subsequent hearings. We’re going to continue to express our concerns about the case and our concerns for the welfare of the al-Darats to the government in UAE.

Please.

QUESTION: Syria? Syria?

MR TONER: Of course.

QUESTION: Okay. First of all, has there been – have you had any more information since yesterday on what kind of missile was used --

MR TONER: I don’t.

QUESTION: -- to bring down the Syrian --

MR TONER: I apologize, I don’t. I don’t have any more information on it.

QUESTION: Okay. And second, do you have any comment on the kidnapping, or apparent kidnapping, of 300 Syrian workers today from the --

MR TONER: Yes, you’re talking about this --

QUESTION: Yes, right.

MR TONER: I don’t. I mean, we’re seeking more information.

QUESTION: From the cement factory.

MR TONER: No, I just found out before we walked out here. Can’t confirm. You’re talking about the reports that ISIL has or Daesh has --

QUESTION: Right, right. Kidnapped, like, 300 workers.

MR TONER: Yeah. No, as we – if we get an update on that, we’ll let you guys know, of course.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: Sorry, who are you seeking this more information from?

MR TONER: We’re just trying to get more clarity on – not from Daesh, of course.

QUESTION: Right.

MR TONER: But I mean, as – we just – we’ve seen reports. We just don’t have --

QUESTION: No, I wasn’t – but I mean, you don’t have any contact with the Syrian Government. They’re the ones who say that --

MR TONER: No. Fair point, fair point. We just had seen reports. We just don’t have – we don’t have any details.

QUESTION: Would you seek to have any clarification from the Syrian Government? I think they are working for a government-owned factory.

MR TONER: That’s – that’s, again, we’re operating on the same scant information as you all are on this. We just had seen reports. So if we get any more – any further depth or information, we’ll certainly share that with you.

QUESTION: Two on Syria.

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: The rebel groups are claiming that they’ve cut a vital ISIS supply line from the Turkish border down into IS territory or Daesh territory in Syria. There seems to be a lot of different groups making advances in various parts against IS, and they may be beginning to collapse. Is there a concern that – is there a concern that if – obviously, you want to defeat Daesh, but is there a concern that Assad and the Russians might get to Raqqa before you? And is that – or would that be a bad thing?

MR TONER: Well, a couple of thoughts on that. One is, as you correctly note, part of the – sorry, I’m grasping for the word, but one of the results of the cessation of hostilities is that these groups, many of them have now – are able to focus on taking the fight to Daesh. And we’ve seen the same thing, as you said, on the part of the regime forces who certainly made advances on – and around Palmyra. And this is, I think, part and parcel of what we’ve seen in Iraq as well, which is that Daesh is under increasing pressure from all sides and from different components and different groups, different governments.

I mean, it is somewhat of a rare thing to have the kind of unity of purpose – that everyone recognizes how evil Daesh is, how destructive it is to the region and to the world, that you have such, as I said, a unity of purpose to go out and destroy and defeat Daesh on the ground.

As to those gains made by the regime with support of, obviously, Russian forces, we certainly looked at the liberation of Palmyra as a good thing. That city has suffered tremendously under ISIL – not only the people of Palmyra, of course, but also the destruction of a vast amount of its antiquities. But we also made clear at the time that it’s a bit of a – it’s a difficult thing for people to be liberated from Daesh, only to fall under the rule of a regime that has brutalized its own people. So it’s hardly a win-win situation, to be perfectly candid.

In terms of who might get to Raqqa first or who might liberate to Raqqa – or might liberate Raqqa first, we just don’t – it’s – we’re not there yet. There’s still a lot of hard fighting and – by all parties involved that lies ahead. We’re going to continue our pressure working with the coalition, working with the various groups that we’re working with on the ground in Syria as well as in Iraq to continue to squeeze Daesh as much as possible.

Please.

QUESTION: Is there value in working with the Russians and the regime?

MR TONER: Well, we have – we have talked about that and we have, in fact, said if Russia does want to play a constructive role in taking the fight against Daesh, that we would be willing to have that conversation. I know that --

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR TONER: Well, I mean, I know that – and this was part of the conversation that they did have, in fact, in Moscow when the Secretary was there. Again, it’s – it is – at the same time as we appreciate any – as I said, any relief that can come to the Syrian people who have been brutalized by ISIL, we’re not convinced that the regime offers the ultimate solution – what the ultimate solution to the situation in Syria is: a transition government – a transitional government, rather, that is supported by all of the Syrian people.

QUESTION: Yesterday --

MR TONER: Yes, sir.

QUESTION: -- and this is moving on – yesterday, you said that you did not want to speak to the referendum in the Netherlands because the Dutch people have not spoken. Well, they have spoken, not a huge --

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

QUESTION: -- not a huge – not a huge overwhelming of them.

MR TONER: No, I wouldn’t call it that. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: But enough – but enough to make the referendum valid and --

MR TONER: Yes.

QUESTION: -- they pretty – they made their feelings quite clear. They don’t like the EU-Ukraine deal. So now that they have spoken, what do you have to say about it?

MR TONER: Well, we have seen news reports. We’ve seen the – that – about the nonbinding referendum. Look, clearly, we’re disappointed by the results, but we do respect the views of the Dutch people and we respect the Dutch political process. We understand there’s still a process in place – I’d refer you to the Dutch Government on – with regard to what next steps are imminent. We said before and we’ll say it again today: We believe this association agreement is in the best interests of Ukraine, the U.S., and the European Union, and we still stand by that.

QUESTION: You note that it’s a nonbinding vote --

MR TONER: That’s correct.

QUESTION: -- but the Dutch prime minister has said that he doesn’t feel politically that he can ignore it.

MR TONER: That’s correct.

QUESTION: Would you urge the prime minister of Holland to ignore the will of his people?

MR TONER: There’s where I’m going to draw the line in stepping into what is an internal political process, and we respect that.

QUESTION: On Japan?

QUESTION: Well, no. Can I just do one more quick one?

MR TONER: Of course, Lesley. Always.

QUESTION: So the question here – yeah, since we raised it yesterday – so the question here is whether you think this in any way could have implications for Ukraine, who you are supporting --

MR TONER: Well, I don’t think we know yet. Sorry, I didn’t mean to interrupt you. Are you --

QUESTION: No, that’s it.

MR TONER: I don’t think we know yet, and I think President Poroshenko’s said that they’re going to continue to work towards an association agreement, take the steps they need to take in terms of reforms and other measures. We support them in those efforts. This was something that was agreed by all other members and ratified by all other members of the EU, so there is support for this. But --

QUESTION: But the question is --

MR TONER: Yeah. Please.

QUESTION: -- whether this would undermine anything that Poroshenko wants to do with having closer ties with Europe, and – which is really what started this entire thing, because --

MR TONER: It was.

QUESTION: -- they were looking for closer ties with the West, rather than looking towards Moscow, right?

MR TONER: Of course. And it’s our, I guess, hope that it doesn’t affect that process to continue closer ties to the West, closer ties with the EU. As we’ve long said, it’s not for us, it’s not for Russia, it’s not for anyone to decide which way or which path Ukraine wants to pursue, but it should have the right to its – the Ukrainian people should have the right to pursue closer ties with the West if it wants to and stronger economic ties and stronger democratic institutions. That’s its own right, sovereign right.

Please, sir.

QUESTION: Excuse me --

MR TONER: Oh, you – I’m sorry. I apologize. You had a question.

QUESTION: Yes. Thank you.

MR TONER: And then I’ll get to you. I apologize. Yeah.

QUESTION: Just on the Futenma air base.

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: Back in March, the Japanese Government had accepted a court-mediated settlement plan, which has further delayed the relocation process. I just wondered if you had any updates on the current status of the plan or if there are any alternative plans in place.

MR TONER: I don’t believe I have any – you’re talking about – I’m sorry – the settlement?

QUESTION: Right, the Okinawa – the Futenma air base.

MR TONER: Yeah. I mean – no, I mean, we don’t have any kind of update on the ongoing legal process. Obviously, we remain committed to the plan to construct Futenma, the replacement facility there, and we continue to believe that it’s the only plan that really adequately addresses the operational, political, financial, strategic concerns and – but I would refer you to the Government of Japan to really speak to that process.

QUESTION: To follow up on that --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- is the Futenma issue going to be something that Secretary Kerry discusses with prime minister – or Foreign Minister Kishida on his trip to Japan?

MR TONER: I just can’t predict what they might discuss in a bilateral setting. I can imagine it could come up. I just – it’s hard for me to say that today when it’s several days away.

QUESTION: Sure.

MR TONER: But we’ll give you a readout, obviously.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR TONER: Please, sir.

QUESTION: Excuse me. I haven’t seen it --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: Okay. And one more question on President Erdogan. I really don’t know if you’ve answered this one too. President Erdogan said that the Kurds – not the Kurds – the supporters of quote-unquote “terrorists” – PKK terrorists – should be stripped of citizenship. Do you have a statement on that?

MR TONER: Well, I guess I’d refer you to the Government of Turkey for questions regarding President Erdogan’s remarks. I guess – well, we would say that in any constitutional democracy, it’s important that questions of citizenship be addressed within a legal framework that upholds rule of law and ensures due process.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR TONER: Yes, Said.

QUESTION: Can I – couple questions on the Palestinian-Israeli issue very quickly?

MR TONER: Of course.

QUESTION: I wanted to ask you if you have any comment or reaction to some reports that say that Abbas is fixing to meet with French President Hollande and Russian President Putin to see if they can get the process moving forward, the French suggestion or the --

MR TONER: This French proposal.

QUESTION: The French proposal. I wonder if you have any comment on that.

MR TONER: I don’t specifically in terms of potential meetings between President Abbas and the French. I know this was something that Foreign Minister Ayrault did raise with Secretary Kerry. It’s a clear focus for the French Government. We have since then had initial discussions with them about this initiative, look forward to further engagement on it. We share the same goal, as do many others, but that’s to find a constructive way forward in terms of advancing our – as I said, our goal of a two-state solution. But as to specific meetings between the French and Abbas, I just don’t have any details.

QUESTION: Now, in the past, you dismissed out of hand any kind of international effort to deal with this issue, opting for direct negotiations. Is that still your position, or would you support an international effort of any kind?

MR TONER: I just don’t think we’re there yet in terms of any concrete path towards direct negotiations. As you correctly state, we have always supported direct negotiations. But there’s still some spadework to be done in order to create the kind of conditions that would lead to direct negotiations. How that spadework’s done – preliminary work is done – I think is open for discussion.

QUESTION: And finally, Abbas called on the Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu to sort of have a mutual and an immediate kind of end to a mutual incitement and so on. Is that something that you support? Do you hold them both at the same level of being guilty of incitements and so on?

MR TONER: Well, I’ll just answer it this way, which is that there needs to be a general de-escalation – not an escalation – of rhetoric by either side in order to frankly end the violence. That said, we strongly support Israel’s right to self-defense in the wake of violent attacks against its citizens. But we would – I say – welcome any kind of efforts to de-escalate tensions overall.

Please, sir.

QUESTION: Can I just ask you – this is related – are you aware of complaints from Christian groups of – about the destruction of a Byzantine-era Christian church? It was uncovered by construction workers in Gaza. And if you’re not --

MR TONER: I’m not, quite honestly.

QUESTION: If you’re not, if you would just look into it.

MR TONER: Of course.

QUESTION: Is this something that the – that you guys take an interest in, that – the issue, and whether or not --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- it’s problematic, whether it was intentional or an accident?

MR TONER: I’ll take a look at it.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR TONER: Yeah, we’ll take a look at it.

Great. Thanks, guys.

QUESTION: Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:28 p.m.)

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

Daily Press Briefings : Daily Press Briefing - April 5, 2016

Mark C. Toner

Deputy Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC

April 5, 2016









Index for Today's Briefing

BAHRAIN



JAPAN



SYRIA/RUSSIA



JAPAN



ARMENIA/AZERBAIJAN



RUSSIA/IRAN



LEBANON



EGYPT



ISRAEL



SAUDI ARABIA



YEMEN



ICELAND/PANAMA




TRANSCRIPT:

1:53 p.m. EDT

MR TONER: Welcome, everyone, to the State Department on this fine, though chilly, Tuesday. I don't have anything at the top, so over to you, Mr. Lee.

QUESTION: I don’t really have anything huge, but I did want to ask about – since the Secretary is headed to Bahrain – right? This week --

MR TONER: That’s right. Yeah.

QUESTION: Yes. Are – do you know what his plans are for meetings in Bahrain? Not the Gulf – not the GCC meetings, but does he have meetings planned with civil society and opposition types there, or is he just meeting with Bahraini officials?

MR TONER: It’s a fair question. I don’t have the details of his schedule yet. We’ll try to get that for you. I just don’t – beyond, as you said, the meetings with the GCC --

QUESTION: All right. Do you --

MR TONER: -- I can imagine we’ll have follow-on meetings, but I just don’t have the details yet.

QUESTION: Do you have anything to say about the current situation in Bahrain, as it relates to the treatment of activists and others?

MR TONER: Well, I mean, nothing particularly new. I mean, we’ve long spoken about our concerns about the political climate in – the democratic or political environment in Bahrain and our concerns about continued actions against civil society.

QUESTION: And you would expect the Secretary to raise those continued concerns?

MR TONER: I would expect him to raise those, just as he would --

QUESTION: All right.

MR TONER: -- in any – with any government around the world. If we do have concerns, we do raise them.

QUESTION: Okay. And then I just wanted to – I don’t know if the United – if the U.S. or the department has spoken to this, but in Japan the Japanese have announced that the Secretary will be going to the Hiroshima memorial. And I’m just wondering if that is correct from your – I think they said he would be going as part of the broader group to pay their respects --

MR TONER: That is correct. So he will participate, obviously, in the G7 foreign ministers meeting and then he will – he intends to join Foreign Minister Kishida, rather, as well as other G7 foreign ministers in visiting the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park and Museum.

QUESTION: All right. And does he have anything special planned to do, other than just to go and – does he --

MR TONER: I mean – I mean, as --

QUESTION: I mean, would he speak?

MR TONER: No, I mean as – no, I don’t believe he has any plans to speak or do a separate event, other than to join the other ministers. If that changes, we’ll, of course, let you know. I think it’s just – it’s an effort to honor the memory of all those who died during World War II and underscore President Obama’s vision of a nuclear-free – or a world, rather, without nuclear weapons.

QUESTION: All right. That’s all.

MR TONER: Good.

QUESTION: Do you have any --

MR TONER: Hi, Lesley.

QUESTION: Hello.

MR TONER: Been a long time.

QUESTION: Yep. Do you have --

MR TONER: Did you miss me? Come on. It’s okay. (Laughter.) Sorry, I’m just teasing. Anyway, go ahead.

QUESTION: Do you have any – and it feels like deja vu.

MR TONER: It does, yes.

QUESTION: Do you have any confirmation that the Syrian peace talks are going to resume on the 11th?

MR TONER: I do. Well, I mean, we do – we have seen that the UN plans to resume talks in Geneva next Monday, on April 11th. And certainly we recognize Special Envoy de Mistura’s leadership. We also understand that he is actually in Moscow today for preparatory discussions, prior to resuming negotiations.

QUESTION: And --

QUESTION: Any phone call today – sorry.

QUESTION: Go for it.

MR TONER: That’s okay.

QUESTION: Any phone call between Kerry and Lavrov today?

MR TONER: Well, he’s – Secretary Kerry’s had a pretty busy morning. No. Wait, I’m sorry, I’m looking at the wrong date. I apologize. No, nothing today.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) did he have a pretty busy morning on the day that you were looking at too? (Laughter.)

MR TONER: No, there’s no phone calls.

QUESTION: Every morning is pretty busy.

MR TONER: Every morning. But as you saw, he was quite busy up in New York.

QUESTION: And given that de Mistura is – the envoy is in Moscow, are you making any headway as far as the political transition and specifically the issue of Assad being one of the main topics now going into the next – the second round?

MR TONER: Well, as you know, we’ve been very clear that our expectation is that these upcoming negotiations will address or take up the core issue of this political transition – excuse me. You know where we stand on it. You know we don’t believe that Assad has the legitimacy to be any kind of leader of his people going forward. We, however, respect the process and the right of the HNC as well as the regime to negotiate what this political transition and its modalities and its timeline look like going forward. But we’re going to continue to stand by and support the HNC in Geneva in support of its demands.

QUESTION: Is anyone from the State Department or the U.S. going to these discussions?

MR TONER: I would imagine that Special Envoy Ratney would be there. He’s – I think he’s been at every one, at least for some portion of the negotiations.

QUESTION: Okay. That --

MR TONER: If that’s incorrect, I’ll correct it.

I’m sorry, Matt.

QUESTION: That – yeah, I just wanted to --

MR TONER: Yeah, Matt.

QUESTION: -- what you said just then, that you respect the right of the HNC and the – and of the regime --

MR TONER: I’m just saying – sorry, let me --

QUESTION: I mean, if this is a guy whose government --

MR TONER: Let me --

QUESTION: -- who has lost all legitimacy and lost all credibility to run, how does he have a right to negotiate?

MR TONER: I’m saying the regime. And this is – what we’re saying – let me rephrase that and just say --

QUESTION: So you don’t --

MR TONER: -- we respect – let me finish – we respect these talks and their goal of creating a political transition and a timeline for that transition. So all I’m simply stating is our position on Assad and his legitimacy to lead – be a future leader of Syria is well known, that notwithstanding we do believe that this is to be negotiated by the parties in Geneva. And we respect that process. That’s all I’m saying.

QUESTION: But has there been some – you guys have come to the conclusion that the regime no longer represents Assad the person, the man?

MR TONER: Not at all, Matt. But I’m – but I am recognizing that this is a process set up by the UN --

QUESTION: Right, fair enough. I just was curious --

MR TONER: -- and Staffan de Mistura. Okay, got it. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

QUESTION: -- about the right of the regime.

MR TONER: No, sorry, that was – sorry if that came out --

QUESTION: Previous rounds of talks have often involved a parallel meeting of the ISSG. You may not have travel to announce, but is there – are there plans in the near future to --

MR TONER: Not at this time, no. I don’t have anything to announce.

QUESTION: On Assad’s future --

MR TONER: Yes.

QUESTION: -- the Kremlin has said today that the fate of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad should be decided by the Syrian people, and conditions for such a decision should be created. Are you on the same page now with the Kremlin on the future of President Assad?

MR TONER: This is what the Kremlin said?

QUESTION: Yes.

MR TONER: Look, I mean, I – yes, in the sense that we agree and have been very clear about this that one of the goals of these negotiations – these proximity talks, whatever you want to refer to them as – is to create the modalities for this political transition. We’ve been very clear about that. All I simply was saying to Matt is we respect that that’s something that these – the parties involved in those negotiations need to work out. Ultimately it is something for the Syrian people to decide, the future of their country. Certainly we support that.

Please, Pam.

QUESTION: That means you agree on the Kremlin statement on the – on Assad’s future.

MR TONER: In essence, we believe that – yes, we believe that a political process that reflects the desires and will of the Syrian people is what should ultimately decide the future leadership and the future government of Syria.

Please.

QUESTION: And this is the --

MR TONER: Sorry, go ahead.

QUESTION: -- first time that you are on the same page with Russia on the future of President Assad?

MR TONER: Look, I mean, we’ve been – we have agreed broadly with Russia on a number of aspects of resolving the Syrian conflict. Otherwise we wouldn’t be where we are today. We have differed, certainly, on Assad’s future. That hasn’t changed. We believe he is not legitimate – or he’s not a legitimate future leader for the country. All that said, and our position notwithstanding, we do believe that the process set up by the ISSG, by the UN, to create a political transition is valid and should be respected.

Please, Pam.

QUESTION: Is it your understanding that the upcoming round will again be proximity talks? And then if so, what is the U.S. position in the framework of the ISSG on when the transition needs to take place to direct talks?

MR TONER: Both good questions. I don’t have clarity on whether these would actually begin as or transition to – away from proximity talks. My sense is that they would at least begin as proximity talks again. But again, we want the focus of this next round of talks to be on the details of what a political transition would look like, certainly under the terms of UN Security Council Resolution 2254 and the Geneva communique. And that’s something Secretary Kerry spoke about when he met with Foreign Minister Lavrov last month. But as to whether we – we can’t predict, frankly, whether they would be direct talks at this point. I’d refer you to de Mistura for that.

QUESTION: Will the Kurds participate this time?

MR TONER: I think it’s just the members of the HNC, is my understanding at this point. It’s the same grouping, the same members of the HNC who participated in the previous round.

Please.

QUESTION: Do you have a readout of the call between Secretary Kerry and Foreign Minister Kishida that took place I think yesterday?

MR TONER: I think I do. It was from a couple days ago, right? Let me check really quickly.

So this is from Sunday evening, April 3rd. He did speak with Foreign Minister Kishida. They exchanged opinions on the full range of bilateral and global issues in advance of the upcoming Group of Seven foreign ministers meeting in Hiroshima. I don’t have any more details beyond that.

QUESTION: Is there any concern that Secretary Kerry’s visit to Hiroshima and the peace memorials would – there would be opposition here in the U.S. for that visit?

MR TONER: No, I don’t think so. Look, I mean, his intention on visiting this, as I just explained to Matt, is to recognize the huge loss of life that took place during World War II. But I think it’s also an acknowledgment that since the end of World War II that the United States and Japan have become the closest of friends and strong allies. So, I mean, as we – as much as we acknowledge the past, we look to the future, and the fact that since World War II, we’ve seen, frankly, an era of peace and prosperity in the Pacific region and Asia that was unheralded. And so that’s what we want to build on going forward.

QUESTION: Did Secretary Kerry discuss the possibility of President Obama making a visit?

MR TONER: I’m not aware of that and I wouldn’t speak to that. That’s really the White House’s domain.

QUESTION: Okay. And then finally – sorry --

MR TONER: Sure, no worries.

QUESTION: -- Foreign Minister Kishida said that one of the outcomes that he’d like to see from the foreign ministers’ meeting in Hiroshima would be the development of a Hiroshima declaration calling for the end of – or a nuclear weapon-free world. Is that something that Secretary Kerry would support?

MR TONER: I mean, I can’t speak to that specific proposal or deliverable, but as you saw from last week’s NSS, certainly this Administration, President Obama, have clearly laid out a vision of a nuclear-free world, and it’s something that, throughout this Administration, they’ve been working towards. It’s not obviously something that’s easily attained, but as the President laid out last week, there has been progress.

Please.

QUESTION: Yes, a follow-up on Nagorno-Karabakh.

MR TONER: Sure thing. Yeah.

QUESTION: Yesterday, you said that the United States supports a fair and just resolution with the principles of non-use of force, territorial integrity, and self-determination. Now my question for you today is: Armenia president has threatened to formally recognize Nagorno-Karabakh as an independent state. In the estimation of the United States, do you think it’s counterproductive or productive to a peaceful settlement?

MR TONER: So a couple of things. First of all, I want to just give all of you a brief update, and then I’ll try to answer your question. So the United States does welcome both sides’ confirmation of a ceasefire. It’s a very nascent ceasefire, but we’re encouraged that it does seem to have taken hold. And we are actively engaging with both sides and – to urge them to strictly adhere to the ceasefire.

I can say that the Minsk Group co-chairs were all in Vienna today, and they briefed the OSCE Permanent Council there. And then these co-chairs, with the support of the Minsk Group, obviously, and the German OSCE chairmanship, are going to travel to the region later today – again, to meet with both sides and encourage them to adhere to the ceasefire and to enter into negotiations and a comprehensive settlement.

So as to what that settlement looks like and to what – speaking to the president of Armenia’s comments, I’m not going to wade into that, other than to say both leaders, both governments, need to come back into the Minsk process. There is an established process here to negotiate a peaceful settlement to Nagorno-Karabakh. We’ve had a clear breakdown, a violation of the existing ceasefire. We now have a new one in place that needs to be adhered to; it needs to be solidified and strengthened. But then, obviously, what’s most urgent is for both sides to get back to the negotiating table.

QUESTION: Yesterday, during Secretary Kerry’s phone call with Lavrov, did he ask his Russian counterpart to use Russia’s influence over Armenia to dissuade Armenia from doing certain things?

MR TONER: Well – so, Russia is a co-chair of the Minsk Group, so we consult with them constantly on how to resolve this and how to get negotiations moving forward. Certainly in any kind of situation like this we would ask any government to use whatever sway it has or whatever influence it may have over another government. I’m not sure and I cannot confirm that it – that Secretary Kerry specifically raised this point with Foreign Minister Lavrov yesterday, though.

QUESTION: Can I ask on this?

MR TONER: Yeah. Sure. Go ahead.

QUESTION: When was the last time the Minsk Group actually met in Minsk? (Laughter.) Do you know offhand?

MR TONER: I do not. I don’t. I think it’s like a --

QUESTION: I mean, do they ever meet in Minsk?

MR TONER: I think what it probably reflects, like the – it’s the Minsk commitments with Ukraine. I think it’s just where the – it was the birthplace of the group. But I’m not sure that they often go back to Minsk.

QUESTION: Yeah, I know. But I mean, it just seems odd. Maybe they should give it a different name.

MR TONER: Valid point, Matt.

QUESTION: The Vienna Group or something.

MR TONER: I’ll take it up with – (laughter) --

QUESTION: Please do.

MR TONER: -- Victoria Nuland.

QUESTION: Can I --

QUESTION: Can I follow up on Nagorno-Karabakh?

MR TONER: Yeah, sure. Yeah, please.

QUESTION: The – obviously, as you say, Moscow and Washington have been pretty much on the same hymn sheet, saying both sides should calm down. But President Erdogan of Turkey, a different position. He said that the Azeris should win and will win. Do you have any comment on your NATO ally’s stance in this conflict? Is it helpful?

MR TONER: I’ll just say that we strongly support the Minsk Group process to mediate a fair and just resolution to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, and that does not include picking sides or picking one side over another. Again, what I just tried to explain to Nike is that what we need are both governments, both leaders to come back to the negotiating table. So I’m not going to comment on President Erdogan’s comments.

QUESTION: Can I move to Iran for a second?

MR TONER: Yeah, of course.

QUESTION: Up on the Hill this morning, Under Secretary Shannon was asked about the – Russia’s sales of the S-300 and also proposed sales of the Sukhoi fighters and some tanks. He said that the S-3 – as you guys have been saying for some time, you frown on the S-300 sale, but it’s not against the rules because it’s a defensive system. But he then on – as it related to the fighters and the tanks, he said that that would be a violation and that you would veto this at the Security Council. The Russians have said since then – they’ve come back and said that no, it’s not a violation. I just wonder what’s your – his – Under Secretary Shannon’s response to the question about whether the U.S. would veto was very brief. I think he just said yes, we would. Can you offer any more detail about why it is that you – or how it is that you think that it’s a violation and that it should be vetoed or it should be stopped?

MR TONER: Well, as you started off, you said that the S-300 is a defensive missile system.

QUESTION: So the question is not really about that. The question is about --

MR TONER: Right. No, no, I understand that. So I haven’t seen Russia’s response to what Ambassador Shannon said up on the Hill today at the SFRC. And I’d have to look in and get you a more detailed response on what we believe – why we believe these particular weapons systems would be in violation of existing sanctions.

QUESTION: Okay. So you don’t --

MR TONER: I don’t have an answer for you.

QUESTION: But he was correct, actually, that you would move to stop such sales if they --

MR TONER: If he said yes, then he was correct, yes.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR TONER: I’m not going to second-guess him.

QUESTION: On Lebanon.

MR TONER: Yes, sir.

QUESTION: The security forces have arrested a trafficking-in-persons ring. Are you aware of this and do you have any comment?

MR TONER: Sure. I am aware of it. It’s actually a pretty horrific story. It’s – you’re talking about this human trafficking ring that was broken up, yeah, in Beirut which had imprisoned dozens of Syrian women who were rescued.

First of all, commend the Lebanese security services for rescuing these women and girls and referring them to appropriate nongovernmental organizations and humanitarian services there in Beirut. We encourage, of course, Lebanese authorities to conduct a thorough investigation into this matter and all the perpetrators involved in the case and prosecute and convict the offenders as appropriate under Lebanese law. And we are going to continue to monitor closely the vulnerabilities of the Syrian refugee population in the countries to which they flee, which obviously includes Lebanon.

I know I can just say that our Trafficking in Persons Office here in 2014 did fund the International Centre for Migration Policy Development, which is conducting research into the – on the impact of the Syrian war on trafficking in persons in Syria as well as neighboring countries. So it’s something we’ve been watching closely. It’s just a horrific story. We applaud the Lebanese authorities’ quick response.

QUESTION: Thanks.

MR TONER: Yes, sir.

QUESTION: Still in the region.

MR TONER: Yes, sir.

QUESTION: I’ve got a couple different subjects but still in the region. Egypt. You may have seen that the Egyptian authorities moved today to shut down a center that treats torture victims. I presume you have.

MR TONER: I have not.

QUESTION: You have not. Can you look into that and see if you guys have anything to say about that?

MR TONER: I will, certainly. I will. Yes, absolutely take the question.

QUESTION: And then just in terms of as it relates to Egypt and the Secretary’s trip – I realize he’s not going there and Egypt isn’t part of the GCC.

MR TONER: Right.

QUESTION: But do you expect that the situation in Egypt will come up with any of his interlocutors, even if they are not Egyptian?

MR TONER: Are you talking about the --

QUESTION: On his trip to the region.

MR TONER: -- political – no, but I’m just wondering what aspect of Egypt, I mean --

QUESTION: Well, you’ve put out this --

MR TONER: Of course.

QUESTION: He, himself, put out a statement that was highly – that expressed very deep concern about the situation there. And I’m just wondering if that’s the kind of thing that he would bring up with --

MR TONER: I can’t exclude that it would come up on the margins or in some of his bilats on the ground. I don't know that there’s any plan to discuss it amongst all the members of the GCC.

QUESTION: Okay. And then on Israel.

MR TONER: Yes, sir.

QUESTION: Two things, two separate things.

MR TONER: Yes, sir.

QUESTION: One is you might be aware that there’s an exhibit going on at the United Nations right now and the Israelis are complaining that the UN has barred two panels from this exhibit, one dealing with Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and another one on Arab Israelis and their role in the life of the country of Israel. I’m wondering – I know this doesn’t directly relate to the United States, but I’m wondering if you have taken any position or view on this decision and if you’re doing anything about it.

MR TONER: We haven’t yet. I mean, we’re aware of the issue that you raise. Obviously, we weren’t involved in the decision to pull any of these panels.

QUESTION: Right.

MR TONER: So that’s a UN issue. I’d have to refer you to them. I have not seen the exhibit. So we weren’t involved in the decision. I mean, in speaking broadly about whether we have any opinion, our position on Jerusalem hasn’t changed, obviously, the status of Jerusalem. But I can’t speak to the specific panels. I just haven’t seen them. If we have anything to comment on them, we’ll let you know.

QUESTION: I’ve heard – I don't know if this is true – but the Israelis have approached you for some kind of help or assistance or – and I was just wondering if that is --

MR TONER: I’ll double-check that, Matt. I don't have any knowledge of it.

QUESTION: This question may be better directed to USUN, but anyway --

MR TONER: Sure. But we will follow up as well.

QUESTION: The next one, which is related --

MR TONER: Yes, sir.

QUESTION: My question, which is semi-related to this, has to do – well, doesn’t have to do with the UN. It doesn’t – but it does have to do with the U.S. diplomatic mission in Saudi.

MR TONER: Right.

QUESTION: And this book fair.

MR TONER: Right.

QUESTION: I meant to ask about this yesterday, but we were running short of time.

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: So were you guys aware of the content of what was in all of the stalls at this book fair? And if so, why was that okay?

MR TONER: So, first of all, this is a – actually, first of all, we condemn anti-Semitism in all of its forms, as well as any other hate speech. Second is representatives of the U.S. Embassy in Riyadh have participated in the International Riyadh Book Fair for multiple years as part of an effort to essentially distribute books to Saudi citizens that include books about democracy, tolerance, diversity, human rights, et cetera. The book fair itself is run by the Saudi Government’s Ministry of Culture and Information. So what I want to clearly state is we were just a participant. We weren’t aware that these books were going to be featured in this book fair. So we’re not a partner, we’re not a funder, we’re not a sponsor. We’re just simply a participant and we obviously, as I said, condemn any kind of anti-Semitic literature.

QUESTION: Well, do you know if there was any complaint made to the organizers – to the Saudis about this?

MR TONER: That I don’t know. You mean on our part? I don't know that. I’ll check. I mean, I just did, but --

QUESTION: Yeah. Or if you even regard this as something that is – well, yeah, but you --

MR TONER: Sure. No, I understand. I’m not trying to be facetious.

QUESTION: You said you condemn it in general, but I mean --

MR TONER: Yeah. No, no, no.

QUESTION: -- this has been – and I remember that --

MR TONER: Well, I get --

QUESTION: -- this has been a problem in the past --

MR TONER: But --

QUESTION: -- or an issue in the past.

MR TONER: But – sorry, I don’t mean to cut you off.

QUESTION: And as you say that you participated in this event for multiple years. I can remember this happening before. I mean, does – do you think that this is something that the U.S. Government, through the State Department, should make an issue of, make – take it to the Saudis?

MR TONER: Well, I do. And I can say that – I can – just to further clarify, we condemn any anti-Semitic literature that may have been present at this event, as I said, just as we would broadly condemn any anti-Semitic literature or anti-Semitism in all its forms around the world. Again, I’m not aware of the history here. My understanding is that we were not aware that these books were going to be featured at the fair. And I can also check on whether we raised this directly, our concerns, with the Saudi Government.

QUESTION: Thanks.

MR TONER: Yep.

QUESTION: Will you return to the fair next year?

MR TONER: I think we would weigh this very heavily, considering this incident.

QUESTION: Well, okay, but I mean, I –

MR TONER: I mean, look, this is – yeah.

QUESTION: I get that answer, but I can remember asking this question in previous years, because it seems to be something that happens like every single --

MR TONER: Was it last year?

QUESTION: Yes.

MR TONER: I’m not – sorry.

QUESTION: I mean, it’s not something that has just popped up out of the blue. It seems to be --

MR TONER: No, I understand. I understand that. I would --

QUESTION: -- a recurrent theme here.

MR TONER: Yeah. No, I understand that. Again, our intention – the embassy’s intention for participating in this was to use it as a venue to --

QUESTION: I -- do you believe, other than these books or this literature that you condemn that, in fact, the fair does bring books about democracy and pluralism and --

MR TONER: Well, sure, because we bring them.

QUESTION: Oh, you bring them.

MR TONER: I can’t speak to the broader --

QUESTION: What are the sales of that, I wonder.

MR TONER: No, I really can’t speak to the broader content. I’d have to check on that as well.

QUESTION: Do people buy them?

MR TONER: I’d have to check on that as well. I mean, I think, yes. I mean, I – look, we wouldn’t do it if we weren’t – if it wasn’t a productive engagement with Saudi society.

QUESTION: So that’s --

MR TONER: There was no return, frankly --

QUESTION: Right.

MR TONER: -- to our investment of time, whatever. We probably wouldn’t do it, so – yeah.

QUESTION: Okay. I don’t want to dwell on this, but when you say, “You bring those kinds of books,” does that mean that the embassy has its own stall that it’s also --

MR TONER: Well, we do have – that’s – again, we have participated in the Riyadh book fair --

QUESTION: Yeah, right.

MR TONER: -- and I believe that includes --

QUESTION: So --

MR TONER: So we do have --

QUESTION: So you bring the books on, say --

MR TONER: We have a booth at the fair, sell a wide assortment of American books, biography, children books, other materials, study in the U.S., and we do pay a fee for just that space.

QUESTION: Right. Guides to women’s rights; that kind of thing?

MR TONER: I can imagine all those things. Matt, I – that’s all I got.

QUESTION: Now, in terms of (inaudible) --

QUESTION: It would be interesting to – it would actually be interesting to see what kind of a sample of what it is that the U.S. --

MR TONER: We can try to get that for you.

QUESTION: -- Embassy promotes --

MR TONER: We can try to get that for you.

QUESTION: -- what kind of books they promote and so on.

MR TONER: We can try to get that for you.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Mark, on Yemen?

MR TONER: Yes, sir. On Yemen?

QUESTION: Do you have anything on the government shakeup? President Hadi has replaced former deputy president and prime minister --

MR TONER: Yeah. No, I’d refer you to the Government of Yemen on that for any questions within – changes within the government. Our focus right now is clearly we continue to support this planned nationwide cessation of hostilities. I think it’s set for April 10th. And that’s in advance of the next round of peace talks. That’s where our focus is.

QUESTION: But Mr. Bahah has refused these decisions and said that they are unconstitutional.

MR TONER: I don’t have any more clarity on that. I can check and see if we have any response to that. But again, we’re not – I don’t think we’re going to comment directly on internal processes within the Yemeni Government. As I said, our focus is getting the cessation of hostilities into place, delivery of humanitarian assistance, and then peace talks.

QUESTION: Speaking of the --

MR TONER: Yes, sir.

QUESTION: -- internal processes of government, do you have anything – I doubt you do – but do you have anything to say about the resignation of the prime minister of Iceland?

MR TONER: Well, I do, in fact.

QUESTION: You do? Oh.

MR TONER: Well, I mean, I don’t want to over-promise. (Laughter)

QUESTION: What’s happened to --

QUESTION: What exactly --

MR TONER: I feel like I --

QUESTION: What exactly do you have to say?

MR TONER: I don’t know. I feel like I’m going to let you down now. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Are you ready to convict him of wrongdoing?

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR TONER: Not at all. No, I mean, just to say we obviously have seen reports. We’re closely following political developments in Iceland. We would refer you obviously to the Government of Iceland for further details.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR TONER: But Iceland is a valued NATO ally. It’s a global partner of the United States. We recognize their strong contributions to the NATO mission in Afghanistan --

QUESTION: That’s with the --

MR TONER: -- and their partnership in the counter-ISIL coalition. And Iceland does have a strong commitment to democratic values. We have full confidence that this matter will be handled transparently --

QUESTION: I am not trying to pick on Iceland here.

MR TONER: -- and in strict accordance with the rule of law. Yes, sir.

QUESTION: I’m not trying to pick on Iceland here.

MR TONER: That’s okay.

QUESTION: But as a valued NATO ally, can you recall – do you – what’s the size of the Icelandic military?

MR TONER: It’s not always a matter of size; it’s capabilities, Matt.

QUESTION: It’s – right, but I don’t think they have one.

QUESTION: I met an --

QUESTION: They have police.

QUESTION: I met an Icelandic soldier in Iraq and when I --

MR TONER: God bless you for bringing that up. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Next time – next time I saw the spokeswoman for the Government of Iceland I said, “I met one of your soldiers in Iraq.” She said, “Oh, Steinmar?” I said, “Yeah, that was him.” (Laughter.)

QUESTION: All right, well, there you have it.

MR TONER: Again – again, each NATO member brings unique capabilities, and that’s what about – that’s --

QUESTION: That certainly is unique, that’s for sure. (Laughter.)

MR TONER: Doesn’t --

QUESTION: One is very unique.

QUESTION: Mark, do you expect --

MR TONER: Yes, sir.

QUESTION: -- other resignations elsewhere?

MR TONER: I can’t predict.

QUESTION: You refrain?

MR TONER: Obviously – look, I mean, we’re going to refrain from commenting on some of the specific details of these papers – leaked documents as we do, beyond what I said yesterday.

QUESTION: Well, actually, on this – this is kind of --

MR TONER: Yes, sir.

QUESTION: You have in the past, in terms of similar --

MR TONER: Have we?

QUESTION: -- things like – well, with WikiLeaks and with the Snowden stuff --

MR TONER: Right.

QUESTION: -- you have said that this is not really leaks, this is stolen – do you believe that these documents were stolen and that whoever did it should be prosecuted under the Panamanian law?

MR TONER: I think that’s a question – frankly, we – I don’t have the visibility on that.

QUESTION: You don’t?

MR TONER: I think it’s a question for the Panamanian Government to answer.

QUESTION: The French Government just added Panama back to its blacklist of countries which are seen as tax havens, right?

MR TONER: Oh, is that right? I thought you were – I thought this was --

QUESTION: I didn’t know they’d taken them off it, but they’ve put it back on now saying that it’s a blacklisted business. Maybe it’s a question for Treasury, but do you have any plans to review financial relations with Panama?

MR TONER: It is mostly a question for president – for president – it is a question for Treasury. However – and I did talk about this a little bit yesterday, saying while we’re not going to comment on specific findings, we do – and it’s the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control would look at this. It’s part of their mission to detect and respond to potential sanctions violations. But of course, we would also look at any credible allegations of corruption and take action accordingly.

All right, guys? Is that it?

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR TONER: Thanks. Yeah, thanks.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:26 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 - April 4, 2016

Mark C. Toner

Deputy Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC

April 4, 2016









Index for Today's Briefing

DEPARTMENT



RUSSIA/REGION



SYRIA



IRAN/REGION



MIDDLE EAST PEACE



ARMENIA/AZERBAIJAN/REGION



DEPARTMENT



TURKEY




TRANSCRIPT:

2:14 p.m. EST

MR TONER: Hello.

QUESTION: Hello.

MR TONER: Hey, guys, and please indulge me. I’ve got to get out of here very quickly, so if I could ask for you guys to not pepper me too much today. Good afternoon.

QUESTION: Pepper you?

MR TONER: Pepper me with questions. Good afternoon, guys. At the top just a couple quick things. First of all, Secretary Kerry is going to deliver global policy – rather, the global policy keynote – Bloomberg New Energy and Finance’s Future of Energy Summit at the Grand Hyatt Hotel in New York City tomorrow at 10:30 a.m. His remarks will focus on the link between energy choices and climate change, the path forward in the wake of the historic Paris agreement, and the transition toward a global low-carbon economy. Since 2008, BNEF’s Global Future of Energy Summit has convened key decision makers from the business, finance, and policy communities to focus intently on critical energy challenges ranging from power, transportation – what else? – and regulation to energy finance and energy security. And just FYI, that speech will be livestreamed on state.gov.

Also, very quickly, but I did want to note that today, April 4th, 2016, marks the 100th anniversary of the origin of the Diplomatic Security Service, so it’s part of a year-long commemoration of the DSS centennial. As you all know, DSS is an integral part of the U.S. Department of State, serving as our department’s security and law enforcement arm. The protection of people, property, and information is, of course, a top priority. The men and women of DSS facilitate our work not only in Washington, D.C., of course, and New York, but also in 29 other U.S. cities as well as 275 U.S. diplomatic missions worldwide. So we pay tribute to them, certainly, today as well as this entire year.

Matt, my first question to you: Who’s going to win tonight?

QUESTION: I’m so far out.

MR TONER: Aw, c’mon.

QUESTION: North Carolina. Tar Heels.

QUESTION: I’ve gotten completely destroyed. (Laughter.) But I did notice that Notre Dame is not playing tonight.

MR TONER: I know, I know. And I’m a Philly guy, so I mean, I’m going to go with Nova, but that’s --

QUESTION: All right. Well --

MR TONER: Good luck to both teams. Anyway, go ahead, Matt.

QUESTION: Got to go for the Big East.

MR TONER: That’s right.

QUESTION: I wanted to start with – the Secretary spoke to Foreign Minister Lavrov this morning, I believe, or today – some point today, and – at least according to the Russians he did.

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: And I am curious – apart from wanting to know what they might have said about Syria and the situation there, what they may have said about the situation with Armenia and Azerbaijan now. I saw the statement from over the weekend, but has there been any change in what – how the U.S. sees this?

MR TONER: Sure. Well, they did speak today via phone, obviously, to discuss – and topic number one was to discuss efforts to secure an immediate end of the violence that has erupted along the Nagorno-Karabakh line of conflict and encourage both Armenia and Azerbaijan to get back to – resume, rather, settlement talks under the auspices of the OSCE. I can go deeper into Armenia and Azerbaijan or Nagorno-Karabakh, but I can also read out the rest of the call, so it’s up to you whether I do that.

QUESTION: Both, please.

MR TONER: Okay, great. They also discussed the ongoing – or rather, the cessation of hostilities, current status of them, in Syria and the urgent need for the Assad regime to stop its violations of the cessation. He – the Secretary stressed the importance of expanding and improving on humanitarian access. Obviously, that’s something we want to see solidified, including access to medical supplies to all Syrians in need and the urgent need, obviously, for progress toward a political transition in Syria. And then they did also discuss Ukraine briefly at the end, and of course, Secretary Kerry urged Russia to comply with its Minsk commitments.

Just to – you had mentioned whether – I mean, you mentioned whether we had anything new to say about Nagorno-Karabakh. I mean, certainly, as you saw in the Secretary’s statement yesterday, we condemned in the strongest terms the violence from this weekend. Obviously a very high number of casualties, including civilians, which is deplorable. And we urge both sides to stop using force immediately and to avoid any kind of further escalation.

QUESTION: All right. On the cessation of hostilities in Syria.

MR TONER: Yeah, sure.

QUESTION: Are you aware of any violations of it since the incident --

MR TONER: Two days ago?

QUESTION: -- you put a statement out about a couple days ago?

MR TONER: Which statement are you referring to? I’m sorry, Matt, to be --

QUESTION: I think there may have been one last week. Have there been instances of COH violations in the last – like, over the weekend, the last few days?

MR TONER: I think we did see some reports over the weekend about some additional fighting between opposition and regime forces. Obviously we’re working and continue to work in Geneva and through other channels to just ensure continued compliance. So we’re obviously concerned by those recent clashes.

QUESTION: To the best of your knowledge, has the task force in Geneva actually confirmed a single violation of this cessation of hostilities?

MR TONER: By “confirmed,” what do you --

QUESTION: Well, have they found --

MR TONER: We haven’t given --

QUESTION: There have been a lot of --

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: Both – everyone’s been sending allegations in.

MR TONER: Sure, sure.

QUESTION: Has the task force actually agreed that any violations have happened so far?

MR TONER: I think so. I believe that’s the case. I mean, we’ve – we haven’t, obviously, issued a score card or anything like that. What we have seen is that the Assad regime continues to be the biggest quote/unquote “violator.”

QUESTION: You guys say that --

MR TONER: That’s right.

QUESTION: -- but I haven’t heard that coming from the actual – the task force that you and the Russians --

MR TONER: And I’m not aware that the task force is going to necessarily – I mean, what the task force does is within the various parties vet these and try to address them by going back to the involved parties on the ground and try to mitigate or have them de-escalate.

QUESTION: So there’s been no consequence – so there has been no consequence for any of the – what you believe to be violations of the agreement so far?

MR TONER: By “no consequence,” you mean --

QUESTION: Well, it was my understanding or it was I think the broader understanding that if people were found to be in violation, they would be kicked out of the agreement, basically, that they would no longer be covered. You don’t – that has not happened?

MR TONER: That has not happened.

Yeah, go ahead, James.

QUESTION: Thanks.

MR TONER: Welcome.

QUESTION: Thanks. Nice to be back with you. And forgive me in advance if some of the ground I cover with you has been covered recently.

MR TONER: That’s okay.

QUESTION: On Iran, when the deal was announced in July, was it contemplated anywhere in the main text or in any of the annex papers that Iran might somehow enjoy access to U.S. dollars?

MR TONER: I don’t have the JCPOA in front of me. But what I can say is that the Administration has not been and is not planning to grant Iran access to the U.S. financial system. I would refer you, obviously, to the Department of Treasury, who can speak far more – in greater – with greater expertise on this matter than I am – than I can.

QUESTION: Has any official in the United States Government, to your knowledge, declared that the recent series of missile tests by Iran, including of ballistic missiles, have been in violation of the relevant UN Security Council resolution?

MR TONER: Yes. I mean, we have – I mean, you’re talking about the latest round of --

QUESTION: As opposed to – yeah, as opposed to being inconsistent with.

MR TONER: Oh, okay. I’m sorry, I apologize. They were found to be inconsistent with, again, a separate piece of the JCPOA, but we always said we were never going to back away from other behavior, bad behavior on the part of Iran, even if it’s not part of the JCPOA. And we’re going to continue to apply sanctions as – and we’ve retained that ability to apply sanctions as appropriate.

QUESTION: But as you know, some have made an issue of the language employed, that declaring something to be inconsistent with the law is not as strong a measure as declaring it to be in violation of that law. I assume you’re sensitive to the distinction, and if so, you can explain why the Administration sees fit to make it.

MR TONER: Well, I’m aware, and we’ve had these – some of these discussions here, as you noted. Look, I mean, just what I think is the most important aspect to emphasize in all of this are two things. One is that the agreement we reached regarding Iran’s nuclear program will, we’re convinced – if Iran continues to comply with it, and thus far it has – prohibit Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. That was the goal from the outset of this. That said, as we negotiated this agreement, we also retained the ability to apply sanctions, continue to apply sanctions, and recognize the fact that we’re under no illusions that Iran is going to change its behavior in other fields such as some of its nefarious actions in the region via Hizballah and other involvement in Syria, elsewhere, but also its testing of ballistic missiles.

So we can parse the language, but I think what’s important here to emphasize is the fact that we still retain the ability to apply pressure through sanctions on Iran for its behavior.

QUESTION: It sounds somewhat dismissive when we talk about parsing language, but that’s a good deal of what diplomats and lawyers in this building do.

MR TONER: Of course.

QUESTION: And so certainly the United States has not been shy about describing past Iranian behaviors or the behaviors of other countries as warranted as violations of relevant UN Security Council resolutions, which carry the force of international law. Why the hesitancy in this case? Why go with the sort of weaselly language of “inconsistent with”?

MR TONER: I’m not sure it’s – I would term it “weaselly.” Look --

QUESTION: You’re not sure?

MR TONER: I am sure. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: How about ferret-like. (Laughter.) Weaselly doesn’t --

QUESTION: That’s hyphenated.

QUESTION: Badger.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: Badger.

MR TONER: That’s right.

QUESTION: Don’t pepper him.

MR TONER: That’s right, don’t pepper me. Stop it. Again, inconsistent with – you’re right. I mean, it’s in the sense that it is very parsed and diplomatic language. It reflects the consensus that it took to reach agreement on how we would move forward in addressing some of our concerns about Iran’s behavior. But again, what is really critical in all of this is that we have given up no ability to carry out, where we see a need to, sanctions or our ability to sanction Iran when it acts, as I said – I mentioned a number of areas, but you mentioned ballistic missiles – when it acts in a way that we believe undermines regional stability.

QUESTION: The reason for this series of questions, and I’d like to wrap it up with this one --

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: -- and perhaps move to something else that will go by much more quickly, I assure you --

MR TONER: It’s okay.

QUESTION: -- is that, as you may know, Congressman Pompeo, member of the House Select Committee on Intelligence, has launched kind of an informal effort to determine whether lawmakers were the subject of, to put – to use the word he used, “deception” on the part of the Administration in the period where senior officials were testifying before Congress about what the deal would and would not include. So I guess the point-blank question to be put to you is: Did this Administration mislead the Congress or deceive the Congress about the terms of this deal?

MR TONER: So two things. One, of course we’ll respond to Congressman Pompeo’s concerns, as we do with any congressional inquiry or concern. To your very pointed question, no. We made every effort, and I can give you the statistics in terms of numbers of hearings of high-level U.S. officials, including the Secretary on multiple occasions, including Secretary Moniz, made ourselves available to members on the Hill to explain every aspect of the JCPOA agreement and made every effort in engaging with Congress to be as transparent as possible about what we were trying to achieve through the actual agreement but also the fact that we would retain every ability to continue to exert sanctions and pressure on Iran when we saw it exhibiting bad behavior.

QUESTION: You may retain the ability. I think what’s coming under question here is the willpower to do so.

MR TONER: Again, we --

QUESTION: If you’re not even going to call a violation a violation, but you’re going to call a violation something that’s inconsistent with the law, then doesn’t that legitimately call into question your willpower to do the right thing?

MR TONER: Not at all. And I think you saw with the ballistic – the recent tests is that we actually did follow through and are taking action. And we’re going to continue to do that through the UN Security Council but also unilaterally.

QUESTION: Mark, I have a follow-up on this --

MR TONER: That’s okay. Yeah, sure, sure.

QUESTION: You said in response to one of James’s earlier questions that the U.S. Government has no plans to grant Iran access to the U.S. financial system. Does that mean that – does that statement rule out granting non-U.S. companies – like, say, a European bank – the ability to do transactions with the United States where the end party on one side of the transaction is Iran? In other words, a European company wants to buy something from Iran or wants to do something with Iran. They want to do a payment; the payment has to go through dollars at some point. Is it okay or are you considering the – is your statement meant to imply that you would not allow a European bank to clear or handle such a transaction?

MR TONER: The President actually spoke to this question on Friday. The specificity of your question I’m not certain of, but he did mention the fact that there are other available options for some of these companies that are separate and apart from the U.S. financial system. As to the specifics of your question, I’d have to look into it, I’d have to take that question. I just don’t have the level of detail.

QUESTION: Well, then what --

QUESTION: Then let’s make it less specific.

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: You might have to defer to Treasury on this, but access – allowing Iran to have access to transactions that are conducted in dollars is not allowing them access to the U.S. financial system. Is that correct?

MR TONER: That’s my understanding.

QUESTION: So in other words – okay, so that’s the deal.

MR TONER: That’s my understanding.

QUESTION: But one other thing --

QUESTION: So you would make clear or the Administration intends to make clear to banks, to foreign banks, that if they want to handle transactions where the ultimate payee is in Iran, that those transactions can use dollars and it won’t run afoul of any U.S. law. Is that correct?

MR TONER: So, right. I mean, it’s not necessarily that we are going to take the approach of them going through dollar-denominated transactions, but it is possible for them to work through European financial institutions. And we’re going to work to continue to clarify that to the – to any businesses.

QUESTION: That doesn’t answer Matt’s question though.

QUESTION: I think that you’re – what you’re getting at is you’re saying that the Administration is at least considering, and may actually go ahead with, plans to clarify or to issue a new rule that would make it clear that foreign banks would not face any kind of penalties from the United States if they cleared currency transactions in dollars, even if the payee, the ultimate recipient of the money, is in Iran.

MR TONER: Again, I – for that level of specificity and for – I mean, we’re not there yet. I’d have to refer you to Treasury for any --

QUESTION: One other question --

QUESTION: No such plan or inkling of such a plan was put before the Congress at the time you were testifying on behalf of the Iran deal, correct?

MR TONER: But again, I mean, the – the JCPOA specified what steps in terms of companies or businesses, what they were able to do if Iran has complied with or meet – met its obligations with – or through the JCPOA.

QUESTION: Right.

MR TONER: And as it – yeah.

QUESTION: And my first question to you was whether any language appeared in the main text of that document or the annex documents suggesting that Treasury might make it permissible for Iran to access U.S. dollars through selected foreign banks. Was that part of the deal that was briefed to lawmakers at any point?

MR TONER: I’d have to look back and see if it was in the original text. I don’t have that in front of me.

QUESTION: You don’t recall it having been in that text, though, do you?

MR TONER: I don’t recall it.

QUESTION: So one --

MR TONER: But that said, what it did clearly lay out was a clear – a – rather, a clear list of actions that Iran had to take in order to comply with the JCPOA, and if those actions were taken, that certain sanctions would be lifted but also that certain companies could do business with Iran. And as I said, the President spoke to this I thought very eloquently last Friday, when he said part of this is about Iran changing its behavior and convincing many of these companies that it is a place where it can do – where they can do business. And that includes, frankly, changing some of its – some of the actions that it takes and continues to take in the region. And he said – he talked about ballistic missile testing, he talked about other behavior that Iran continues to take that sends, frankly, a message to companies looking to invest in Iran that is unfavorable.

QUESTION: Change --

QUESTION: One other --

MR TONER: Yes, sir.

QUESTION: -- thing on this, please. Sorry. Just still in the weeds.

MR TONER: That’s okay. Sure, Arshad.

QUESTION: But it was in fact originally the State Department position put forth by Kirby that if it turned out that Iran had launched these ballistic missile tests, that that would be a violation. I mean, that’s in the transcript. That’s inarguable.

MR TONER: That is, yes. Yes.

QUESTION: And then subsequently he then moved to the “not in compliance with or in defiance of the resolution,” right? So just so we’re clear, as I understand it, it is not the U.S. Government’s position that ballistic missile tests are a violation of – I think it’s 2251. Is that not correct? It’s in defiance of, but it’s not a violation, correct?

MR TONER: I’d have to check the specific wording on that, Arshad. I think that’s correct.

QUESTION: Can we move --

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: Can we change topics?

QUESTION: No, I’ve just got one more on --

MR TONER: Yeah, sure --

QUESTION: I’ve spoken to European officials who say that they’re concerned that their bankers are unwilling to do business in Iran, that they were hoping that they would get a windfall, as the Iranians would, out of the JCPOA. But their bankers are concerned that they’d be arrested by Preet Bharara next time they set foot in New York. Have – when you say this needs to be clarified, is this because of requests from the private sector, from foreign governments, from Iran, or just from questioning in rooms like this one?

MR TONER: Well, I mean, it’s also incumbent on us – and we’ve been actually working with banks and governments around the world to provide this kind of guidance and ensure that they do understand clearly what – or to the extent – or the extent, rather, of U.S. sanctions relief provided under the deal, but also the appropriate – so that the appropriate relief, I guess, is, rather, put into effect under the JCPOA. And that’s going to continue. We’re going to continue to have these discussions with these companies and with banks and governments around the world to – as we move forward to make sure that they understand the playing field.

QUESTION: Issuing that clarification in the form of waivers, or just public guidance?

MR TONER: Public guidance.

QUESTION: Can I move on to the Palestinian-Israeli issue?

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: Very quickly, I met today with --

QUESTION: You sure about public guidance and not the issuance of waivers or a general license by the Treasury?

MR TONER: Sorry, I mean – I’d have to refer you to the Treasury on that. I don’t have that specificity.

QUESTION: Something --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- that is a bit more mundane. Let me – I wonder if you are aware that a Palestinian deacon, the head of the Palestinian Presbyterian Church, is in town. I think he will be meeting with some officials at the State Department and so on. Apparently they – there is a foundation called the Irving Moskowitz Foundation, was able to get $10 million together and so on and transact some sort of a transaction deal which the church was not aware of, and they purchased the land. And consequently they threw the church out. I mean, these are American foundations that under all kinds of fraudulent cover claim to purchase land in the West Bank and so on, and consequently the Presbyterian Church in Bethlehem cannot use its facilities. I wonder if you’re aware of that or if you have any comment.

MR TONER: I think you’re talking about the Palestinian Presbyterian Church of Bethlehem?

QUESTION: Right. Beit Baraka, yes.

MR TONER: I can say that Ambassador Saperstein, who’s here in town, is meeting with I think the son of George Awad.

QUESTION: Right. Danny Awad, yes.

MR TONER: And I think – Danny. Thank you. Danny Awad. And that’s going to be later this afternoon. And we’ve already spoken to this issue, I think back in January. But we remain very concerned about this decision to kind of expand existing – the existing settlement boundary of the Gush Etzion Regional Council to include a former church compound.

QUESTION: Okay. Well, see, the issue is the land, the West Bank, is still governed by Jordanian law. And Jordanian law prohibits the sale of church property. In this case, I don’t know how they come up – they came up with some fraudulent documents and so on. So will this – this is the issue that Ambassador Saperstein will be discussing with Father Awad today?

MR TONER: I mean, I – he’s clearly going to talk about this action that is going to obviously push the church off of its – off of the – its property. I can’t tell you to what level of detail they’re going to get into but, obviously, we are always concerned when we see decisions that, as I said, seek to expand settlement – existing settlement boundaries, and certainly when that involves --

QUESTION: Question --

MR TONER: -- pushing churches off their land. That’s concerning.

QUESTION: A couple more questions on the Palestinian issue.

MR TONER: Yep.

QUESTION: There are, according to UNICEF, according to the UN, 400 Palestinian children under the age of 18 in Israeli prisons, among them a 12-year-old girl, Dima Wawi. Do you have any comment on that?

MR TONER: Other than to say we have an ongoing dialogue, I would say, with the Government of Israel about our concerns on this specific issue, and we also discuss it in detail in our Human Rights Report.

QUESTION: And my last is the excessive use of force. Since the confrontation between the Palestinians and the Israeli occupation army erupted in September, 209 Palestinians have been killed, among them 48 children under the age of 18, mostly execution-style. Does that propel you in any way to sort of – or does it cast any kind of urgency on your response to the Senator Leahy letter of last – that came in last week?

MR TONER: I think Elizabeth spoke in detail about the Senator Leahy letter and our response to that, I mean, on Friday. I would just say overall it certainly adds urgency to our efforts to have both sides de-escalate tensions in the region. Certainly, as we’ve said many times, Israel has a right to defend itself against these attacks and violence against its people. But we’ve also many times called on Israeli security forces to exercise restraint. And so we do have concerns about the mounting violence in the region.

QUESTION: Have you responded to that letter?

MR TONER: Not that I’m aware of. No, not yet.

QUESTION: It’s been over a month.

MR TONER: It’s been --

QUESTION: How long does it usually take?

QUESTION: Since the 17th of February.

MR TONER: Yeah, it’s been a couple months. I mean, I can’t give you a timeline on these kinds of letters.

QUESTION: You have spellcheck, yes?

MR TONER: That’s peppering. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: I mean, did you even let him know that you received it?

QUESTION: On Japan?

MR TONER: Sure. Sure. Let me finish and answer his question and I’ll get to you guys. I mean, yes. I mean, we’re – of course we’re engaged with Leahy’s staff and talking to Congress and engaged in our response in this letter. But we’re going to do --

QUESTION: But the Department has not yet – has yet to respond to the letter; is that correct?

MR TONER: My understanding is that it has not yet.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: But you can clarify that it is a response and not an investigation that you are doing, right? You will not investigate --

MR TONER: It’s a response. I mean, we’re always --

QUESTION: Right.

MR TONER: I mean, we have a team --

QUESTION: If you don’t understand, you could say --

MR TONER: No, no, no, that’s okay. But we --

QUESTION: Your response could say, we received the letter and we hereby acknowledge it and so on. But it’s a different thing altogether to, let’s say, go by the law that was passed in 1997.

MR TONER: So, again, we will respond to the letter when appropriate or when we are able to. But our vetting via Leahy goes on all the time, that we have a team of people working constantly on vetting – or rather conducting Leahy vetting of various organizations, of various groups around the world not just regarding Israel and Egypt, and that work continues around the – or not around the clock, obviously, but continuously.

QUESTION: Gotcha.

QUESTION: Nagorno --

QUESTION: Mark, on Turkey?

QUESTION: -- Karabakh?

QUESTION: I have question, Karabakh.

MR TONER: Let’s to Karabakh, Turkey, and then over to you.

QUESTION: Right. The fighting continues even after the weekend. There was a unilateral announcement from the Azerbaijan president but – and then I wonder if you see the announcement from president of Armenia that the ongoing fighting may escalate into a full-scale war. And he has also warned Armenia may recognize the independence of Nagorno-Karabakh. I wonder if you have any response.

MR TONER: Well, I would just say we’ve expressed our concern about the escalating violence. Ultimately, it is up to the leaders of these two countries, Armenia and Azerbaijan, to find the political will to reach peace, to reach a ceasefire, and to achieve a lasting peace to this ongoing conflict. For our part, we’re going to continue as one of the co-chairs of the Minsk Group to make efforts to get both sides back to the negotiating process.

QUESTION: Last week, Secretary was welcoming the president of Azerbaijan here at the State Department. I wonder if he reached out to both sides after the conflict has escalated over the weekend.

MR TONER: Whether the Secretary --

QUESTION: Secretary of State did.

MR TONER: -- himself has reached out to both sides?

QUESTION: Right.

MR TONER: Let me just check this handy-dandy – he hasn’t spoken to either leader. But obviously, it came up during their – I mean --

QUESTION: Mark --

MR TONER: -- excuse me – it came up during their discussions, during the bilat. But since the violence escalated over the weekend, I don’t believe he’s talked to either leader.

QUESTION: Yeah, but your response if Armenia recognized the independence of Nagorno-Karabakh and normalized relations?

MR TONER: I think what’s important here is that, first of all, the violence stops. We don’t want to see any kind of escalation. We want to see de-escalation. We want to see a credible ceasefire return. There is also a process here via the Minsk Group that can lead to, we believe, a peaceful negotiated settlement with respect to Nagorno-Karabakh. So we would urge both sides to return to that process, de-escalate the situation, and then hopefully work out a political – or a resolution to the ongoing hostilities.

QUESTION: It’s on Nagorno as well.

MR TONER: Yeah, in the back. Yeah.

QUESTION: Mark, on the first of April, Russia’s ally, Armenia, started attacks against Azerbaijan again. They are killing civilians, destroying schools and houses. The normal life of the local population has been disrupted. Don’t you think that it is a reaction to the successful visit of the President Aliyev to Washington? And what is the United States position to the continuing Armenian aggression?

MR TONER: So it’s certainly not for me to speak to what the motivations might be behind this recent escalation, except to simply reiterate our strong belief that both sides need to de-escalate, end the violence, return to a ceasefire. And that, again, there is a mechanism in place – the Minsk Group – through which we’ve been working very hard with both sides to reach a peace settlement, or a settlement, to this conflict. And we would urge both sides to return to that.

The violence over the weekend only exacerbates the situation, only increases tensions. We need, again, both governments, both presidents to step back from further escalation and return to what is already an established process to reach a peaceful settlement.

QUESTION: Same topic.

MR TONER: Yeah, please.

QUESTION: Okay. On March 30th, you guys issued a statement attributable to John Kerry, and in the statement John Kerry actually expresses full support of the United States Government to territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. And he also expresses commitment of the U.S. Government to working with the sides to reach a comprehensive settlement based on international law, UN Charter, and Helsinki Final Act. So as you know, there are four UN Security Council resolutions – 822, 853, 874, 884 – which demand unconditional and immediate withdrawal of Armenian troops from Azerbaijan. So when you make statements calling the sides to restraint, why is it that State Department is not also asking, or demanding for that matter, the Armenian Government to comply with the UN Security Council resolutions? That – because they are at the core of the international law on this --

MR TONER: Sure. What I would say to that is we strongly support the Minsk Group process. We strongly support the co-chairs’ efforts to mediate a fair and just resolution to Nagorno-Karabakh that is based on the principles of international law, the UN Charter, and the Helsinki Final Act, particularly principles of non-use of force, territorial integrity, and self-determination. As I said, ultimately, this is up to the two leaders and the two governments to find the political will to reach that lasting peace. We are willing, through the Minsk Group process, to work with them to get there.

Guys, I’m really pressed for time.

QUESTION: Karabakh.

MR TONER: Karabakh.

QUESTION: Different subjects?

MR TONER: Let’s finish Karabakh.

QUESTION: No, on same subject, just to finish up. The call you read out earlier with Mr. Lavrov --

MR TONER: Yes, sir.

QUESTION: -- was that a call you were planning to have anyway about Syria and Ukraine, and then Azerbaijan and Armenia came up? Or did you initiate the call because of concerns about Azerbaijan and Armenia? And if it was for that, or if that obviously became a very important part of the call, do you think Russia is a partner in trying to end this conflict? There was something you – was there something you want Russia to do or want Russia not to do in terms of --

MR TONER: Well, I mean, we – I mean, Russia is part of the Minsk Group. Our own ambassador, James Warlick, is the – one of the co-chairs, but with Russia and with France we continue to work diligently to try to come up with proposals.

QUESTION: You had conversations with Mr. Lavrov but not with Mr. Aliyev or anyone in Armenia that --

MR TONER: Not that we’re – and I don’t know, frankly – I don’t have an answer for you in terms of whether this call was scheduled. I believe he did reach out to him this morning, but I don’t know if it was already scheduled or not.

But I mean, there is real concern, obviously, with the – or on the part of the Secretary, as we’ve seen with other leaders, including Russia, about the – this sharp escalation.

QUESTION: Different subject really quickly.

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: What role did the State Department have in the extradition of the hacker or the suspected hacker known as – I may get the pronunciation wrong here – Guccifer, from Romania?

MR TONER: I don’t have – no, I --

QUESTION: This was the hacker --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- who exposed the Clinton-Blumenthal correspondence and thereby the Clinton email account.

MR TONER: I don’t believe we had any – I mean, other than – this is an extradition of a hacker. I think it would be Department of Justice who would have the specifics on that.

QUESTION: The Department of Justice Panama papers, do you have anything on that?

MR TONER: Very briefly, we’re obviously not going to talk to – talk about the contents of any leaked documents. As you know, we assiduously avoid that for a variety of reasons, but what I would say is that it’s very important to note that the U.S. Government does focus on strengthening financial transparency and global compliance and investigating any possible illicit and sanctions evasion activity. And we use all sources of information, both public and non-public, to do so. That’s really a Department of Justice function. I think Treasury’s – or rather – forgive me – Department of Treasury function. I think its Office of Foreign Assets Control does carry out these kinds of efforts, drawing from both publicly available information, law enforcement, intelligence community sources, as well as other sources of information.

QUESTION: Mark?

MR TONER: You, sir, and then that’s it, I’ve got to – I’m sorry, Samir.

QUESTION: Thank you, Mark. Today, half a dozen Turkish journalists arrested and their house raided. This just happened a day or two after President Obama criticized Mr. Erdogan’s press record. Do you have any comment, and do you see any tie to – between these two events?

MR TONER: I can’t speak to whether there’s any tie. As you said – saw, the President made very clear that he’s concerned about this ongoing trend that’s counter to Turkey’s commitment to a free press. It’s part of any number of issues that we continue to discuss with Turkey, who’s a strong partner and NATO ally, but we do have concerns about the ongoing trend there.

QUESTION: About these arrests of today?

MR TONER: Not arrests today. I just – I don’t have any comment on that.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR TONER: Thanks, guys.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:54 p.m.)

DPB # 55

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 - April 1, 2016

Elizabeth Trudeau

Director, Press Office
Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC

April 1, 2016









Index for Today's Briefing

THE NETHERLANDS/UKRAINE



SUDAN



SECRETARY'S TRAVEL



RUSSIA/SYRIA



DEPARTMENT



MIDDLE EAST PEACE



TURKEY



DEPARTMENT



THE NETHERLANDS/UKRAINE



JAPAN



IRAQ/SYRIA/ISIL



THE NETHERLANDS/UKRAINE



DEPARTMENT




TRANSCRIPT:

2:30 p.m. EDT

MS TRUDEAU: Hello, all. Welcome to the State Department. My apologies for the delay. We had a little technical issue. My goal is to get you guys out as soon as we can to enjoy a beautiful Washington spring day.

So I have a few things at the top. First, on the April 6th referendum in the Netherlands on the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement. We believe the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement is critical to ensuring that Ukraine’s leaders continue to make the needed and important reforms that will contribute to a more peaceful democratic, prosperous, and stable continent. It will provide new economic opportunities for the Netherlands, for Ukraine, and for Europe as a whole. With its population of 46 million, a Ukraine that is bound by the rules of an association agreement is poised to become a key European trading partner. The United States and the Netherlands have worked together closely to support the people of Ukraine as they resolutely forge a more democratic and a more just society inspired by Western values.

Next, on Sudan. As many of you may know, Sudan has one of the highest rates of malnutrition in the world. To help address the complex emergency arising from conflict and widespread displacement in Sudan, USAID announced today that it’s providing nearly 68 million in emergency food assistance. The World Food Program will deliver the assistance to help 2.5 million Sudanese, as well as refugees from South Sudan and neighboring states. Since 2011, USAID has provided over 1 billion in food and nutrition assistance in Sudan.

Finally, a travel note. I think you saw the statement that came out about an hour ago. Secretary Kerry will travel next week to Manama, Bahrain, as well Hiroshima, Japan. From 6 to 8 April, the Secretary will hold bilateral meetings with senior Bahraini officials and will participate in a ministerial meeting of the Gulf Cooperation Council, where he’ll discuss a range of regional issues. Later in the week, he’ll participate in the G7 ministerial in Hiroshima.

And with that, Mr. Lee.

QUESTION: Well, it being April Fools’ Day and all, I don’t actually have anything except for a couple of follow-ups, so I’ll pass.

MS TRUDEAU: Okay. Great.

QUESTION: Can we – there are reports that the Secretary spoke to Foreign Minister Lavrov. Is that correct? Did they speak? When? And can you give us a readout?

MS TRUDEAU: Thank you, Arshad. I actually saw the Russians had released a brief statement on this. This is one of a series of conversations that the Secretary has had with the foreign minister particularly looking at the cessation of hostilities. So not a lot of detail to add, but I appreciate the question.

QUESTION: Cessation of hostilities in Syria?

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah.

QUESTION: And that was today?

MS TRUDEAU: That was today.

QUESTION: And did you see there was a report out earlier in the week in Al-Hayat suggesting that – or saying that the United States and Russia had reached an agreement on Assad’s eventual departure to a third country and that Secretary Kerry had begun briefing Arab officials about that? Is there any truth to that report, and did that issue of Assad’s future come up in today’s talks?

MS TRUDEAU: Okay. The report is absolutely false. The UN continues to lead negotiations on a political transition between the Syrian parties, which will resume in mid-April. So I appreciate the question. I can’t speak to if it came up today. I don’t have that level of granularity.

QUESTION: On this very issue --

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah. Hi, Said.

QUESTION: -- on this very issue – hi there. On this very issue, the day before yesterday I think it was you guys restated your position on Assad. So that – those two positions are independent of one another. The fact that you --

MS TRUDEAU: Our position on Assad has not changed.

QUESTION: No, no, I’m saying your position on Assad --

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- is that he should have no part of Syria in the future, right, I think?

MS TRUDEAU: Sure.

QUESTION: Now suppose – suppose --

MS TRUDEAU: Are you asking me a hypothetical?

QUESTION: Not a – well, I mean it’s --

MS TRUDEAU: It’s early in the brief to go to the hypotheticals.

QUESTION: I tell you what, when we say “suppose,” it is a hypothetical, but it looks more real because that’s the news that is coming out of Damascus, that Mr. Assad is intent on running for elections. Now suppose he is chosen in a transparent election by the Syrian people, because you keep saying this should be left up to the Syrian people to determine. Suppose he’s elected by the Syrians. Would you consider that to be null and void, much like they did with Hamas, let’s say, in Gaza?

MS TRUDEAU: So, one, hypothetical. And I appreciate you giving me the out on that. Two, let me speak to that, okay? Our position on Assad has not changed. Assad must be transitioned out. The decisions for how that will take place must be decided in the context of the UN political negotiations that will begin in mid-April. It’s important to remember all ISSG members support the transition as called for in the Geneva communique of 2012. And that document states very clearly there must be a transitional governing body, formed by mutual consent, with full executive powers.

So Justin, I know.

QUESTION: No, I was a different subject.

MS TRUDEAU: Oh, I’m sorry, are we staying on Syria, Samir?

QUESTION: On – yes, Syria/Russia.

MS TRUDEAU: Of course.

QUESTION: Do you have a readout about the talks Under Secretary Shannon had in Moscow the last two days?

MS TRUDEAU: I do. Thank you. So Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Thomas Shannon traveled to Moscow March 28th through 31st for meetings with senior Russian officials to follow up on Secretary Kerry’s meetings March 23rd and 25th. His conversations focused on the latest developments in the Middle East and North Africa, as well as JCPOA implementation and bilateral issues. He also met with members of Russian civil society, participated in events with our community at Embassy Moscow.

QUESTION: Could I just --

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah, of course.

QUESTION: A quick follow-up on Syria.

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah.

QUESTION: There’s a Dutch study that showed most of foreign fighters from Europe come from France and from England, which they make their way back to Europe and possibly do some harm, as we’ve seen in Brussels and so on. Do you have any comment on that?

MS TRUDEAU: So I haven’t seen that report. I can’t speak to it specifically. We’ve talked a lot about foreign fighters here from this podium as well as from our colleagues at the Defense Department, as well as our friends and partners and allies in Europe. Foreign fighters are a threat that we all face, and this is something the international community continues to seek to address. As you remember, this is one of the tenets of taking the fight against ISIL. So it’s something we’re aware of, but I can’t speak to that report. I’m sorry, Said.

QUESTION: Any new figures on, let’s say, the number of Americans that might be fighting with ISIS?

MS TRUDEAU: I don't have that. We can look into it. I’m not sure if it’s included in that report. But why don’t I take a look at the report. And if I have anything we’ll get back to you.

Justin.

QUESTION: On a different subject.

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah.

QUESTION: Clinton’s emails. Do you guys have an update on the internal review the State Department is conducting into the 22 top secret emails and whether they should have been classified at the time, whether or not they were mishandled?

MS TRUDEAU: I do. It’s a procedural update, but it is an update. As you know, in late January, the State Department announced that we intended to conduct an internal review to examine questions of classification at the time emails from former Secretary Clinton’s collection were sent. In doing so, we contacted the FBI to solicit a judgment from them as to the best path forward. The FBI communicated to us that we should follow our standard practice, which is to put our internal review on hold while there is an ongoing law enforcement investigation underway. Of course, we do not want our internal review to complicate or impede the progress of their ongoing law enforcement investigation. Therefore, the State Department, at this time, is not moving forward with our internal review. The internal review is on hold, pending completion of the FBI’s work. We’ll reassess next steps after the FBI’s work is complete.

QUESTION: Do you expect to help inform the FBI’s investigation in any way in determining if those emails, specifically 22, ought to have been marked classified at the time? Do you expect to inform --

MS TRUDEAU: So we’re coordinating with the FBI on this. I’m not going to share any additional details at this time. This is a law enforcement matter.

Okay.

QUESTION: Sorry, I’m not sure I understand.

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah.

QUESTION: These two – well, I don’t --

MS TRUDEAU: Review and investigation.

QUESTION: Right. I don’t understand how they contradict each other. Why?

MS TRUDEAU: So it’s basically – it’s – like I said, it’s a procedural matter. So while the ongoing law enforcement investigation is taking place, our internal review is on hold pending the completion of that.

QUESTION: Why?

MS TRUDEAU: Because we don’t want to complicate the law enforcement investigation. That takes priority.

QUESTION: Are the same people doing the review as are doing the investigation?

MS TRUDEAU: I understand that it’s our standard procedure. In cases like this, if there’s an ongoing law enforcement investigation we pause. So we communicated with the FBI in this matter.

QUESTION: Well, let’s just take, for example, something else. Like there was an ongoing investigation into what happened in Benghazi, and yet there was also a internal State Department review going on at the same time to see – I didn’t see that – the review wasn’t stopped then.

MS TRUDEAU: I can’t speak to that. I can speak to the decision that was taken here.

QUESTION: Well, you can say what the decision was, but I don’t understand why it is that you would --

MS TRUDEAU: So what --

QUESTION: I don’t understand why it is that you would say that your internal review would somehow complicate an FBI investigation. And I don’t understand why the FBI would say that either. It doesn’t sound right.

MS TRUDEAU: So what we’re saying is that the law enforcement investigation will continue. We don’t want our own internal review to impede or complicate the progress.

QUESTION: Yeah, how --

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: How exactly --

MS TRUDEAU: I’m not going to speak to that.

QUESTION: How exactly would it or could it impede or complicate --

MS TRUDEAU: I’m not going to speak to the details on that, Matt. I can’t.

QUESTION: Well, if you can’t say how it is, then why should – I mean --

MS TRUDEAU: It’s a procedural matter. This is why – so the law enforcement investigation will continue.

QUESTION: I get it’s a procedural matter, but that doesn’t mean you don’t – it doesn’t have to be explained.

MS TRUDEAU: So my understanding is that the law enforcement investigation, run by the FBI, is continuing. Ours is on pause. It is on hold until that happens.

QUESTION: Yeah, I understand that’s the – yes, that is the fact of what you’ve just said.

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah.

QUESTION: What I’m trying to get at is why it is that – or how it is possible that an internal State Department review of what happened with those 22 emails could possibly complicate or impede a review being done by an entirely different agency at a --

MS TRUDEAU: I think it’s prudence. It is the idea that there is an ongoing law enforcement investigation.

QUESTION: But --

MS TRUDEAU: As we do our internal review, we do not want to get into the complications that a law enforcement investigation, as it continues, the ramifications of that. Ours is --

QUESTION: Well, I don’t understand how an internal State Department review could possibly complicate the – I don’t get it. I don’t. How could an internal State Department review complicate an FBI investigation?

MS TRUDEAU: Well, clearly, we believe that it’s best that it’s on hold.

QUESTION: Yeah, to – you believe that it’s best on hold, yeah. But I don’t – but I --

MS TRUDEAU: We believe – it’s our standard process, is that this is what we do. That while it’s happening – do you have more questions?

QUESTION: Is it (inaudible)?

QUESTION: Well, I just – yeah, I mean, your – the answer is far from satisfactory, I think. Go ahead, Arshad.

QUESTION: Should the fact that you have decided to pause your review so as not to impede the FBI’s investigation be taken as a sign that the Administration thinks that the laws may have been broken here?

MS TRUDEAU: I wouldn’t read anything into it. It’s my understanding – and I know this makes Matt unhappy – that this is a procedural matter.

QUESTION: So the reason I’m asking this is --

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- I mean, I think clearly somebody thinks that there may have been laws broken here, because the FBI’s investigating it. Now, that doesn’t mean that laws were broken; it just means the FBI is trying to figure out if laws have been broken. And therefore, it seems to me to stand to reason that you’re backing off on this to let --

MS TRUDEAU: Pausing.

QUESTION: -- the investigation into whether laws were or were not broken proceed. Correct?

MS TRUDEAU: I can speak to process on this one. I can’t speak to the details, what the overlap is. What I can say is that our standard procedure in this case is that law enforcement comes first.

QUESTION: So once the law enforcement investigation is over, your internal review will start again?

MS TRUDEAU: So after the law enforcement investigation ends, we’ll reassess. I’m not going to prejudge any outcomes on that. And the department will take appropriate action to take a look at where we move forward on it.

QUESTION: And so how long have – this review began when, the State Department’s internal review?

MS TRUDEAU: So it’s my – it’s – we reached out to the FBI in February. I think Kirby spoke about this from the podium in January. So the work that had begun was largely administrative, talking about planning.

QUESTION: When did the – and when did the FBI investigation begin?

MS TRUDEAU: You know I can’t speak to that. I’d refer you to the FBI on that.

QUESTION: Was it before January?

MS TRUDEAU: I actually don’t know.

QUESTION: Is there a fear that the findings of the internal review could contradict those of an FBI review --

MS TRUDEAU: I won’t --

QUESTION: -- and therefore create a problem?

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah, I’m not going to speak to that. But we are prioritizing the law enforcement investigation.

QUESTION: When did the FBI ask you not to proceed with your review?

MS TRUDEAU: So we reached out to them in late February. They came back to us in March.

QUESTION: When in March?

MS TRUDEAU: I don’t have that specific date.

QUESTION: Was it yesterday, or was it, like --

MS TRUDEAU: I – to be honest, I don’t have that granularity.

QUESTION: Can you ask?

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah, I will.

QUESTION: Can I change topics?

MS TRUDEAU: Of course.

QUESTION: No, no, wait.

MS TRUDEAU: Wait, hold on one second.

QUESTION: It was – who was it again that was doing this internal review?

MS TRUDEAU: It was the bureaus of Diplomatic Security and INR.

QUESTION: Now does this also mean that the – is this the only review? The IG has still got a review going on, and in terms of just broader practices --

MS TRUDEAU: We – the Secretary --

QUESTION: -- and the – that has not stopped?

MS TRUDEAU: It’s my understanding that continues at the direction --

QUESTION: Why would that continue if this --

MS TRUDEAU: The IG is an independent organization. Remember they have their own process, their own mandate.

QUESTION: So – okay. But you can say that it hasn’t been affected?

MS TRUDEAU: To my knowledge, as of right now, it continues.

Said.

QUESTION: Can we go to the Palestinian-Israeli issue?

MS TRUDEAU: Of course.

QUESTION: I have just a quick follow-up on a couple questions that I asked on Wednesday regarding the anti-BDS conference that took place. And you – I think the State Department confirmed that Ambassador Dan Shapiro was there in that --

MS TRUDEAU: He did attend.

QUESTION: Yeah. I wondered if you had time to look at what – the speeches that took place and the statements made by Minister Katz, whether that can be considered as incitement, especially in this atmosphere of heightened tensions and so on. And --

MS TRUDEAU: We have seen the comments. We’re going to refer you to Minister Katz on that.

QUESTION: Right.

MS TRUDEAU: We understand that there are several divergent translations of the Hebrew that could happen. I can’t read it in the original format, so I’m trusting my experts.

QUESTION: But I imagine that you have your own interpretation.

MS TRUDEAU: I’m going to refer you to the minister --

QUESTION: And Ambassador Shapiro --

MS TRUDEAU: -- to speak to that. As you know, Ambassador Shapiro attends many events in his professional role.

QUESTION: In the event that Minister Katz said what he said about targeting and eliminating the leaders of the BDS – which is really a peaceful – it’s not an armed kind of resistance or group – would that be a disturbing thing? Would that be considered by U.S. --

MS TRUDEAU: I’d ask you to talk to Minister Katz about what he specifically meant on that one.

QUESTION: But to you, I mean, you consider statements made by --

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah, Said, I can’t read into it --

QUESTION: Okay.

MS TRUDEAU: -- because we understand that there’s – even in Israeli press, there’s very different interpretations of what he said.

QUESTION: Right. If you would indulge me for a minute --

MS TRUDEAU: Of course.

QUESTION: -- because, I mean, there are statements that are made by the Palestinian leaders, for instance, that are deemed inciteful. Would this be – in the event that this is exactly what he said, would that be deemed inciteful?

MS TRUDEAU: I can’t speak, again, to exactly what he said. We understand there’s a lot of different interpretations. I’d refer you to him to clarify that. But again, as we do almost every day from up here, we do call on all parties to reduce the rhetoric.

QUESTION: Okay. Also, a Palestinian rights group has put a report together showing that Israel has committed, or Israeli soldiers have committed, war crimes and they want to submit it to the ICC. Would that be something that the United States would look at, and sort of neutrally, or would support it, or would oppose that?

MS TRUDEAU: So we have seen those reports. I’m going to refer you to the group for more information. That said, our position is well known. As you know, we oppose actions against Israel at the ICC as counterproductive to the cause of peace. Also, we have made clear during the 2014 conflict in Gaza we support Israel’s right to self-defense, but we have expressed deep concern for the welfare of civilians. We urge all parties to do what they can to protect civilians, especially considering the very high civilian death toll in Gaza.

QUESTION: So let me ask you something. If the Palestinians are not allowed to defend themselves, they’re not allowed to go to the ICC, they’re not allowed to even form boycotts and so on, how should they resist the occupation, in your view?

MS TRUDEAU: We’ve been very clear what we think the future is. We talk about this every day.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS TRUDEAU: Do you have another one?

QUESTION: One last question.

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah.

QUESTION: I have a very last question. Bear with me. I appreciate your indulgence.

MS TRUDEAU: No, I’m happy to talk.

QUESTION: The Israeli occupation force has demolished a – like, a kindergarten --

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- last week. I wonder if you have any comment on that.

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah, we are concerned about the demolitions undertaken 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, undermine the possibility of a two-state solution. They also call into question the Israeli Government’s commitment to that two-state solution.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: I’ve got a really --

QUESTION: Washington?

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah, I’m sorry. One sec.

QUESTION: Just a follow-up.

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah.

QUESTION: The letter that Senator Leahy and the other lawmakers signed, have you guys responded to that? And even – if you have, what did you say? And if you – even if you haven’t, can you explain what the process is for doing – how it is that the State Department does reviews of various militaries to determine if the laws --

MS TRUDEAU: So we do have the letter. I don’t know if the response has actually been sent. We will respond, Matt, as appropriate. You’re asking about how we do Leahy review?

QUESTION: Mm-hmm.

MS TRUDEAU: Okay. So Leahy is a huge, complicated process, as you can fully understand. Let me see if I --

QUESTION: I don’t think he thinks that. I don’t think he thinks it’s very complicated.

MS TRUDEAU: Which one?

QUESTION: And he wrote it.

MS TRUDEAU: Senator Leahy? So --

QUESTION: It’s pretty straightforward, isn’t it?

MS TRUDEAU: So it’s actually run by our Office of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, DRL. They have a team of Leahy vetters. We work with our partner – our embassies on the ground to take a look at those who are eligible for training. We vet those. It’s a continual process as we look, and we stay in very close communication with Congress on this. I can get you more detail and the granularity on how each individual case is vetted, as well as if we’ve responded in fact to Senator Leahy’s letter.

QUESTION: That team in DRL that does that, do you know how big it is?

MS TRUDEAU: I don’t. I know that it’s actually sizable and that it has increased, I believe, within the last two or three years.

QUESTION: And then just a quick follow-up on this.

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah, yeah.

QUESTION: Yesterday the prime minister of Israel, Netanyahu, was quite critical of Senator Leahy, which – Senator Leahy said this is only fair to the American taxpayer. Do you have a position on this? You don’t have --

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah, I don’t.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS TRUDEAU: I’ll leave that comment.

QUESTION: Washington?

MS TRUDEAU: Turkey.

QUESTION: (Laughter.) Yes. First of all, have you seen yesterday footages went viral about the Turkish security officials --

MS TRUDEAU: I have.

QUESTION: -- or guards who were basically attacking protesters as well as journalists?

MS TRUDEAU: So we have seen reports of the confrontations between protesters and Turkish security personnel at the Brookings Institution yesterday. As we have stated many times, we respect the right to freedom of expression and peaceful protest. Violence against peaceful protesters is totally unacceptable.

QUESTION: So as I learned today, apparently it is the State Department’s Diplomatic Security Service was also there.

MS TRUDEAU: It was actually Secret Service.

QUESTION: It was? I was told by there that it was --

MS TRUDEAU: No, it’s Secret Service, so we would refer you there for specific details on that incident.

QUESTION: Okay. You talk about the freedom of expression. Another part of yesterday’s story was at Brookings Institution. After President Erdogan spoke, moderator Ambassador Martin Indyk said that we are not going to take questions from the journalists, basically blocking a journalist’s right to ask questions. Do you have any comment? Is this --

MS TRUDEAU: I’m going to refer you to Brookings as that was a private event.

QUESTION: Okay. This does not disturb you that a journalist’s right has been blocked?

MS TRUDEAU: I’m not – I – if you’re asking me about what happened at a press event at a private institution, I’m going to refer you to Brookings to speak to that. I’m not sure if they’ve put out a statement on that.

QUESTION: Final question: A lot of Turkish officials are here, and Monday, I believe, Foreign Minister Cavusoglu met with the Secretary Kerry. It has been over two and half years since the November 2013, last time Foreign Minister Davutoglu was here, that Turkish and American officials took questions. Is there a new policy that you are not going to take questions from the press?

MS TRUDEAU: No. Next.

QUESTION: How long this going to go? I mean, is there a limit if the Turkish --

MS TRUDEAU: No. I’ll be honest – a lot of this, Ilhan, is really based on logistics. There is no policy that U.S. and Turkish officials will not take questions from the press. In fact, since I stand up here and my colleagues do, taking questions from Turkish journalists, I think that that question --

QUESTION: No, no, I am talking about the Turkish officials --

MS TRUDEAU: Officials – there is no policy.

QUESTION: -- and American officials.

MS TRUDEAU: There is no policy on them.

QUESTION: How do you decide? Was it --

MS TRUDEAU: A lot of it’s timing, logistics, what happens, if we have multiple back-to-back bilats, if we have multiple meetings. It’s a technical question, but there is absolutely no policy.

QUESTION: If this goes on another 20 years, should we just expect that this is technical questions?

MS TRUDEAU: You’re asking me not only a hypothetical but what happens in the next 20 years. This is something – it’s – we understand, and we fully support transparency. We stand up here every day – except yesterday – answering your questions on that. But no, there is no policy. Okay?

QUESTION: And we are really grateful; you have been very kind to answer all of our questions. The problem is about 80 million’s right now that this is very unusual. We have been here for over how many years. Turkish officials always take questions, and now we are basically block from asking questions to both of you, Turks and the Americans together.

MS TRUDEAU: There is no policy. Okay?

Sir.

QUESTION: Yeah, thank you. I have a follow-up question on the Leahy letter.

MS TRUDEAU: Of course.

QUESTION: So, I mean, respectfully, one of the allegations in the Leahy letter happened three years ago. I mean, what is the timeline for the Secretary’s response? And then secondly, is – am I – did I hear you correctly? It’s State that is running the investigation of whether or not human rights or gross violations of human rights occurred?

MS TRUDEAU: Okay, so I believe Senator Leahy’s letter was from February 17th.

QUESTION: Yes, but the allegation that it detailed happened --

MS TRUDEAU: So you’re asking about a response to a letter that was sent February 17th? We’ll get a response, and the Secretary, as a former senator himself, takes very seriously his obligations to maintain good relations with Congress. We will respond.

And I’m sorry, your second question?

QUESTION: The question was: It will be the State Department that will be running this investigation? Will there be an --

MS TRUDEAU: What investigation?

QUESTION: Well, I mean, how are you going to ascertain whether or not --

MS TRUDEAU: So one of the things that Leahy does in our Leahy vetting process is that we continually stay and we review as we go. It’s a rolling process, and we stay in very close coordination with Congress on that. So we will respond to the senator’s letter, and there were other signers.

QUESTION: So there is an investigative process that --

MS TRUDEAU: No there’s not. There is an ongoing process. Senator Leahy wrote to the Secretary to raise his concerns and we will respond to that letter as appropriate. Okay.

QUESTION: Iraq? Iraq?

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah.

QUESTION: On your statement on Ukraine --

MS TRUDEAU: Of course.

QUESTION: -- isn’t this something that the people of the Netherlands should decide, and aren’t you afraid to get too much involved in the whole process?

MS TRUDEAU: Like any referendum, the decision is for the Dutch people. At the same time, we believe an association agreement is in the best interests of Ukraine, the Netherlands, and Europe as a whole. We’ve been very transparent on that, but it is a question for the Dutch people.

QUESTION: Do you want Japan?

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah.

QUESTION: So as you mentioned, Secretary Kerry will visit Hiroshima later this month.

MS TRUDEAU: Yes.

QUESTION: Could you share more on his visit outside of the G7 foreign ministerial meetings?

MS TRUDEAU: No, I can’t. As soon as we have details on the schedule, we will share. That’s what I have right now.

QUESTION: So he won’t visit Peace Memorial Park?

MS TRUDEAU: I have no details to share on his schedule, but we’ll get back to you as soon as we can.

QUESTION: Can you speak a little more to the significance of the visit?

MS TRUDEAU: So he is going for the G7, for the foreign ministerial. This is something that I think reflects our deep and abiding friendship with the people of Japan. I’m not going to get into sort of the details of his schedule because I just can’t speak to that yet. Okay?

QUESTION: Iraq? Iraq?

MS TRUDEAU: Yes.

QUESTION: Thank you. In March, the U.S. targeted the Mosul University campus. Daesh has used the university’s chemistry lab to make bombs. Two years ago, shortly after Daesh overran Mosul, Iraq told the UN that the terrorists seized nearly 40 kilograms – and that is 88 pounds – of uranium compounds that were kept at the Mosul University. Do you know if the nuclear materials seized by Daesh at the University of Mosul were affected by the recent U.S. strikes?

MS TRUDEAU: Okay, so we’re aware of that report. I don’t have details to share at this time. We’ve been concerned by ISIL’s use of chemical weapons in both Syria and Iraq. We continue to work with partners to mitigate this threat. The Pentagon has spoken to this. The coalition has conducted targeted strikes against suspected ISIL chemical weapons facilities, including around Mosul. We’ll continue to do that as targets are identified.

As we speak, though, to ISIL’s responsibility, I think which is really sort of the more significant issue, we believe ISIL was responsible for the sulfur mustard attack in Marea, Syria on August 21st, 2015, largely based on photographic evidence and the Syrian opposition’s description of that event. Based on available information, we also believe ISIL was likely responsible for some of the alleged attacks using sulfur mustard in Iraq. Any use by ISIL of chemical weapons is a continuation of its extensive record of gross violations of human rights as well as its blatant disregard for international law.

QUESTION: Just on the nuclear --

MS TRUDEAU: Of course.

QUESTION: Does the U.S. know if Daesh is in possession of nuclear materials?

MS TRUDEAU: I have no details.

QUESTION: Daesh has been using this Mosul University lab to make bombs for two years now, and as I understand, the U.S. began to target the labs this March. Do you know why not earlier?

MS TRUDEAU: I can’t speak for that. For operational stuff, you know we’ll send you across the river.

Sir, in the back.

QUESTION: It’s about the Ukraine referendum.

MS TRUDEAU: Of course.

QUESTION: You’ve talked about the importance of the Ukraine agreement and the possibilities, the opportunities that it offers for all parties involved. What are your concerns when the people of one of the major participants, The Netherlands, in this agreement will vote against – what kind of signal do you feel that that will send to Europe, and, for that matter, maybe even Russia and the United States?

MS TRUDEAU: So we welcome you to the briefing. We would call that a hypothetical question. You are – you’re asking me to forecast a vote that has not yet happened, which is April 6. As I said in our topper, we believe that this is the best for Europe as a whole. I’m not going to get ahead of the Dutch people’s vote. As I said to your colleague, this is a decision for the Dutch people. However, we’ve made our views known.

QUESTION: You brought it up with a reason today. What do you feel are the dangers that there are of consequences?

MS TRUDEAU: Let’s not get ahead of the vote, okay?

QUESTION: All right.

MS TRUDEAU: Ma’am.

QUESTION: What made you decide to speak out on the referendum, if I may request?

MS TRUDEAU: We think that this referendum is important for the people of Ukraine as well as Europe as a whole. The Netherlands has been very supportive of Ukraine as they continue their process to build on reforms, to build on a basis of Western values.

And one last.

QUESTION: I have one on – I know you saw the story that we did yesterday on the security gaps in the --

MS TRUDEAU: I did.

QUESTION: -- Consular Consolidated Database, as it’s known.

MS TRUDEAU: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: The vulnerabilities that were detected – can you say if they have all been fixed?

MS TRUDEAU: What I can say is let’s start – and thanks for the question, and we appreciate your reaching out to us on this story. We believe that the Consular Consolidated Database, like any database in the world, especially here at the State Department, is something that we look at very closely. Any database anywhere in the world is a vulnerability. However, the Consular Consolidated Database is constantly monitored, assessed. We constantly do work to assess any concerns that we have.

I’d also like to point out that there is no evidence that a cyber security incident has occurred pertaining to the Consular Consolidated Database. This is an ongoing process, and as threats are – not threats – as vulnerabilities are identified, they’re addressed.

QUESTION: So – okay. So are there vulnerabilities that have been addressed and fixed, or are you just saying because it’s a database, it has vulnerabilities that can never be fixed?

MS TRUDEAU: I’m saying that the department constantly monitors, tests, and implements upgrades in order to improve our defenses against constant, ever-evolving cyber threats. This is something we take very seriously, Justin, and it’s something that we address on a rolling basis.

QUESTION: Right. So you’re not denying, then, that --

MS TRUDEAU: There’s vulnerabilities?

QUESTION: -- the vulnerabilities were detected and that they were addressed? You’re not denying that?

MS TRUDEAU: What I’m saying is that there’s vulnerabilities in any database in the world.

QUESTION: But you – but again, it’s my question about --

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah. I’m not – to this – to --

QUESTION: -- you won’t speak specifically to this?

MS TRUDEAU: To any vulnerabilities that have been addressed. We are constantly monitoring this. This is an enormous database. And as you know, we’ve spoken about cyber security from the State Department exhaustively, frankly. It’s something we take seriously. It’s something we’ll continue to address.

QUESTION: And can you say if the Secretary was ever briefed on these vulnerabilities?

MS TRUDEAU: I can’t. I can’t. He speaks about cyber security. This is something, I think, is – in the world we live in and the malicious actors who target not only the State Department but all of the U.S. Government, it’s a priority for everyone.

Matt.

QUESTION: Can I go back to the email thing for just one second?

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah. I’m not sure if I’ll have much for you.

QUESTION: No, I just want to make sure I can read my notes correctly. Did you say that the FBI specifically asked you to pause the internal review?

MS TRUDEAU: So the FBI communicated to us that we should follow our standard practice, which is to put internal review on hold while there is an ongoing law enforcement investigation. We reached out to them. They responded.

QUESTION: And so that standard practice, that standard procedure, you apply in all cases where there’s a law enforcement investigation?

MS TRUDEAU: I can’t say in all cases, but I do know it’s our standard practice.

QUESTION: Well, then, if it’s your standard practice, then it would be --

MS TRUDEAU: I’m not saying there’s not exceptions. I just can’t speak to that level, but --

QUESTION: So all criminal investigations – in other words, every now and then we hear about State Department employees who are arrested or accused of various thing – criminal, often with visas and things like that. You’re saying that internal reviews of their circumstances are put on hold, pending whatever criminal investigation is going on?

MS TRUDEAU: What I’m saying is – yes, standard practice is that we always prioritize law enforcement investigations and then our internal reviews.

QUESTION: In every case. But you’re not saying that the FBI said stop or --

MS TRUDEAU: No.

QUESTION: -- pause?

MS TRUDEAU: They said follow your practice.

Okay. Thanks, guys.

(The briefing was concluded at 3:04 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.