U.S. Department of State's Blog, page 16

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

John Kirby

Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC

March 29, 2016









Index for Today's Briefing

LIBYA



DEPARTMENT



LIBYA



TURKEY



SYRIA



JAPAN



NORTH KOREA



CYPRUS



EGYPT



BELGIUM



PAKISTAN



HONDURAS



IRAN




TRANSCRIPT:

2:17 p.m. EDT

MR KIRBY: Hello, everybody. Happy Tuesday to you. A couple things at the top.

First, on Libya. The United States is deeply troubled by reports that a small group of political obstructionists have closed the airspace around Tripoli in a deliberate attempt to prevent the Libyan Government of National Accord from arriving in Tripoli. We find reprehensible efforts by these individuals to undermine the political process, to derail the establishment of the Government of National Accord, and to slow, if not halt, the implementation of the Libyan political agreement signed in Skhirat. Consistent with the recommendation of the Libyan Political Dialogue, we support the Presidency Council of the Government of National Accord and their move to Tripoli and we call upon all Libyan public institutions to facilitate a peaceful handover of power so that Libya’s new leaders can begin the hard work of restoring stability to their country. The people of Libya deserve better than this sort of ham-fisted obstructionism. They deserve a strong a united government and a chance to see that government succeed for them and for the region. The United States will continue to consult with the United Nations and with Special Representative Kobler over the issue of supporting the Presidency Council’s move to Tripoli.

On a scheduling note, I’d like to just acknowledge that the Secretary will meet later today with principals from partner federal agencies to discuss the need to continue to build a global accountability system designed to combat illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing, known as IUU. The Navy, the intelligence community, the Coast Guard, NASA, NOAA, the Department of Justice, and USAID will attend this meeting, which will happen here in less than an hour, which we believe shows the vast global reach of the problem and the multiagency approach needed to find solutions to this. As you know, this has been a priority for the Secretary and it’s all part of an effort as he continues to build towards the Oceans Conference that will be held in the fall here in Washington, D.C. This is a key component of – a key agenda item for the Oceans Conference and something that the Secretary’s committed to seeing if we can’t make a little bit of progress on in the next several months.

So with that, Matt.

QUESTION: I have two, one on – it’ll be very brief ones, one of each of your opening announcements. One – and forgive my ignorance on this, but this is a conference on illegal fishing or a meeting about illegal fishing?

MR KIRBY: Illegal and unregulated fishing.

QUESTION: What is NASA doing? Are there fish in space? What do they have to do with it?

MR KIRBY: I don’t think there’s fish in space, but NASA has the ability to --

QUESTION: There were pigs in space at one point. What --

MR KIRBY: NASA certainly has the ability to monitor the oceans from space.

QUESTION: But from above. Okay.

MR KIRBY: And I would add just – I mean, it’s --

QUESTION: I mean, it’s a serious --

MR KIRBY: No, it’s a very good question. When we were in Moscow, I think some of you may have seen that he met with the director, Mr. Bolden, and this was one of the items that they talked about in Moscow just a few days ago.

QUESTION: So this is stuff that NASA can do looking down into the oceans?

MR KIRBY: Correct. Potentially, yes.

QUESTION: All right. Okay. And then on the first one, it’s been a while since we’ve gotten the word “ham-fisted obstructionism” from the podium I think.

MR KIRBY: Well, I’m glad to bring it back.

QUESTION: I think that we were all under the impression from the Secretary’s meeting several months ago in Italy with the Libyan --

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- that once they had gotten through the initial task – or once the UN – Mr. Kobler had gotten through the initial task that – of doing this that people had dropped or had least agreed to drop their personal issues with this, the infighting that was going on. Are these – and forgive me, because I don't know who – exactly what’s going on on the ground in Tripoli right now, but are these political obstructionists, as you call them, are – were they party to the agreement or are they from outside? And why are they --

MR KIRBY: This is a group principally known as the General National Congress, and we’ve talked about them before. They have been obstructing the movement towards this for quite some time.

QUESTION: Yeah, but were they involved in --

MR KIRBY: They actually, as you might recall, refused to show up to many of these talks.

QUESTION: So they weren’t --

MR KIRBY: So they have not been a party to it.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR KIRBY: And they have been obstructing the movements since almost the get-go. And again, we fully support this and want to see it move forward.

QUESTION: All right. Okay. Moving on just to the announcement from you guys on the – and the DOD today on Turkey and the ordered departures. Your colleague at the Pentagon has spent the last several minutes answering – or saying that there was no specific threat that has led to this and that it was just decided out of an abundance of caution that you should go ahead and – my question is: If there was no specific threat, why do it now?

MR KIRBY: That’s a great question. So my colleague is right. The decision to do this, first of all, wasn’t taken lightly. It was done after careful thought and consideration and interagency coordination, I might add. And I think it’s very much a result of our ongoing assessment of security conditions there in Turkey and in recognition of the threat environment in Adana, specifically in southeastern Turkey from a regional perspective. So the why now is I think – when you talk about the now – rather than talk about the now in terms of today or the last few hours, try to keep in mind that this was really a decision that was several weeks in the making in terms of assessing the security situation there, which undoubtedly – and you guys have reported on the terrorism threat that has existed there, the recent attacks. Secretary Kerry alluded to some of these attacks yesterday in the camera spray with the Turkish foreign minister. So this was a decision that, again, was, I think, several weeks in the making.

QUESTION: Well, right. So that – but again, why now? Because as you noted, the Secretary met with the Turkish foreign minister yesterday.

MR KIRBY: Yes, he did.

QUESTION: And President Erdogan is due here in a day or two. I mean, if this could have just as easily been done last week or next week, it certainly appears like this was timed to cause maximum embarrassment to senior leaders of your NATO ally, Turkey, who happened to be coming to town. I mean, you chose to do this smackdab in the middle of the foreign minister being here and the president arriving. Why? Why didn’t you do it – why was this chosen?

MR KIRBY: The decision to do this, the timing of it, was completely considered independently of the Nuclear Security Summit and the visit here to Washington by Turkish officials. Absolutely no connection to that whatsoever. This was done, as it should be, based on the security threat and our concern about the safety for American citizens, whether they’re government employees or not, in southeastern Turkey in particular. And again, it was not something that we took lightly. I mean, this was something that took several weeks to sort of get us to and to work hand in glove with the Defense Department, who also has equities here. So not timed at all for this week’s issues.

Now, that said, I’d be less than truthful if I didn’t also say that in yesterday’s bilateral discussion with the Turkish foreign minister the Secretary did raise this so that – and to explain to the foreign minister the decision we were making, why we were making it, and how we were going to make it public. And he was very understanding and appreciative of the situational awareness.

QUESTION: Well, I’m not sure he probably was – probably not appreciative, but maybe he understood. But I – appreciating is one thing.

MR KIRBY: He seemed appreciative to me. I mean, I was there.

QUESTION: But – okay. Well, all right. But look, I mean, this is a country in which you have spent the last several weeks – even longer – batting down or trying to bat down conspiracy theories that have ranged from you guys knew about the – because you put out the embassy warning for the warning for Ankara, that you knew in advance there was going to be an attack, the attacks in the press on your ambassador there. And --

MR KIRBY: And yesterday’s accusation that we’re trying to overthrow the government?

QUESTION: Yeah, exactly.

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: And with all that, the brains in this building and the Pentagon decided that today, right in between – right just before a President Erdogan visit, is the day to do something that you could have done last week or the week before or even next week. Does that --

MR KIRBY: We – I – look, I can’t dispute the conspiracy theorists, that they might think that there was more to it than this, that this was some sort of --

QUESTION: I would hope you do want to dispute.

MR KIRBY: I am.

QUESTION: Oh.

MR KIRBY: I mean, I can’t dispute that there are people that think that way.

QUESTION: Will think that. All right.

MR KIRBY: But I certainly can dispute the actual allegation. I can tell you, having watched the process churn now over the last several weeks, that this was done with the – with deep consideration and careful thought, interagency communication. And again, this is not the kind of decision that we take lightly. We take it very seriously. And so therefore want to do it in an appropriate, measured, deliberate fashion, and also do it at what we believe is the right time. And we believe this is the right time to do this.

QUESTION: Last one. The Pentagon was quite specific about the number of people that this was going to affect. Actually, they were even – they were quite specific about the number of pets that it would affect. How many people will this affect in terms of the State Department?

MR KIRBY: It is a small number of family members. I do not have an exact figure, but we can see if we can --

QUESTION: Oh, I know. I know you won’t give them to me. I just want to know why the Pentagon is so willing to talk about this, down to cats and dogs and little bunny rabbits, and you guys, for some reason, have a different – you’re more important, so you don’t have to --

MR KIRBY: I wouldn’t --

QUESTION: -- you don’t have to give numbers about how many.

MR KIRBY: Now, Matt, I don’t --

QUESTION: That’s – so that’s the – that’s my question. Why?

MR KIRBY: The question or --

QUESTION: No, no. That’s my question. Why won’t the State Department do what the DOD did and give specific numbers?

MR KIRBY: As I understand it – and I’m happy to research this after the briefing. As I understand it, we don’t typically offer --

QUESTION: I know. This is my --

MR KIRBY: -- details on the number of dependents and family members --

QUESTION: Yeah, that’s my – that’s my question.

MR KIRBY: -- at any given station for security purposes. And we have – I can’t – but having worked in both institutions, I recognize that the State Department has a different threshold for security concerns about dependents and family members.

QUESTION: Why? That’s my question. Why? Why won’t you --

MR KIRBY: Okay. Well, I’ll see what I can do to find a better answer for you on why, but we aren’t going to release an exact number. And I don’t --

QUESTION: Well, I know you’re not. But I’d like just to --

MR KIRBY: And I don’t know that the Pentagon actually said how many bunnies they have.

QUESTION: They said something like 278 pets.

MR KIRBY: Okay.

QUESTION: Okay. Now I don’t know if they broke that down into goldfish or squirrels.

MR KIRBY: Well, your question alluded to hamsters and bunnies, and I just want to make sure that we’re clear on that.

QUESTION: Actually, it just – just bunnies.

MR KIRBY: Just bunnies, okay. (Laughter.) All right.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) discussion. Can I just – (laughter) – I think that should go down in history. (Laughter.) (Inaudible) between the Pentagon and the U.S. on travel alerts. Was that made independent of each other or are they related?

MR KIRBY: The – I’m sorry, the?

QUESTION: The decision by – the announcement by DOD on the drawing down --

MR KIRBY: No, this was a coordinated --

QUESTION: It is a --

MR KIRBY: This was a coordinated decision and a coordinated announcement. We were in lockstep with the Pentagon as we arrived at this decision.

QUESTION: Was there anything that triggered the specific discussions that something needs to be done to take security to the next level?

MR KIRBY: I think, again, without getting into specific intelligence issues, and certainly – and I want to again echo what I said to Matt earlier. I mean, this wasn’t the result of a specific threat to a specific institution or locality or by a specific group. This was based on an analysis over the last several weeks, certainly, of the security situation in Turkey, which undoubtedly – and you guys have covered this yourselves – has become more dangerous, particularly in southeastern Turkey. So it was based on a running analysis of the security threat there, an analysis that we share with the Pentagon about the level of potential danger here. And again, this was a decision made out of an abundance of caution to keep people as safe as possible.

QUESTION: Thanks.

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: John, just to be clear, you’ve said that Secretary Kerry did inform his Turkish counterpart yesterday --

MR KIRBY: That’s right.

QUESTION: -- about the decision, and the Turkish foreign minister didn’t have anything to say? He didn’t mention the fact that, as Matt pointed out, President Erdogan was coming to Washington and that it could cause --

MR KIRBY: No, as I said – as I said, Foreign Minister Cavusoglu was appreciative of the information, grateful that he was able to find out directly from Secretary Kerry, and to hear the Secretary’s explanation of why we were making this decision. And it was a very cordial discussion in that regard.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Can we go to the refugee issue?

MR KIRBY: Sure.

QUESTION: So we’re now about halfway through the fiscal year and the U.S. has only admitted about 1,200 Syrian refugees, which is – leaves about 88 percent to hit the President’s goal of 10,000. Is the State Department still confident that that goal can be met?

MR KIRBY: We are still very committed to the goal of reaching 10,000 by the end of the year. We’re mindful of the months left in the fiscal year to do that, but we are very much committed to meeting that goal. We are also equally committed to helping ensure the safety and security of the American people, and as I’ve said many times from the podium, that Syrian refugees, those that are referred to us by the UN are subject to more scrutiny than refugees from any other place in the world. We think that’s appropriate. And what we want to do is strike the right balance of meeting the goal that the President set, and we’re absolutely committed to that, at the same time meeting our obligations to the safety and security of the American people and not changing or watering down or decreasing the level of scrutiny that refugees from Syria are put through before they come here to the United States. We take that very seriously as well.

So it’s a balance. Certainly, I’m mindful of the math as you laid it out. We all are, but we’re going to keep working at it.

QUESTION: But recognizing, I mean, you’ve mentioned one limitation, which is the security vetting, but there’s others as well. I mean, just the speed of processing is --

MR KIRBY: Sure.

QUESTION: -- can only be so fast. So --

MR KIRBY: As we’ve said, it takes 18 to 24 months.

QUESTION: Right. So is it a realistic goal?

MR KIRBY: It is the goal that has been set forth by the Commander-in-Chief. It’s – we take it seriously and we’re going to continue to do so. We’re going to continue to try to reach it. Because we also believe, as I said, not only in preserving the safety and security of the American people, but we believe in our responsibility to try to find a safe place for these individuals, these families to live. So we’re committed to that as well. I mean, that’s part of who we are as a nation.

And so it is a – it’s a serious goal. It’s a – there’s no doubt about that the – that it’s going to continue to require work and effort and energy on our part to try to meet it. But I can tell you we’re 100 percent committed to doing that.

QUESTION: What happens if all those slots aren’t filled? If 10,000 aren’t let in, do those roll over to the next year? Do they just kind of disappear? What happens?

MR KIRBY: I don’t want to try to engage in a hypothetical here. We have a goal put before us of 10,000. We’re committed to reaching that. So let’s get to the end of the year, and then see where we are and what might be required in the future. But I don’t want to – I don’t want to engage in speculation about us not doing the job we’ve been asked to do. And it’s not just the State Department, by the way. I mean, it’s an interagency effort here. It’s – the Department of Homeland Security’s involved in this as well as some law enforcement agencies, and the intelligence community. I mean, this is a whole-of-government effort, and we’re all committed to reaching this goal. And again, I just don’t want to speculate about the what-ifs right now when we’re still – we still have six months left in the fiscal year to try to do this.

QUESTION: Okay, let me ask a slightly different question, which is: Since the President made this commitment of 10,000 refugees, there’s been a pretty dramatic change in public rhetoric – not from the Administration, but from other political figures, Congress, governors who’ve said --

MR KIRBY: Yeah, sure.

QUESTION: -- they don’t want to take in more refugees.

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: Has this kind of heightened public skepticism affected in any way the Administration’s efforts or how committed the Administration is to this process?

MR KIRBY: No. I mean, if you’re asking if the public rhetoric has affected the process itself of evaluating a case and then bringing that family to America, no. But the --

QUESTION: Or the urgency with which it’s being approached?

MR KIRBY: No. Absolutely not. The system is not designed to move too fast. As we’ve said, refugees from Syria are given the highest scrutiny of any other type of refugee. In the main, it takes 18 to 24 months for an individual – and by the way, we have to look at these from an individual basis. We look at each person. It takes about a year and a half to two years to work through that process. And as we’ve talked about before, it’s not like we’re just going out there and self-identifying refugees. They have to be referred to us from the UN.

So there’s a process here, and that process is designed to be methodical. And I understand that there are some people that think it goes too slow, and there’s probably other people out there that think it goes too fast. We believe that we’ve got the balance right and we’re just going to keep working at this. We understand that if you look at the math from a linear perspective, if you do algebra – I get it – that at 1,200 now, it’s a tall order to get the rest of the more than 8,000 in by the end of the year. We’re not unmindful of the challenge before us.

But I can tell you we’re still committed to it. And again, it’s striking that right balance between reaching the numbers goal, but also making sure that you’re not sacrificing the very measured, deliberate, and purposeful manner in which these refugees are vetted and approved.

QUESTION: Can we expect to see that speed up, that rate of admissions speed up in the coming months, or --

MR KIRBY: I don’t have a specific prediction for you in terms of accelerant here. I would just say, again, we’re mindful that at 1,200, with six months to go in the fiscal year, there’s a lot before us. We’re all mindful of that challenge. But the Secretary’s been clear that while we are going to be – we’re going to stay committed to the President’s goal, we also have to be committed to striking that balance of safety and security of the American people, and respecting the process that’s in place. And it does work. It takes time, and I understand for those that are waiting to come in it can be very frustrating. And I understand also for the critics of this that they don’t think there’s enough scrutiny applied. We believe that there is sufficient scrutiny applied to each and every individual that’s applying for refugee status here in the United States. We just have to – we have to take this one person at a time.

So 10,000 is a lot of individuals to go through, but we owe it to the American people – and frankly, we owe it to these people and these families – to take each case at a time. And sometimes that does require more time on the clock than I know some people would feel comfortable with.

QUESTION: Logic – if you only have six months to get the rest of the 10,000 in, these people must already be in the pipeline, right? So perhaps --

MR KIRBY: Correct.

QUESTION: -- it would be possible to find out if there are enough people, even in the pipeline --

MR KIRBY: To reach the 10,000.

QUESTION: -- to reach the – to reach the goal --

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- and that might be a --

MR KIRBY: I don’t know how many are, quote-unquote, “in the pipeline” now.

QUESTION: Because if they – if it takes 12 to 24 months for each person, as you said, then at least they’re – we’re only six months left, so --

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- these people must have been in the pipeline for – well, at least six months and potentially 18 months.

MR KIRBY: Perhaps longer, perhaps longer, yeah.

QUESTION: And so maybe that’s possible to find that out, just if it’s even --

MR KIRBY: I’ll take a look and see if --

QUESTION: -- physically possible without bending the space-time continuum to get to – (laughter) --

MR KIRBY: I will --

QUESTION: -- to – if all the people in the pipeline now are admitted, will you get to the 10,000 figure?

MR KIRBY: I’ll take a look and see if we are able to provide an estimate of how many are actually in the pipeline.

QUESTION: All right. And then the other thing is: Is it actually true – or maybe you could take the question if you don’t know off the top of your head – that every single – I mean, surely it doesn’t take 12 to 24 months to look at an infant --

MR KIRBY: On average, it’s 18 to 24 per individual. I can’t --

QUESTION: Yeah. But if a six-month-old – that doesn’t take that long to --

MR KIRBY: Yeah. Look, I can’t dispute the fact that some probably don’t take that long and some probably take longer than 24 months. I mean, it’s – 18 to 24 months is an average.

QUESTION: Does – I mean, they don’t try to interview infants, obviously. That wouldn’t make any sense. So is it really every single person? Or is it --

MR KIRBY: We --

QUESTION: Is there an exception made for people under five or something like that so that --

MR KIRBY: Every individual is evaluated. Obviously, for infants, you don’t have the same evaluation --

QUESTION: No, I know. But I just want to make sure.

MR KIRBY: -- that you have to do for an adult. And each case is taken individually. So, clearly, obviously, there are going to be some that do not take anywhere near 18 months to go through --

QUESTION: All right.

MR KIRBY: -- and then there are others that probably take longer than the 24 months. But the point I was trying to make is we do this on an individual basis. We have to. It’s our responsibility.

Yeah.

QUESTION: It’s on Japan. I wanted to follow up on a question asked yesterday about the security laws in Japan and whether or not you had --

MR KIRBY: Yeah, the one that I wasn’t ready for. Yeah. So what I can tell you today is that we welcome Japan’s ongoing efforts to strengthen the alliance and to play a more active role in regional and international security activities. Japan has demonstrated over the last 70 years an abiding commitment to peace, democracy, and the rule of law, and this record stands as a model for all countries. For additional information about the – about this security legislation, I’d refer you to the Government of Japan, okay? Thanks. Thanks for following up on it.

Pam.

QUESTION: North Korea. The President, of course, later on this week, will be meeting with Asian allies. I’m sure North Korea will be among the items discussed. But question: In the wake of the UN sanctions, North Korea has, of course, continued provocative action, including the projectile that was fired today. Is the U.S. at a point where it’s holding talks with allies on actions that look beyond this latest round of UN sanctions, considering the sanctions do not appear to have slowed the provocative actions from North Korea?

MR KIRBY: Are you asking if we’re considering, like, additional sanctions --

QUESTION: Additional – not steps in general. Sanctions or maybe additional steps outside of sanctions.

MR KIRBY: I can tell you that we are certainly aware of these most recent reports, as you said, as recently as today of additional launches. And we continue to take that seriously. We continue to discuss this inside the UN. I don’t have any additional measures to report to you or to signal that we are exploring right now.

The most recent set of sanctions, the most aggressive in the last couple of decades, have just recently passed. And as I said before, they have, as part of them, a very serious enforcement mechanism. But I can assure you that we will continue to raise our concerns inside the UN and here unilaterally in the United States about North Korea’s continued provocative behavior, where nobody’s going to turn a blind eye to what this regime continues to be willing, apparently, to do.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: John, I have a question on Cyprus. The Secretary and the Turkey – and his Turkish counterpart discussed yesterday Cyprus. Can you give us your assessment on the status of the talks? Because we heard Mr. Cavusoglu – he said that he had good news for Cyprus, and the Secretary agreed that there are good news from Cyprus. But the news that we have from Cyprus – from the president of Cyprus – is that the talks are in stalemate because of Mr. Erdogan. So I wanted to hear your views on this.

MR KIRBY: Let me, if I could – there’s a lot there.

QUESTION: Yes.

MR KIRBY: But you’re right, both Secretary Kerry and the foreign minister yesterday said they were encouraged by progress, and we are. And the Secretary was there several months ago and came away – I think you saw him – his public comments after that – came away optimistic that we were going to get to some real solutions there. We are encouraged by the progress that leaders on both sides in Cyprus have made in recent months. We continue to support efforts by the parties to reach a settlement, to reunify the island as a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation, which would benefit all Cypriots as well as the wider region. And the United States complete – as well fully supports the UN-facilitated process under the UN special advisor. And we’ve also said – and the Secretary alluded to this yesterday – that we’re willing to assist that process in any way that the parties would find useful. And as I said, as you know, the Secretary visited, as well as the Vice President.

So look, I mean, there’s – we think there’s – real progress has been made between both sides. We want to encourage that because we still believe in the end state that I described earlier as the right approach, but – and – I would also point again to what the foreign minister said himself. Okay?

All right.

QUESTION: No, no, I’ve got two.

MR KIRBY: Two.

QUESTION: They’re both – they’re brief --

MR KIRBY: Did you have one, Abbie?

QUESTION: I did. I just wondered if you had any more updated information regarding the Americans’ involvement in the hijacking.

MR KIRBY: No. What I can tell you is we know that a small number – less than 10 American citizens – were on that flight. We know of no injuries. I can only speak for American citizens. No – we know of no injuries to those American citizens that were on that flight. Where they are and where they’re going right now I couldn’t speak to. I just – I wouldn’t have that information.

QUESTION: Along those lines, but – Belgium. Do you have any updated numbers as far as the Americans who were injured in those attacks or the Americans who have been determined to have been killed?

MR KIRBY: There’s been no change to the numbers of U.S. deaths that we’re aware of, which is – at this point is at four. And the number of injured has remained at about a dozen – a little bit more than a dozen, quite frankly. We know a small number of those injured have been released from the hospital, but we’re tracking this as closely as we can with Belgian authorities. And again, I mean, I can’t rule out that as time goes on, we might not learn of additional U.S. casualties in one form or another. I mean – so we’ll just have to stay on top of it. But there’s really been no change in our assessment of the situation in the last 24 hours.

And then I’m going to go you, then Matt, and we’ll finish up with Matt.

QUESTION: Two questions, sir. Yesterday you spoke about Pakistan, the bomb blast which happened, and then there was a little bit discussion about the military operation which Pakistan has started in the south of Punjab. I was wondering, is this something new for the U.S. Government as well, that the Taliban existed in the southern parts of Pakistan as well, or you guys were aware of this fact? Because all these years the U.S. had demanded a military operation in the northern parts, like Waziristan and the tribal belt of Pakistan, but never in the south of Pakistan. Is this something new for you guys, or you guys had information that the – there is a large number and a very influential Taliban groups in the south of Punjab?

MR KIRBY: Well, without getting into specifics on intelligence matters, which you know I won’t do, I mean, we’ve obviously been monitoring as best we can the Taliban’s movements and operations inside Pakistan and the danger – the still – the very real danger that they continue to pose to the people of Pakistan. I don’t think anybody’s under any illusion that the Punjab area has been one of – one worth watching. And to the degree we have spoken to Pakistani leaders about operations in North Waziristan and along that spine, it’s because that has been for a very long time considered a safe haven by members of the Taliban and other extremist groups. But this is something – look, it’s a very fluid situation and it’s something we’re continually watching and continually discussing with Pakistani leaders.

QUESTION: Can I follow up on that quick? Has there been any discussions that the Secretary’s had or since this attack two – yesterday, two days ago?

QUESTION: Sunday.

MR KIRBY: It was Easter Sunday.

QUESTION: Easter Sunday.

MR KIRBY: No, I don’t know of any specific conversations that he has had, but as I said yesterday, certainly, our embassy in Islamabad has been in touch with Pakistani officials about this, and he – we issued a very public statement condemning the attack, and I think I spoke to it again yesterday. So we’ve been very clear and open about our views of this.

Yeah, one more.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) question. Yesterday, an Indian spy video has been released by Pakistani authorities and there are reports that the Pakistani Government has asked the U.S. to speak to Mr. Modi about – during the nuclear summit about the spy who has stated in the video that he was designated responsibility to carry out terrorist activities inside Pakistan. Has Pakistan requested any sort of help with regard to discussion with Mr. Modi?

MR KIRBY: I honestly don’t have any information on that. That’s – I have not heard of this report. I wouldn’t be able to give you any context on that one way or the other.

Matt.

QUESTION: Two, I’ll – and I’ll – excuse me. I’ll start with the one that I suspect the answer will be briefest on, and that is Honduras. So the calls for the U.S. to support an independent investigation into the murder – now murders of these activists has grown. I believe earlier this week or late last week, 11 senators wrote to the Secretary asking about this. Are you guys now in a position where you will call for an independent investigation, rather than one simply done only by the Honduran authorities?

MR KIRBY: What I will say is we’re certainly aware that members of civil society and other organizations are calling for an international investigation into these murders. We would note that the Honduran Government announced on the 11th of March that it petitioned the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights for assistance related to this matter, and that the commissioner has agreed to provide technical support to the Honduran process. We have also offered to support in any way we can bring these perpetrators to justice. But I think I would leave it there. There’s – we continue to call for and urge a transparent, credible and thorough investigative process in Honduras.

QUESTION: But at this point you don’t see the need or you don’t – wouldn’t support other people’s calls for there to be a thoroughly independent investigation, not just a Honduran investigation backed by or assisted by the UN?

MR KIRBY: Correct. Nothing has changed about our position on this. But again, I think it was noteworthy that they reached out to the UN for support. I mean, that’s – that is – that’s not insignificant.

QUESTION: Okay. And then secondly, and my apologies if this goes on – I’ll try to keep it short – Iran: There is concern on Capitol Hill, and there is a lot of concern on Capitol Hill about a lot of things – some of it’s well placed and some of it is not, frankly – but in terms of the – Iran and the Iran nuclear deal, a lot of the concern on the Hill has been well placed or at least founded in some kind of fact.

The concern that I’m talking about now is that somehow, despite assurances that the Administration gave to lawmakers over the course of the negotiations on the nuclear deal that Iran would not get any kind of access to the United States financial system, that in fact the Administration is preparing to open up a backdoor for the Iranians to use – to get into and use the financial system.

Are these concerns from people on the Hill, are they based in any kind of reality?

MR KIRBY: So we’ve been aware, obviously, of concerns by members of the Hill since the deal – even before the deal was negotiated, and we’re continuing to consult and discuss those issues and those concerns with members of Congress. The Secretary will remain committed to that. And with this particular issue, I would refer you to the Treasury Department.

QUESTION: So wait, it has been the State Department, along with Treasury and other parts of the White House and other parts of the Administration, that have made this argument or told law – assured lawmakers that they would not, under this deal, get access to the financial system. You’re not in a position to say that that is still the case? You’re just going to kick it over to Treasury and let them either say this is unfounded, or no, in fact, this is true?

MR KIRBY: What I would tell you is we’re aware of these concerns; we’re discussing these concerns with members of Congress. I think I’m going to leave it at that level for right now. And it is largely an issue for the Treasury Department to speak to.

QUESTION: Okay. But from you – from the State Department perspective, does State believe that this is a hard and fast assurance, and that this assurance stands, that Iran, under the terms of the sanctions relief in the nuclear deal, cannot and will not get access to the U.S. financial system? Is that an assurance that you, as speaking for the State Department, can make?

MR KIRBY: Again, nothing’s changed about our view of our obligations under the JCPOA, and we’re going to meet all those commitments and obligations. And we’re going to continue to consult with Congress on the way ahead. But I – again, for this specific concern, I would refer you to the Treasury Department.

QUESTION: Okay. Well, does the – does the State Department believe that keeping Iran out of – or preventing Iran from getting access to the U.S. financial system is an obligation that the Administration has under the nuclear deal despite the sanctions relief? Is that still the case?

MR KIRBY: Yeah, I think I would just refer you to what I’ve said before. I think we’re mindful of our obligations under the JCPOA. We’re also mindful of our obligations to keep Congress informed as we work through that implementation. And for specific issues about the monetary system, I’d refer you to Treasury.

QUESTION: I have to say that doesn’t sound like it’s going to ease any of the concerns on the Hill. But thank you for the answer.

MR KIRBY: You’re welcome. Thanks, everybody.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:55 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 - March 24, 2016

Mark C. Toner

Deputy Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC

March 24, 2016









Index for Today's Briefing

TURKEY



THE HAGUE



YEMEN



BELGIUM



YEMEN



SYRIA



NORTH KOREA



CHINA



IRAQ



DEPARTMENT




TRANSCRIPT:

1:46 p.m. EDT

MR TONER: Good afternoon, everyone. I’ll beg your patience at the top, because I’ve got a number of toppers to get through.

So beginning with Turkey and Deputy Secretary Blinken’s visit there. U.S. and Turkish interagency delegations led by Deputy Secretary of State Anthony Blinken and Turkish Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs Feridun Sinirlioglu met March 23rd in Ankara to discuss our joint efforts to combat terrorism, to support a political transition in Syria, and to strengthen regional security. Deputy Secretary Blinken also met separately with Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu to discuss a range of topics in our bilateral relationship. Deputy Secretary Blinken and our Ambassador to the Republic of Turkey John Bass also paid their respects at the sight of the March 13th terrorist bombing in Ankara’s Kizilay neighborhood in which nearly 40 people lost their lives.

Paris, Beirut, Bamako, Grand-Bassam, Ankara, Istanbul, and now Brussels – the attacks in all of these places – and on a daily basis in Iraq and Syria – underscore the nature of the threat that we are facing and reinforce our determination to work closely with our partners and allies, the Turkish people and government, as well as other international partners, to defeat Daesh and other terrors.

Very briefly, too, I did want to speak about the – today that the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia convicted Radovan Karadzic of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. With the trial chamber’s conviction, we move one step closer to closing another painful chapter in the story of the conflict in the former Yugoslavia. We’ll never forget the horrors of genocide in Bosnia or the many other crimes committed on all sides of the conflict in the former Yugoslavia, nor will we ever stop honoring their victims and survivors. We urge the members of the international community to cooperate with the ICTY and respect its decisions.

Third one. This is on Yemen talks and a ceasefire announced. The United States welcomes the announcements by the UN special envoy for Yemen that parties have agreed to a nationwide cessation of hostilities in Yemen beginning April 10th in advance of the next round of peace talks, to start April 18th in Kuwait. The time for fighting in Yemen to end – the time for the fighting in Yemen to end is now. We urge all parties to take steps to de-escalate violence as soon as possible. It’s imperative that all honor the upcoming cessation of hostility and – or risk, frankly, protracting this conflict at further cost to human life.

We urge parties to return in good faith to the UN-led talks, because it’s only by returning to a peaceful political transition process that Yemen can address the urgent humanitarian crisis and rebuild the economy to create the better future the Yemeni people desperately want and deserve. The – a cessation of hostilities will allow for the delivery as well of critically needed relief throughout Yemen, and we urge all to facilitate the entry and delivery of essential relief items to the civilian population, including urgently needed food, medicine, and fuel through all of Yemen’s ports, and to allow for the unhindered access of humanitarian – for humanitarian organizations to reach the people in need.

Then the last one; it’s just an update, where we stand in terms of injured and missing Americans in Belgium. So the Belgians have shared information with us on U.S. citizens potentially injured by the attacks. This includes the names of U.S. citizens who are known to be injured, and the names of unaccounted-for individuals. The Belgians are still in the process of identifying the deceased. We are centralizing all information that we have on affected U.S. citizens from all sources. That includes information the Belgians have shared with us, information provided directly to us from family members and loved ones, as well as media reports. And we’re making every effort to locate U.S. citizens who are unaccounted for. Our embassy staff is providing all possible emergency consular assistance to U.S. citizens. Belgian privacy laws place certain restrictions on our access to hospitals that are treating the injured, but we are making every effort to visit, meet with, and assist those American citizens who have – or have been affected by the attacks, as well as, obviously, share information that we get with their loved ones.

At this time, we are aware of approximately a dozen U.S. citizens who have been injured in the attack. So that number has not changed since yesterday. Also at this time, we are not aware of any U.S. citizen deaths. We must emphasize that a number of U.S. citizens remain unaccounted for and Belgian authorities have not yet released nationality information for reported fatalities.

Now for – with regard to our own international U.S. Government accountability, that is still ongoing for two individuals. And we’re making every effort to account for the welfare of both chief of mission personnel as well as, as I mentioned, U.S. citizens in the city.

Yeah. Over to you, Brad.

QUESTION: All right. Can you say anything more about those two individuals, or is that – are you restricted at the time?

MR TONER: I can’t, at this point in time. Certainly as we establish ultimately their whereabouts we will obviously update you. And when we have – we have to, obviously, operate under Privacy Act considerations as well.

QUESTION: And the – you say the Belgians still haven’t given any identifications for the deceased.

MR TONER: So they have not. Yes, that’s correct. They have not released nationality information for reported fatalities. And they’re still, frankly, in the process of identifying the deceased --

QUESTION: Are these families --

MR TONER: -- all of the deceased.

QUESTION: -- that are waiting for word --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: I mean, are you pressing them to do this as fast as possible?

MR TONER: Of course.

QUESTION: It --

MR TONER: Of course, Brad.

QUESTION: Is it a problem that they haven’t been able to identify them, the individuals and their nationalities, or they are choosing not to at this point?

MR TONER: Our understanding is that this was a mass casualty event – everyone realizes that – with a number of fatalities but also a number of injured. And with regard to some of those fatalities, identification is a problem. It’s hard; it’s difficult. Also many of the injured were taken to various hospitals around Brussels, and so we understand that internally the Belgians are also trying to come up with the identity, identify all these individuals, and then release that information to the appropriate embassies – not just the United States, but other embassies or other missions that may have been effected.

QUESTION: Mark --

MR TONER: Please, yeah. Hey.

QUESTION: Hi. It’s good to see you.

MR TONER: Good to see you.

QUESTION: You’re saying – sorry – that you’re not aware of any U.S. deaths at this point, but there are still two Americans unaccounted for?

MR TONER: That’s correct. Two – so just – so there are a number of U.S. citizens writ large who have been – are not accounted for. And – excuse me – we’ve not been giving out a precise figure on that for obvious reasons. As I said, when any kind of mass casualty event – and I tried to talk about that a little bit – whether it’s a natural disaster or whether it’s a terrorist attack, it just takes a matter – it takes some days to accumulate all the names, to come up with a credible list. And that’s what we’re in the process of doing right now.

With regard to official Americans, that’s – we have identified two individuals who are not yet accounted for.

QUESTION: Mark --

MR TONER: Yes.

QUESTION: -- on this point – I mean, I heard on the news today the parents of one American, a missionary – they are going to Brussels to look for him.

MR TONER: That’s right.

QUESTION: And the other – a couple actually, a husband and wife – their parents were also on radio saying that they’re on their way to Belgium to look for their kids. So --

MR TONER: And we’re --

QUESTION: -- there are three. So you --

MR TONER: Excuse me. I’m aware of both of those cases.

QUESTION: Right. But --

MR TONER: I just can’t speak to them because of Privacy Act considerations. Now, that said, there’s a number of cases like that, every one of them heartbreaking and difficult for these families. They want information about their loved ones who are missing. We have folks on the ground – and back here, frankly, a small task force that we’ve established to work these names, to try to find out, again, establish a credible list of names of people who are still unaccounted for. But then also we have folks on the ground – even though today’s a holiday, we have these people still available to work with these families, try to get them the information they need.

It’s just – and this is not an excuse in any way, but it’s just a recognition of the fact that it’s still, I know, two days later, very fluid. We’re still trying to get accurate information. And we still need to have accurate, precise information before we can share it with these families. We can’t give them – we can’t report on rumors. We have to have factual information, just like you guys do. So I mean, it’s – it takes some time, unfortunately.

QUESTION: Could I just – we stay on Belgium?

MR TONER: Yeah, please.

QUESTION: Can we stay on the terror attack? Yesterday the Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu had a press conference where he talked about the terror attacks in Brussels. He said that – he said many times that terrorism is not caused by occupation or despair, but in fact by hope, the hope of Daesh in establishing a caliphate all over the Middle East and the hope of Palestinian terrorists in establishing a Palestinian state. Do you agree with that assessment? Is there a connection between the occupation, the Israeli and Palestinian reaction and so on? Is there any kind of connection in your view or in your assessment?

MR TONER: Look, I think what you’re seeing – and again, let’s be very clear that even though Daesh or ISIL has claimed responsibility for this attack, we don’t have confirmation of that. The investigation is still underway. Certainly, it looks – bears all the hallmarks of a Daesh effort, but – unfortunately, there’s other terrorist groups who are also keen on these kinds – carrying out these kinds of attacks. Let me finish, sorry. But again, without being able to get into the minds of those who carry out these attacks, I think it reflects more of an effort to inflict on who they see as Western or Westerners, whether it’s in places like Turkey, but also in Belgium and Paris, and to sow fear that they can carry out these kinds of attacks and to attempt to lash out. I don’t know if this is about establishing a caliphate beyond the territorial gains that they’ve tried to make in Iraq and Syria, but it’s another aspect of Daesh’s kind of warped ideology that they’re carrying out these attacks on Europe and elsewhere if they can.

QUESTION: Well, I’m really more interested in --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- the Palestinian angle of this thing.

MR TONER: I’m sure you are.

QUESTION: Because he went on to say, basically – he went on to say that the occupation is there to prevent --

MR TONER: So --

QUESTION: -- acts like the one that happened in Brussels.

MR TONER: Sure. So in --

QUESTION: So do you see any connection with that? I mean, is that --

MR TONER: So in response to that – look, I’m not going to parse, certainly, Prime Minister Netanyahu’s words. We’ve been very clear that no violence is justified. Whether it’s the hopes or the dreams or the aspirations of a certain people never justifies violence. What we have been very clear about is that we need to see affirmative steps by both sides, Palestinians as well as the Israelis, to get back to a place where we can talk about a peace process and a two-state solution.

QUESTION: I just want you to indulge me for a minute. You agree or you disagree that the occupation prevents – the occupation – the Israeli occupation of the West Bank prevents acts of terror in Europe and elsewhere. Do you agree with that?

MR TONER: One more time. The occupation of the West Bank promotes --

QUESTION: Do you agree with the suggestion made by the Prime Minister of Israel that the occupation – the Israeli occupation in the West Bank prevents or serves to prevent acts of terror in Europe and elsewhere? Do you agree with that notion?

MR TONER: I – I’m just not going to give that kind of assessment except beyond what I just said, which is what we need in the Middle East is a credible steps – or credible, affirmative action on both sides to get us back to a place where we all agree they need to be, which is to be able to start a peace process towards a two-state solution. That’s the challenge before them. So no violence would ever justify that. Excuse me.

QUESTION: And my last question --

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: -- is on the role of mosques and so on, and actually, sort of --

MR TONER: The role of?

QUESTION: Of mosques in Europe --

MR TONER: Okay.

QUESTION: -- and basically inciting that kind of violence. There was a report today in The Washington Post that the grand mosque in Brussel actually create that kind of sentiment and so on. It’s a mosque that was financed by Saudi Arabia. The land was given by the king of Belgium some years back in the ‘70s to his Saudi monarch and so on and they built that mosque. And it says that a lot of those who frequent this mosque are Moroccans. They come from the mountains. They’re not – they’re quite tolerant and so on, but they get radicalized through incentives or going to Mecca and Medina and free education and so on. I wonder if you really have any comment on that.

MR TONER: Well, I mean, certainly --

QUESTION: It’s alleged in The Washington Post in this article.

MR TONER: No, I understand, and I read the article myself. Look, I mean, countering violent extremism is a significant part of trying to root out the type of radicalization that we’re seeing in many places in Europe and elsewhere, and that – those efforts need to continue. Whether it’s through the internet, whether it’s through social media, whether it’s at the mosque or other institutions, we need to be very mindful, and we’re working with many of these communities as well as many governments in Europe to address some of these challenges.

Yep.

QUESTION: Can we go back to the two official Americans?

MR TONER: Yeah, sure.

QUESTION: I completely understand that you don’t want to get into detail about them, but could you, I guess, clarify a little bit the term “official Americans,” just in terms of practically how we can describe them? Are these government employees? Are these – could this include their family members? Just could you clarify --

MR TONER: So they would be – if I can just characterize very broadly, these would be individuals who were either the dependents of or under – or employees of the U.S. Government, and that would include military as well.

QUESTION: Okay. So not necessarily State Department employees --

MR TONER: Not necessarily State Department employees.

QUESTION: -- not necessarily embassy employees, not even necessarily employees, could be their families?

MR TONER: That’s correct.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: Mark --

MR TONER: Are we ready to move off – do you want to – Belgium? Are we done with Belgium? Belgium? Belgium?

QUESTION: Yeah, Belgium

MR TONER: Belgium.

QUESTION: The family that says that they were given wrong information by the State Department – have you – were they given wrong information and have you gotten back in contact with them to correct that information? And just – if you could from the podium, just for their friends and friends and friends and friends and family --

MR TONER: Sure. Yeah.

QUESTION: -- just give them a sense of – that you’re doing everything possible to find these missing people.

MR TONER: So very aware, obviously, of the case that you raise, and I certainly don’t want to – that family is undergoing an ordeal that few of us can imagine. They’re seeking information; we’re trying to respond and get them accurate information. They’re trying to get it from other sources as well. We understand that. It’s incumbent on us to really try to get accurate information, and we just – we don’t have that yet. And so, certainly, we don’t want any misunderstandings. And we’re very sensitive to not just this family but the concerns that so many of the loved ones and family of the missing are going through.

So I do want to be clear that in terms of U.S. citizens in Belgium, if you haven’t been in contact – and this is clearly a common-sense rule – but if you haven’t been in contact with your friends and family, please do so. Let them know you’re okay. And U.S. citizens injured by the attacks should also contact the Belgian Crisis Center by dialing 1771 or simply reach out to the U.S. embassy, and I can give the number, but – 028114000. There’s a team at the embassy of consular officials who are basically there simply to track down these missing Americans but also provide whatever information they can to some of the families who are on the ground, who are calling in to look for updates.

All I can say is that – and recognize this is several days after the attack, but I can say that with – we’re working this issue very hard. We’re trying to get accurate information. It’s – partly it’s getting this information from Belgian authorities. As I said, many of the injured went to a broad swath of hospitals, and trying to get information – accurate information – on the nationalities and the identities of these – some of these injured has been tough. We’re trying to do that. As soon as we have an accurate – accurate information, we’ll obviously be back in touch with those families.

QUESTION: Yeah, I’m sure they’d understand that wrong information can be gotten, but I just wanted you to confirm that they were given wrong information and that effort should be made to contact --

MR TONER: And if there was any misunderstanding, we certainly apologize for any misunderstanding in that regard.

Anything else on Brussels? Yeah, please.

QUESTION: I know this was discussed briefly yesterday, but given the location of the attacks and other details that are coming out, is there any reason to believe that American interests were targeted in these attacks?

MR TONER: We still don’t have any determination or any kind of better understanding of who the exact target was or whether it was just – I mean, as everyone can imagine, walking into an airport or walking into a subway station and simply detonating a bomb is going to cause mass casualties among civilians. We don’t at this point have any credible evidence that suggests it was targeting Americans. We just don’t.

QUESTION: Staying on Brussels.

MR TONER: Please, go – yeah.

QUESTION: You just mentioned 10 injured and two not traced or not --

MR TONER: So about a dozen injured.

QUESTION: Oh.

MR TONER: And when I say that, Tejinder, I’m talking about broadly American citizens. I know it’s confusing.

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR TONER: And there are a number of American citizens who are unaccounted for.

QUESTION: You don’t have that number?

MR TONER: I can’t – no, I can’t give a precise figure. Frankly, they’re working right now to really compile a more precise list.

QUESTION: And you said that the names are not being released. Have the Belgians given you their names and asked not to release them, or can we have the names? What is it?

MR TONER: So we can’t. I mean, we don’t have – and certainly in the case of – so certainly in the case of private citizens, and especially ones who are missing, we’re not able to in most cases get the kind of Privacy Act waiver that we are obligated to get in order to publish those names.

QUESTION: No wwhat about the 12 that you have – the injured?

MR TONER: Again, we’re trying to access – and some of them we have – where they’re at in hospitals. Not all of them are in hospitals, of course. I don’t have an accurate count of – normally when we walk in, whether it’s – and I’m just speaking broadly now – whether it’s an American citizen held in prison in whatever country or whether it’s an American citizen injured in an attack or a natural disaster, when we make contact with them, a consular officer will explain what we – services we can provide to them, but also say, if you would wish, we can share your information publicly. You have to sign this Privacy Act waiver. Some decline, some sign. I don’t know if anybody has signed in this particular instance. I don’t have any names to read out.

QUESTION: And how many of these 12 are U.S. Government employees or --

MR TONER: So none of those dozen or so injured, to my knowledge, are U.S. Government employees.

QUESTION: They’re private citizens?

MR TONER: Private citizens.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR TONER: Please --

QUESTION: Other subject?

MR TONER: Yeah. Wait, let’s finish --

QUESTION: Just one last thing --

MR TONER: Yeah, that’s okay.

QUESTION: -- on Brussels.

QUESTION: I thought one individual was injured, was from – was an Air Force --

MR TONER: Thank you. That’s right.

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR TONER: Thank you. Thanks, Brad.

QUESTION: I wanted to ask you whether you were able to verify what the Turkish president alleged yesterday, that they gave information --

MR TONER: I’d refer you to the Belgian authorities.

QUESTION: -- but the -- since the Belgians have refuted that.

MR TONER: No, we’re not able to – we’re not able – sorry.

QUESTION: So you have not been able to establish --

MR TONER: No, and I mean, that’s for Belgian authorities to speak to, and I believe they have.

QUESTION: Was that perpetrator arrested --

MR TONER: So --

QUESTION: -- and turned over to Belgium and --

MR TONER: So look, again --

QUESTION: I mean, what is the story?

MR TONER: Again, without parsing the words of the president of Turkey, we certainly don’t have any reason to doubt what he said. The Belgian authorities have responded to it and said they didn’t have enough evidence or information about whether he had – this individual had terrorist ties. That may well be the case. We simply don’t have the details.

That said, it does speak to the ongoing challenge of tracking these individuals, and that has been something that we have been working with Belgium, with France, and with other countries in Europe at how you track these individuals, border control, watch lists, whatever you want to call them. But as these people move from country to country, and indeed in Europe, it’s a challenge because it’s a quote/unquote “borderless” union. It’s something that we are actually working and have been working with Belgium for some time, and especially in light of the attacks in Paris in February, we have stepped up those efforts. And so we’re going to continue to work with Belgium as long – as well as other countries in Europe to better improve passenger screening, security checks, all those things that can help tighten up the net, I guess is how I’d put it. So --

QUESTION: But Mark --

MR TONER: Yeah, please.

QUESTION: Mark, we talk about that yesterday.

MR TONER: We did.

QUESTION: But do you call – do you call your European allies to do more in terms of counterterrorism, to share more intelligence not only between them but also with the U.S.? Since we talk about it yesterday, former Secretary Clinton was speaking out against Europe and saying that European countries were not doing enough. Do you share --

MR TONER: Sure, I would --

QUESTION: -- her view?

MR TONER: Yeah. I mean, so as I said, we’ve already seen a significant increase in coordination with our partners in Europe. And as I said, that includes adding suspects to watch lists, sharing – and sharing that information more broadly. But we all have to continue to increase our bilateral and our multilateral cooperation against terrorism. And that’s partly just to close the gaps in our ability to identify these individuals and to prevent the next attack.

QUESTION: Sorry to harp on this point --

MR TONER: It’s okay.

QUESTION: -- but on this hydraulic effect, I mean, there are – we are inundated with commentary how as the ground shrinks from underneath Daesh fighters in Syria and Iraq, they find their way back to Europe, especially that maybe 5,000 fighters and so on join and there are now, like, 400 who are in Europe somewhere. I mean --

MR TONER: We’ve seen those reports.

QUESTION: -- so is Europe being lax in its cooperation with you and others or coordinating with one another?

MR TONER: Again, I’m not going to give an assessment one way or the other. I’m not going to give Europe a grade. As I said yesterday – and I mean no disrespect to the many security experts who have discussed or given their assessments of Europe’s ability to deal with this threat – but there’s always a degree of Monday morning quarterbacking, to use an American expression, after an event like this, and that’s natural. Where our focus is and has been, frankly, for some months now is working with these governments – not just Belgium but including Belgium – to really tighten the gaps, improve capacity, build capabilities to increase that kind of border security. Is that going to be able to prevent every case of self-radicalization or homegrown when people haven’t been to Syria or Iraq or train directly with ISIL? Certainly not. But it’s part of the solution. Ultimately, the solution is to destroy Daesh, but even then we still have the threat of terrorism. We’ve recognized this. We live – it’s a reality of the times we live in that these individuals are always going to be out there who want to carry out these kinds of attacks. And we need to do everything we can – and that’s the U.S., it’s Europe, it’s countries around the world – to try to prevent that, to tighten up the net, to try to disrupt these networks. But it’s a challenge.

QUESTION: Can we move on?

MR TONER: Yeah, please. I’m sorry. Samir, I so rarely, so --

QUESTION: No, no, no. It’s on Yemen. On Yemen.

MR TONER: Oh, Yemen, good. All right.

QUESTION: Go on, it’s --

MR TONER: Oh, I’m sorry, Brad. I didn’t mean to --

QUESTION: No, no, no.

MR TONER: Okay, I’ll get to you, Brad. I just – if it’s Yemen, cool.

QUESTION: I just --

QUESTION: Okay. Do you know if --

MR TONER: Perfect.

QUESTION: Do you know if Iran played any helpful role to achieve this agreement on a cessation of hostilities in Yemen?

MR TONER: I don’t. I mean, I – I mean, obviously – excuse me. The Saudis were – played a role in this as well as the GCC. I don’t really have an assessment of what, if any, role Iran did play in that. I just don’t.

Brad, back to you, over to you. I’m sorry.

QUESTION: Oh. I wanted to give you another crack on Syria from yesterday. It seems that the Syrian army backed by the Russians has pushed into Palmyra now. Are you hoping that they push Daesh out of the city or do you have no position on who controls the city and its ancient ruins?

MR TONER: Thank you for giving me another crack – (laughter) – a do-over, right? So, a couple thoughts: First of all, as you well know, and I think you – didn’t you travel to Palmyra at one point? Yeah.

QUESTION: Palmyra, yes.

MR TONER: I mean, it’s a long-suffering place, and ISIL invaded the city in 2015, the Assad regime responded with increased airstrikes causing many civilian casualties, it suffered from ISIL’s atrocities, and that includes the gruesome murder last August of Khaled Assad – and the Secretary’s spoken about this – he was beheaded. Its history and culture have been systematically wiped out by ISIL. It looted – it just looted its historical sites.

So all of that under consideration, we – of course our priority – and I said this yesterday – is defeating and destroying Daesh. That remains our priority. And yet we also recognize that replacing one or replacing Daesh’s barbaric rule with Assad’s tyranny is not a great tradeoff or a great solution. The Syrian people should not have to decide between ISIL and Assad, and that’s, again, what I was trying to convey yesterday, which speaks to the fact that that’s why we need to advance this UN-led negotiations, we need to establish a ceasefire, we need to end the civil war, get a transitional government into place, and then we can talk about cooperation against Daesh.

QUESTION: It just seems a little --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- a little strange because two of the things we’ve heard --

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: -- over the last many months was, one, that Assad wasn’t fighting Daesh properly and that he was mainly fighting the Syrian – moderate Syrian opposition --

MR TONER: And that’s true.

QUESTION: -- and that carried over to what the Russians were doing as well.

MR TONER: And that’s true.

QUESTION: So now that they seem to be doing some of that. Shouldn’t that be lauded, in your estimation? And then the second thing --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- was that – well, you can answer the first thing --

MR TONER: Okay.

QUESTION: -- while I remember the second.

MR TONER: So I’m not going to laud it, and I’m not going to laud it because it’s important to remember that one of the reasons Daesh is in Syria is because Assad’s brutal crackdown on his own people created the kind of vacuum, if you will, that has allowed a group like ISIL or Daesh to flourish. Just because he’s now, given the cessation of hostilities, willing and/or able to divert his forces to take on Daesh doesn’t exonerate him or his regime from the gross abuses that they’ve carried out against the Syrian people.

Again, it is a – it reflects, I think, the complex state of affairs that is Syria today, and it’s why we need a political transition away from Assad to a transitional government that’s supported by all the Syrian people, because we do have to deal with Daesh. So at the same time we support any effort to destroy or dismantle Daesh, I think we have to keep our eyes on the longer-term goal, which is a peaceful transition and political future for the people in Syria.

QUESTION: A related question?

QUESTION: Could I follow up on Brad’s?

MR TONER: Pam and then you.

QUESTION: Yeah, please, Pam. Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: A related question.

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: Iraqi forces have launched what they say is a first step to overtaking the Islamic State stronghold in Mosul. At this point, how significant would that retake be considering that the Islamic State seems to have spanned out with a presence in Europe and also in places such as Libya?

MR TONER: I apologize, just the last part of your question again? I just didn’t hear it correctly?

QUESTION: At this point, how significant would it be for Iraqi forces to retake Mosul from the Islamic State considering that the group has spread out and now seems to have a presence in parts of Europe --

MR TONER: Oh, okay. Sorry.

QUESTION: -- as well as in Libya and other places?

MR TONER: Well – and John spoke about this the other day, I spoke about it yesterday. I mean, we’ve been steadily chipping away at ISIL-held territory in Syria and certainly in Iraq. This is part of that effort. I mean, we certainly support and share with the Iraqi Government its goal of liberating Mosul as quickly as possible. And that’s, as we’ve long said, is going to be – certainly we’re going to support, but this has to be an Iraqi-led effort. The Iraqi forces are taking the fight against Daesh – or to Daesh, rather, in Mosul every week. So this – already this effort has begun. And as I said, we support it.

I don’t know how significant it is for the broader or other aspect of Daesh’s efforts, which is to export terror to other parts of the world. And we talked about this yesterday. There’s kind of like – there’s Daesh in Israel – or rather, excuse me, in Iraq and in Syria – taking the fight them. As we do that and put the squeeze on them what we have seen, that I think is related to that, is an effort to establish footholds or affiliates in other places from Afghanistan to Libya. And where we’ve had opportunities to strike them in those areas, we’ve taken those opportunities to strike them and target their leadership.

And then a third aspect is this radicalization, this attempt to recruit or to train up individuals who can then go out – small cells, but also networked in some cases – and carry out mass casualty terrorist attacks in different cities in Europe as well as other places. And that continues to be a threat. They’re all interconnected. I don’t know how much one is the result of another. I just don’t.

QUESTION: Just going back to Brad’s question --

MR TONER: Yes, sir.

QUESTION: -- on the Syrian forces and so on. You don’t laud them. I mean, I can understand that. But you do acknowledge that the Syrian forces – government forces – have been basically on the ground fighting ISIS or Daesh more than anyone else with their Kurdish allies. Would you acknowledge that? I mean, all along, all throughout the last three years and so on, they are the ones that are actually on the battlefield, engaging --

MR TONER: I mean, look, there’s also been a lot of collusion between them, especially in the oil trade. We talked about that. And it’s a mixed record. I’m sorry. I mean, primarily they’ve been – the regime has been fighting the opposition forces. But I think the regime would recognize that Daesh is just as much a threat to them as the rest of the world. I think, frankly, it speaks to the fact that – even the Syrian regime regards Daesh as an enemy that needs to destroyed and uprooted speaks to just the brutality and the universal recognition of Daesh’s brutality that so many disparate forces or entities could be – recognize that and see the need to destroy them.

Please. I can only have a couple more questions.

QUESTION: One last question. I mean, you said that you’re talking about the long term.

MR TONER: Yes, sir.

QUESTION: But in the short term, you definitely are going to see Daesh completely --

MR TONER: I think I said that with the caveat that we don’t want to see – no, I think I said that, Said, rather – we – it’s in some ways the lesser of two evils, but we welcome any effort to destroy – we welcome – we – our overarching goal is to destroy Daesh. So if it’s the Syrian regime that’s doing that, that’s not a bad thing.

QUESTION: Can we switch subjects or are we still on --

QUESTION: Still on Syria.

MR TONER: Sorry, (inaudible). Can we – okay. Sorry.

QUESTION: Earlier in the week, the Syrian chief negotiator for the peace talks made some claims that there are North Korean troops fighting in Syria alongside the Assad regime. Is that something you’re tracking or --

MR TONER: I’m not – I’m not. I haven’t seen those claims. Now granted, I was traveling with the Secretary in Cuba, so I may have missed it. This is – de Mistura who said this or --

QUESTION: No. The Syrian opposition.

MR TONER: Oh, the Syrian opposition said this claim.

QUESTION: Asaad al-Zoubi.

MR TONER: I have not. So I just haven’t seen those claims. And I have no information about their credibility. I’d be skeptical, but --

QUESTION: If true, would you be concerned, dismayed, astounded?

MR TONER: I’m not going to just address a hypothetical, with all due respect.

QUESTION: Also --

QUESTION: So staying on that subject --

MR TONER: Yes.

QUESTION: -- I don’t know if you were asked this yesterday, since I wasn’t here.

MR TONER: Yeah, of course.

QUESTION: Were you – are you aware of the what seems to be acknowledgement by a Russian general that Russian special forces are involved and on the ground in the offensive in Palmyra? And if so, can you confirm that, and what kind of reaction does the United States Government have to that?

MR TONER: Well, so a couple of things. One is we – I cannot confirm it. But it’s not particularly surprising, even with the announced withdrawal I think last week of Russian forces, we still see a number of Russian soldiers, Russian troops on the ground supporting the regime. So all I can say is it’s not – it wouldn’t be particularly surprising.

QUESTION: ISIL.

QUESTION: I’ve got one.

QUESTION: Syria.

MR TONER: I really got to --

QUESTION: Can I ask on Korea?

QUESTION: Syria.

MR TONER: Sorry, I would like to move off, unless it’s a really – and I apologize, but let’s do a couple more.

QUESTION: Yeah, on North Korea.

MR TONER: Yes, please.

QUESTION: It is reported that North Korea has developed a solid-fuel missiles. Do you have any information on that?

MR TONER: Any information about – I’m sorry?

QUESTION: About solid-fuel missiles.

QUESTION: They said they tested a solid --

MR TONER: Yes, I do. Hold on one second. Yeah. A solid – yeah. So we have seen from a North Korean state media report that – of a solid-fuel rocket engine test. Look, our reaction is that North Korea should refrain from any actions and rhetoric that raise tensions in the region and comply with its international obligations and commitments. It continues to, frankly, consistently show that it’s reluctant to do that, but UN Security Council resolutions require North Korea to suspend all activities related to its ballistic missile program and to abandon its ballistic missile program in a complete, verifiable, and irreversible manner. So I’ll leave it there.

Please, in the back.

QUESTION: A White House official announced that President Obama is going to hold a bilateral meeting between U.S. and China top leaders during the Nuclear Security Summit. Are you able to share more information about that meeting? What are the dominating issues that they are probably going to talk about?

MR TONER: So, of course, I wouldn’t presume to comment on what is essentially the White House meeting, or bilateral. But I have, of course, seen confirmation that they will meet. It goes without saying that our relationship with China, our bilateral relationship, and our multilateral relationship with China is broad and diverse. It covers a number of issues, anywhere from concerns about Syria, concerns about other global threats out there. And certainly we – in climate change, including COP21. It also includes economic issues, trade issues, cybersecurity issues, as well as concern about – an ongoing concern about human rights. So there’s a lot of issues that they’ll probably hit on.

Please, sir.

QUESTION: KRG President Barzani said in an interview with the Al-Monitor a couple of days ago that after the scheduled referendum at the end of this year, his region is certainly going for independent. And he said that he’s hoping that the United States will stop – stand against that. Will the United States be standing against an independent Kurdistan?

MR TONER: Again, we support Kurdish region as a part of Iraq. We supported its efforts, certainly considerable efforts, to fight Daesh and ISIL and remove it and drive it out of Iraq. I just don’t have anything to say. I’m not going to talk about a political process that we still haven’t seen or a referendum that we still haven’t – hasn’t materialized.

Last question. Sir.

QUESTION: Hi. We were told back in February everyone here at the State Department takes the required security training for handling classified information. And if that is true, how come these records from Mrs. Clinton, Huma Abedin, and Cheryl Mill’s training have not been made public through FOIA? And then we have, based on new information, Mrs. Clinton skipped a cyber briefing in 2011. Why was that allowed to happen?

MR TONER: So I just simply don’t have any information about whether she may have missed a cyber briefing. It’s my understanding that, just as this Secretary of State, everybody in this building would receive that kind of – that type of training and awareness.

QUESTION: And if they missed it what type of punishment would there be?

MR TONER: I just – I mean, there’s – we all have to undergo that, and it’s considered mandatory. I don’t know the specifics of this case. Not so much punishment, but access to computers, that kind of thing, might be affected. I’m talking broadly here and generally, not specifically to this case. And I – the first part of your question, I’m not quite sure the status of the FOIA requests that may be being processed.

So thanks, guys.

QUESTION: Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:29 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 - March 22, 2016

John Kirby

Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC

March 22, 2016








Index for Today's Briefing

BELGIUM/REGION/DEPARTMENT



RUSSIA/UKRAINE



BELGIUM/REGION/DEPARTMENT



NORTH KOREA/SOUTH KOREA/REGION



IRAQ



TURKEY



CHINA/DEPARTMENT



DEPARTMENT




TRANSCRIPT:

2:08 p.m. EDT

MR KIRBY: Hello, everybody. So if I could, I want to start this afternoon with just a few remarks about the terrorist attacks in Brussels today. You’ve seen the President’s remarks as well as the Secretary’s statement. Secretary Kerry said today’s attacks in Brussels are an assault against the Belgian people and the very heart of Europe. Our thoughts are with all those affected by this violence – the injured, the missing, and the families of those whose lives were taken.

You’ve also seen that Secretary Kerry spoke by phone this morning with his Belgian counterpart. He made it clear to Foreign Minister Reynders that we stand with the people of Belgium in this difficult time and that we will assist in whatever way they require efforts to bring the perpetrators to justice. He also praised the courage and skill of Belgian first responders, many of whom are still on the job right now.

We’ve seen claims by Daesh that they were responsible for these attacks. We cannot confirm the veracity of those claims, though clearly we believe that this terrorist group remains capable of this sort of depravity. It’s important, we believe, to let investigators do their work and let the facts take them where they may.

Our embassy in Brussels continues to make every effort to account for the welfare of U.S. citizens in the city, including all government personnel. That work is ongoing. We know that a number of U.S. citizens were injured in the attacks, but we do not have an accurate figure right now. We do not know of any U.S. deaths at this point. I would note that it is still early on and that the situation is, understandably, still fluid and still uncertain. When we have more information that we can speak to, we will. At this time however, we have asked all U.S. citizens in Brussels who can to shelter in place, avoid all public transportation, and contact their loved ones as best they are able. We’re also asking U.S. citizens there to follow the instructions of local authorities and monitor the media for further developments.

Today reminds us, all too sadly, of the threat still posed by terrorists around the world, but it also underscores our commitment to, and with our allies and partners, to defeating these groups and their hateful ideology.

Now on to the case of Nadiya Savchenko. I think you may have seen the statement we just put out, but if not, I’d like to repeat it here:

The conviction and sentencing of Nadiya Savchenko to 22 years imprisonment show a blatant disregard for the principles of justice and contravene Russia’s commitments under the Minsk agreements.

For nearly two years, Russia has unjustly detained Savchenko on charges that have no basis in fact and has denied her the basic protections of the rule of law. She has reportedly endured interrogation, solitary confinement, and forced “psychiatric evaluation.”

Nadiya Savchenko deserves to go home to her family and friends and to join her colleagues in the Rada in building a better future for their country. We reiterate our call on Russia to immediately release Nadiya Savchenko and other unlawfully detained people.

With that, Matt.

QUESTION: Let’s start with Brussels. I realize that you don’t have a full or complete count of Americans injured, but how many do you know of at least?

MR KIRBY: Yeah, I’m going to avoid giving a specific number because the number --

QUESTION: Yeah, why can’t you just say the number that you have confirmed and qualify it by saying it’s incomplete and it could rise? The U.S. military has already spoken about one service member and the family. The Mormon Church has spoken. If the State Department is not able to give even a preliminary, albeit incomplete, count, why? Why?

MR KIRBY: Because there isn’t a confirmed count right now, Matt.

QUESTION: You don’t have a confirmed count of the --

MR KIRBY: The number keeps fluctuating, as you might expect it will in a situation that is this fluid.

QUESTION: So is it possible to go down?

MR KIRBY: I don’t know, Matt. I don’t know. And it would be irresponsible for me to give out a number now when the numbers are actually changing literally by the hour. So we know of a number that have been injured and we need to, again, let the medical people do what they need to do to patch these folks up and also to get --

QUESTION: I really don’t understand why you could not give a number that you know for sure and say then that, look, this is early.

MR KIRBY: Because we don’t have a number we know for sure right now, Matt. There’s estimates – estimates only – and they keep changing, and they go up and they go down and they have all day. And I am simply not going to give out an estimate even that I know is going to be inaccurate in less than an hour from now. When we have better information – and I would just remind you that this just happened a few hours ago. When we have better information, as I said in my opening statement, we will gladly and happily provide it to you.

QUESTION: Can you say that you can – that you know of the three missionaries, Mormon missionaries that the church has talked about?

MR KIRBY: I can’t confirm specific individuals.

QUESTION: Do you – but so far you know that there’s no one – no U.S. citizens reported killed?

MR KIRBY: As of this moment, we know of no U.S. deaths.

QUESTION: The U.S. has offered help in the investigation. Can you elaborate more into what that – what kind of help you have promised?

MR KIRBY: Well, it was a general offer of assistance, Lesley, nothing specific. Again, when the Secretary got a hold of his counterpart there, it was really very, very soon after reports of the violence, and it was a short call, as you might expect. And again, our offer of help was more general in nature, not specific.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: U.S. is hosting Nuclear Security Summit next week --

MR KIRBY: Wait. Before we go, are we --

QUESTION: I have --

MR KIRBY: You want to do more on the – let’s stay on Brussels, okay, if we can do that?

QUESTION: Okay, link to Brussels.

MR KIRBY: Go ahead.

QUESTION: Yeah. Have you been able to account for all chief-of-mission personnel, U.S. personnel to international organizations in the city?

MR KIRBY: As I said in my opening statement, the work of accounting for U.S. citizens in the city, including government personnel, is ongoing. So as far as I know, that effort has not been completed.

QUESTION: John, when you say a number of U.S. citizens were injured, do any of them – are you aware that any of them have life-threatening injuries?

MR KIRBY: I don’t have any information with any detail about the scope of injuries. We know that some U.S. citizens were injured in these attacks, but I just don’t have additional info right now.

QUESTION: Are there any U.S. citizens who are hospitalized?

MR KIRBY: I don’t know. I honestly don’t know the condition.

QUESTION: Is the United States helping Belgium in the investigation, recognizing the people who --

MR KIRBY: I think I just answered that question. As I said, the Secretary in his phone call with the foreign minister this morning offered U.S. assistance in the investigation and, frankly, in whatever way the Belgian Government might require. I’m not aware of any requests for U.S. assistance at this time, either investigative or any other way, but we stand ready to assist as needed.

QUESTION: Will the --

QUESTION: Can I just ask one general question? We’re having a lot of criticism of the failure of the world intelligence, including the U.S. intelligence, when we see attacks like this happen. I mean, what do you make of that criticism? Don’t you think the European and even U.S. intelligence have failed to detect that attack at this scale located in Belgium?

MR KIRBY: Within just hours of something like this happening, I think everybody’s attention is rightly on trying to take care of those who are hurt, trying to recover those who are missing, trying to communicate with loved ones, and to try to secure not just the scenes at which the violence occurred but other areas of the city to make sure that public safety is maintained as best as possible. That’s what everybody’s mind is on. There’ll be an investigation of this. As I said, we’ve offered whatever assistance might be required. And we’ll let the investigators sort through this, and I’m sure that in that process there will be lessons learned and we’ll wait for that, we’ll await that work.

QUESTION: Does the Secretary plan to stop either in Brussels anytime soon or any other place where he might send a message to Daesh or any other group that might have something similar in mind?

MR KIRBY: As you know, the Secretary – he’s in Cuba right now. He’ll be leaving for Moscow this evening for a meeting with Russian officials and President Putin later this week. I don’t have any additional travel this week or in the coming days to speak to right now.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR KIRBY: Are we still on Brussels?

QUESTION: Yes, please.

MR KIRBY: Let’s stay on Brussels for just – let’s stay on this and then we’ll move off of it. Are you on Brussels? Go ahead.

QUESTION: I’m --

MR KIRBY: I’ll come back to you.

QUESTION: Hi. Just looking at the big picture, I mean, in the past have you talked with European governments in the past about security measures? Have you sort of had concerns that maybe they’re not as strict as the U.S.? Is this a warning that there needs to be further action when you look at Paris, London, Brussels, and so on?

MR KIRBY: Well, again, I think everybody’s focus right now is on trying to take care of those who were hurt. The investigation is just getting underway in Brussels and I don’t want to get ahead of that, of that process. I’m sure that in the investigation they’ll learn things, and maybe they’ll learn things that can be applied to future measures going forward. Again, I don’t want to prejudice that effort right now.

But as we’ve seen here in America that terrorism is a difficult threat to thwart. We have to be right every day of the year, every hour of the day. Groups like – whoever conducted this, but terrorist groups only have to be right once. And so it’s a very difficult challenge to grapple with, with 100 percent success.

What I can tell you though is certainly here at the State Department we’re committed to contributing to interagency efforts to do that and international efforts. It’s why we’re working so hard on the coalition against Daesh in Iraq and Syria. It’s why, quite frankly, that we hosted the Countering Violent Extremism Summit here at the State Department. And it’s why Secretary Kerry makes such an effort to try to stem through – approach through political solutions the civil war in Syria, because that civil war, Bashar al-Assad’s brutality, has allowed groups like Daesh to fester and grow in Iraq and Syria.

And I don’t think – certainly today’s deadly events brings home, sadly to people across Europe, particularly in Belgium, how real the threat is. And I don’t – not that they needed to be reminded of that. I mean, even in Belgium they didn’t need to be reminded of that. But I’m sure that they’re – that they have taken the threat seriously before today and they will certainly do what they need to do. Once they learn what really happened here, they’ll apply those lessons learned going in the future. Everybody needs to continue to work hard against this threat, because again, as I said, they only have to be right once; we have to be right all the time.

QUESTION: And just a quick follow-up. Donald Trump was very quick to tweet about how this shows there’s a problem with the Muslims, as he put it. I mean, when he does that, as the sort of frontrunner for a major party, does it undermine the diplomatic work you’re trying to do?

MR KIRBY: Well, I haven’t seen those comments. Certainly we wouldn’t – and we’ve talked about public comments on the campaign trail and the impact that they are or are not having. I let the candidates speak for themselves about their views. Our view is that what this shows – and I said this in my opening statement – is that a group like Daesh – and again, I’m not saying they’re responsible for this; they’ve claimed it – but a group like this is still capable of this kind of violence. And we have to take that threat seriously, and we are. And it’s something that we have approached not only here in the United States from an interagency perspective, but overseas from an international perspective. Clearly we need to continue to look for ways to improve our capabilities against this threat, and we’ll do that.

This isn’t about a religion. This is about a warped and brutal, depraved ideology that continues to be attractive to a small number of people in the Muslim faith – radicals and extremists. And we don’t believe that it is indicative in any way of the Muslim faith or the people who practice Islam as a religion. But it is a group that remains deadly, remains lethal. And we are going to remain focused on defeating them.

QUESTION: But how do you dissever the fact --

MR KIRBY: Let me go back here, okay?

QUESTION: Same issue.

MR KIRBY: Yeah. No, okay. But I’m going to go back here. Abbie, and I’ll come to you.

QUESTION: Secretary Kerry was seemingly not in attendance with President Obama at the baseball game today in Havana. Can you say whether or not he originally intended to accompany the President? Has his schedule changed or has he left in order to prepare for Moscow?

MR KIRBY: I’ll have to get an update from the travel team. I was not tracking his individual movements today in terms of what he was attending and what he wasn’t. So why don’t you let me get back to you on that.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Ali Watkins with BuzzFeed. Can you characterize at all what the intelligence sharing relationship was between the U.S. and Belgium post-Paris, prior to this attack? And when the Secretary says that America is willing to help with this investigation, is there room for more to be shared there?

MR KIRBY: I don’t have specific information about intelligence-sharing relationships with other countries around the world. And as you might expect, we wouldn’t be speaking to that in any great specificity here from the podium. We do have a very strong, close relationship with Belgian authorities and there is information shared between our two governments, as well as – I’m sure with other governments in Europe as well in terms of their coordination with Belgium. But I wouldn’t speak to the details of that.

And your second question was do we think there needs to be a change in that relationship or --

QUESTION: Is there room for more to be shared?

MR KIRBY: Well, I mean, I think, again, we need to let the investigators do their work and kind of figure out what happened here before we can say definitively that process A needs to change or procedure B needs to be upgraded. I think we’re going to, obviously, offer whatever assistance that they might require for this. And again, I know of no requests right now for U.S. help. But I think it’s important to let them do their jobs, figure out what happened here. And then if there are gaps and seams that need to be closed or things that need to be done better, well then, certainly the United States would be solidly behind supporting whatever efforts come out of this.

Clearly these individuals were able to visit this kind of violence on innocent people going to work or traveling, so we need to figure out what happened here, how this could have occurred. And then and only then are we going to be able to try to determine what remedies there might be in the future.

QUESTION: Did the U.S. know of any – were there any indications that the U.S. knew of that this attack could take place?

MR KIRBY: I won’t get into specific intelligence matters. I know of no specific warnings, but again, I’m reticent to speak about intelligence matters in general.

Yes.

QUESTION: Change of subject?

MR KIRBY: Yeah. You want to change subjects?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR KIRBY: Okay. Are we good? All right.

QUESTION: Next week the State Department is hosting Nuclear Security Summit. What impact that would – this Brussels attack would have on Nuclear Security Summit in terms of security measures? Do you have any – how many head of states are coming? Do you have any --

MR KIRBY: Is your question given --

QUESTION: Yes.

MR KIRBY: Given the fact --

QUESTION: Brussels attack.

MR KIRBY: -- that these attacks happened at an airport, are we doing anything additional? I don’t – well, let me put it this way: We obviously take security very, very seriously. I would refer you to DHS for measures that are taken here at home. Some measures you know are visible and some are invisible by design. But I know the United States Government takes physical security very, very seriously here in the country. We’ve also learned, through the tragedy of terrorism on our own soil, how important that is. I wouldn’t speak to specific measures one way or another.

What I can say is that we’re looking forward to having the Nuclear Security Summit here in Washington, D.C. The Secretary is looking forward to attending and to having opportunities to discuss that very important security issue with counterparts from around the world. So we’re looking forward to it.

QUESTION: And would this – would terrorism come up as a major issue during the talks, during the deliberations next week?

MR KIRBY: Well, one of the things that’s always an issue when you talk about nuclear security is the security of those kinds of systems, and we’re always mindful that we would never want weapons of mass destruction to fall into the hands of terrorists, because we recognize what a real danger that is. So without getting into specific agenda items, I think clearly, issues of proliferation are a matter that’s – that are constantly discussed, particularly when you’re talking about nuclear security.

QUESTION: And do you know how many heads of states are coming? Do you have any --

MR KIRBY: I don’t have an update for you. We can get that for you as we get a little closer to the summit itself. I just don’t have a protocol update today.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. Kirby. South Korean Government said that North Korea can conduct fifth nuclear test anytime. If North Korea do this again, is – will that be a violation of UN Security Council resolutions?

MR KIRBY: Okay. Let me make sure I got this right. You’re saying the South Korean Government, you’re saying, said that they can – that the North can conduct --

QUESTION: Can conduct a fifth – yes, North can conduct a fifth nuclear test anytime, anytime soon.

MR KIRBY: Oh, can conduct another one --

QUESTION: Yes.

MR KIRBY: -- anytime soon?

QUESTION: Yes, sir.

MR KIRBY: I haven’t seen those comments, and again, I wouldn’t speak to intelligence matters one way or another from the podium. We’re mindful of the regime’s desire to pursue tests like this, including one purported one recently. I – but again, I wouldn’t prognosticate in the future and certainly wouldn’t speak to intelligence matters. But if you’re asking me if they were to conduct another test --

QUESTION: Yes.

MR KIRBY: -- would it be a violation, absolutely, it would be. And then we would do as we’ve done before and take it up inside the UN.

QUESTION: And also another one that Sung Kim, Six-Party Talks special envoy, went to South Korea, talked with his counterpart, with Kim Hong-kyun. Is this – what kind of exceptional sanctions toward North Korea they agreed this time? Do you have any additional sanctions agreement between U.S. and South Korea, exceptional?

MR KIRBY: Well, he hasn’t – he’s on – he’s traveling soon – I think you may have seen we put out a Media Note on this – and so I don’t have a readout of his discussions right now. But as we put in our Media Note, he’ll be meeting with his counterparts there in the Republic of Korea, Vietnam, and Cambodia on this trip. And he’ll certainly be discussing UN Security Council Resolution 2270 and the international community’s obligations to meeting that resolution and to enforcing its components. But again, I don’t have a readout of the visit.

QUESTION: Follow-up?

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: On North Korea?

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: Okay. Can you confirm media reports that North Korea conducted a land test of submarine-launched missile last week?

MR KIRBY: No. We’ve seen those reports. I’m not in a position to confirm the veracity of them.

QUESTION: Even yesterday five times.

MR KIRBY: We’ve seen the – you’re asking about the --

QUESTION: North Korea did test, five times yesterday.

MR KIRBY: We’ve seen reports that they launched ballistic missiles into the Sea of Japan. We’re closely monitoring --

QUESTION: Yeah. Another one was yesterday, five times.

MR KIRBY: Yeah. We’ve seen the reports. We’re monitoring it. We’re --

QUESTION: There are so many – so many times so you cannot --

MR KIRBY: We’re monitoring it very, very closely. Launching – launches using ballistic missile technology are a clear violation, as you know, of multiple UN Security Council resolutions. We again call on North Korea to refrain from actions that further raise tensions in the region and focus instead on taking concrete steps toward fulfilling their international commitments.

QUESTION: There’s – about Iraq. There’s an article in Reuters that Secretary Kerry handed a note from President Obama in January to Abadi about the dam in Mosul that could collapse. That happened at a time when the State Department also put out a statement saying that the dam could collapse as early as spring, which is basically – we’re now in spring. Do – is that assessment continues to be the same, your assessment? Or has the Iraqi Government taken any measures to prevent the dam from collapsing, according to your information?

MR KIRBY: We have certainly shared information and our concerns in the past about the Mosul dam and its integrity with the Iraqi Government, and I would add that the Iraqi Government was having their own concerns at the same time. And we’re in complete agreement that more needed to be done to ensure the dam’s integrity, and they have taken steps to do that.

QUESTION: They have?

MR KIRBY: They have. They’ve hired a contractor to go and to work on these structural issues. I don’t have an update for you on that. I think I would refer you to the Government of Iraq for the progress there. But it’s beyond dispute that Prime Minister Abadi is showing leadership on trying to make sure that the dam’s integrity is preserved, because he understands very well what the consequences of --

QUESTION: Do you really believe he’s taking the issue seriously?

MR KIRBY: Yes, we do. Absolutely we do.

Yes.

QUESTION: On Turkey. Yesterday Turkish-Iranian national was arrested in Florida – over the weekend, I’m sorry. His name is Reza Zarrab. Indictment was published late last night as well. I was wondering if you have any further comments or whether you have talked to Turkish officials about this person.

MR KIRBY: I’m afraid I don’t. I don’t have any information on that particular report.

Yes, in the back there.

QUESTION: U.S. and China are deepening nuclear security cooperation right now. So what opportunity will bring to U.S.-China relations from the upcoming Nuclear Security Summit? And what’s your expectation on the possible interaction – I mean, the bilateral meetings between President Xi and President Obama?

MR KIRBY: Well, I won’t speak for the President and the meetings that he will have. That’s really for my colleagues at the White House to speak to. As I said, we’re looking forward to the Nuclear Security Summit. And there’s an awful lot to discuss inside the framework of that forum. So the Secretary’s very much looking forward to that and looking forward to having discussions with our Chinese counterparts, again, inside the framework of the Nuclear Security Summit. I won’t get ahead of those discussions. I think you can rely upon the fact that as the Secretary conducts bilateral discussions on the margins of the Nuclear Security Summit, we’ll be reading those discussions out to you. But there are many issues inside the broader concern of nuclear security for us to speak with our Chinese counterparts about, as well as other bilateral issues and regional issues that I’m sure will come up in those discussions.

So we’re very much looking forward to it, and I think you’ll see that we’ll have more to say as we get into the actual meetings.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Yesterday Republican frontrunner Donald Trump in an interview to CNN said that the U.S. needs to review its role with NATO alliance – not in terms of contributions, but in terms of money that it pays and the troops it contributes because other countries are not matching the same figures. What’s the State Department views on that?

MR KIRBY: I’m not going to get into debating the rhetoric by candidates for office.

QUESTION: But how important NATO is for the U.S.?

MR KIRBY: How important is NATO? Well, it’s a critical alliance for the United States. We – it’s one of seven security treaties that we belong to. And when you look at what’s going on in Europe, when you look at what’s – you look at how NATO has contributed and continues to contribute to the mission in Afghanistan, there’s – there are a lot of – and just, frankly, what happened today in Brussels, in terms of the very real terrorist threat on the continent, there are lots of relevant – continue to be lots of relevant issues for NATO to consider and to contribute to and, frankly, to lead in. And the United States is very committed to our commitments under the NATO alliance, and I don’t see that changing.

QUESTION: But do you think that NATO allies are contributing as much as you want them – you – them to do it? For instance, in Afghanistan, I mean, they are a reluctant partner; they are not contributing as much as you wanted them to do it.

MR KIRBY: Well, you asked and then you stated it, so --

QUESTION: I’m just giving an example.

MR KIRBY: We – we’re confident in the integrity of the NATO alliance. We’re certainly confident in our commitment – all of our commitments – to the NATO alliance. Now, your question gets to defense spending, and the Secretary has been very honest about the fact that we know that not all nations are contributing the 2 percent of GDP that was required coming out of Wales to NATO commitments and other nations are. So we continue to support that requirement. We want to see nations also support that requirement.

But we also value the individual skills and capabilities that so many armed forces belonging to NATO bring to the mission. You talked about Afghanistan, and there are small countries that may not be contributing the same number of troops, but they’re contributing expertise in terms of police training and other force protection skills that are unique, that they’re very good at, and we value that.

Okay. I’m going to have to call it there, guys. Thanks very much. Again, as we get more information and we’re able to, we will certainly share it. Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:37 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 : Secretary Kerry's Meetings with Colombian Government and FARC Negotiators

Secretary Kerry's Meetings with Colombian Government and FARC Negotiators

ReadoutOffice of the Spokesperson
Washington, DC

March 21, 2016

The below is attributable to Deputy Spokesperson Mark Toner:

Secretary of State John Kerry, at the request of Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos, met with the parties negotiating a peace agreement for Colombia this afternoon in Havana, Cuba. The Secretary first met with the Colombian government's negotiating team and then with the FARC negotiating team.‎

Secretary Kerry reiterated to both sides that the United States strongly supports the peace process, and is prepared through "Paz Colombia," announced February 4 by President Obama, to support the implementation of a final agreement to end the longest running conflict in the Western Hemisphere. He underscored to both sides that the peace process in Colombia, like President Obama's historic visit to Cuba, was a sign of "a profound transformation underway in Latin America."

Secretary Kerry stressed that the international community is also supporting the peace process, including the UN Secretary General and Security Council, the European Union, and the Holy Father, Pope Francis.

He told both parties he is encouraged that the "end of conflict" issues are now front and center in the negotiations, including a formal bilateral ceasefire monitored by the UN Security Council; a timetable for disarmament, and security guarantees post-conflict for all lawful political actors. Secretary Kerry urged the parties to redouble their efforts to resolve these difficult issues that are necessary to conclude a final agreement. ‎

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 - March 18, 2016

John Kirby

Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC

March 18, 2016









Index for Today's Briefing

PHILIPPINES



GERMANY



PHILIPPINES/REGION



NORTH KOREA



PHILIPPINES/REGION



MIDDLE EAST PEACE



IRAN



NORTH KOREA/REGION



YEMEN/REGION



DEPARTMENT/IRAQ/REGION



UAE



COLOMBIA



DJIBOUTI/ERITREA/REGION



BELGIUM/REGION



UKRAINE/REGION



BAHRAIN



HONDURAS



MOROCCO/REGION




TRANSCRIPT:

2:08 p.m. EDT

MR KIRBY: How are you guys?

QUESTION: That book’s getting heavy, isn’t it?

MR KIRBY: We were just having that conversation about how heavy it is. A couple of things at the top and then we’ll get right at it.

This morning, the State Department hosted here in D.C. the Sixth Annual U.S.-Philippines Strategic Dialogue led by Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Danny Russel and Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Amy Searight on the United States side, and on the Philippines side Under Secretary of Foreign Affairs Evan Garcia and Under Secretary for Defense Policy Pio Lorenzo Batino for the Government of the Philippines. Both countries reaffirmed their commitment to strengthening the U.S.-Philippines alliance in terms of ensuring both countries – our mutual defense and security as well as jointly contributing to regional peace, stability, and economic prosperity.

Both sides also noted agreement on five Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement agreed locations encompassing portions of the following facilities and areas: Antonio Bautista Air Base, Basa Air Base, Fort Magsaysay, Lumbia Air Base, and Mactan-Benito Ebuen Air Base.

They also discussed next steps for implementation of the EDCA and how it will support the United States efforts to help modernize the armed forces of the Philippines, develop capacity and capability for maritime security and domain awareness, and provide rapid humanitarian assistance to the people of the Philippines.

On Germany, we are saddened today to learn of the death of former German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle. We send our deepest condolences to his family, friends, and, of course, the German people. The United States worked closely with him throughout his four years as foreign minister on historic global issues. We’ll have more to say about this later today, but we wanted to note at the top of the briefing, again, our sadness at his passing and our deep regard for the German people today.

With that, Matt.

QUESTION: Just very briefly, you mean the Secretary’s going to have a statement in his name?

MR KIRBY: Yeah. I think the Secretary will have something out later today.

QUESTION: Okay. And then briefly just on the Philippines, the – does it – the five places that they’ve agreed on, could there be more or is that it? Does this complete the whole thing or at least in terms of location?

MR KIRBY: I’m not aware of any additional --

QUESTION: Is there stuff that’s still under discussion?

MR KIRBY: Well, there’s --

QUESTION: In terms of location?

MR KIRBY: I’m not aware of any other additional locations. And again, these are rotational areas.

QUESTION: Right.

MR KIRBY: There’s no U.S. basing in the Philippines, and that’s not a part of the EDCA.

QUESTION: And what was the Fort McSay? What was that? I’m just – I just want to make sure that I understand this right. I mean, Subic is not included in this, right, or what was Subic Bay.

MR KIRBY: No. Fort Magsaysay. I think --

QUESTION: Magsaysay?

MR KIRBY: Magsaysay. Magsaysay.

QUESTION: All right. Okay. Moving on from that, unless someone else – no?

MR KIRBY: No.

QUESTION: Fort Magsaysay – no, actually.

QUESTION: Well, I meant on the Philippines in general but --

MR KIRBY: Nope. I’m fine if you’re fine.

QUESTION: Okay. Well, wait, I – and just – something just occurs to me. So this clearly – when the agreement was signed several years ago but now the – today, the finalization of these locations – what kind of signal is this intended to send?

MR KIRBY: The signal it’s intended to --

QUESTION: Not to the Philippines but to other countries, perhaps larger ones to the west.

MR KIRBY: What it signals is our commitment to our alliance with the Philippines and only our alliance to the Philippines. That’s what this is intended to signal, that that alliance is still strong and vibrant. We want to see it continue to be stronger and more vibrant in the future. No other nation in the region should take any other message away from this new agreement. It’s very much in keeping with, again, our security commitments there to the Philippines.

QUESTION: Well, you may not want them to take any other message, but I don’t – I’m not—but I’m not sure I – that I believe that that’s the case. I think you’re most certainly trying to send a message. But whether or not that is the case and whether or not you want them, other countries, to take a message, they are certainly going to take the message and say that this is provocative. And I guarantee you on Monday – come Monday, you’ll be asked about one particular foreign ministry saying that this is provocative.

MR KIRBY: Which one?

QUESTION: One where there’s a lot of smog.

MR KIRBY: Look, I mean, I --

QUESTION: And I guess in anticipation of that complaint, which is going to come, why should other governments, particularly ones with whom the Philippines has disagreements with over territorial issues, not see this as provocative, the fact that there’s going to be rotational U.S. military in the Philippines?

MR KIRBY: Okay. A couple of thoughts there. First of all, there – we’ve made absolutely no bones about the fact that we take the rebalance to the Asia Pacific region very seriously. There are many components to the rebalance. The military component is just one of them. I am traditionally reticent to talk about military matters, but in this case, I think, given that I topped this off the dialogue, I’m going to speak a little bit about that. There has been – the rebalance has been realized in tangible ways across the Asia Pacific region, whether it’s ballistic – Aegis capable ballistic missile defense destroyers that have been based in Japan or additional air defense systems in Alaska at Fort Greely, and the additional presence of rotational – expeditionary rotational forces, be they Navy, Marine, Air Force, or even Army in the region.

And as part of our – first of all, this agreement has been long – a long time in coming and in discussion, but it’s very much in keeping with the efforts that the United States has put in to increasing our rotational and expeditionary capabilities there in the Asia Pacific region. It’s very much in keeping with that. I can’t speak for another nation and how they might react to this, but I can tell you that there’s nothing offensive or provocative with respect to any of the military capabilities that are permanently based in the Asia Pacific region or are going to be rotationally based in the Pacific region.

QUESTION: Okay. Well, good luck selling that to the Chinese. But anyway --

MR KIRBY: Wait, wait, it’s not about selling it to the Chinese or to anybody. It’s about meeting our security commitments in a serious alliance with the Philippines. That’s what this is about.

QUESTION: On North Korea, you guys have asked for a UN Security Council meeting on the latest missile launches. And I’m just – is it too soon to say that you’re going to be seeking additional sanctions since you just got a new resolution that had some pretty significant sanctions in it?

MR KIRBY: Yeah, I just don’t think we’re ready now to say if another set of sanctions or another resolution is going to be pursued. But yes, we do want to have this discussed at the UNSC.

QUESTION: Can I --

QUESTION: Can we go back to the Philippines?

MR KIRBY: Yeah. Well, actually, because we – because I topped on the Philippines and Matt asked about it, I would like to go ahead and finish it out.

QUESTION: Right. Did the topic of a joint freedom of navigation operation come up in the discussion?

MR KIRBY: I’m not aware of any specific discussions about operations. And I would refer you to my colleagues at the Pentagon to talk about operational matters. If you’re asking if they discussed current tensions in the South China Sea, absolutely they did. I think you would expect that that would come up, as it does routinely when we speak with our counterparts in the Philippines. But I’m not aware of any specific discussions with respect to operations.

QUESTION: Did they mention any discussion on a tribunal ruling – potential ruling on the (inaudible)?

MR KIRBY: I don’t have additional detail to read out on the dialogue. But yes, in general, they certainly discussed South China Sea tensions.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Can we change topics?

MR KIRBY: Sure.

QUESTION: Okay. Can we go to the Palestinian-Israeli issue?

MR KIRBY: I was figuring you weren’t going to ask me about the Philippines.

QUESTION: I could ask about the Philippines if you want me to.

MR KIRBY: Well, it’s up to you.

QUESTION: Okay. I like the Philippines.

MR KIRBY: That would be great though, wouldn’t it, if I could actually tell you what to ask --

QUESTION: I do. I’ll do it.

MR KIRBY: -- all of you, instead of just letting you come up with the questions?

QUESTION: Isn’t that the way it happens in other parts of the world where it’s less democratic? (Laughter.) All right. Okay. Let me ask you about – 10 days ago, a Palestinian attacked an Israeli soldier, and he was shot and killed, and his body confiscated and taken and not yet returned. The Israelis ordered his mother, who was born in East Jerusalem, with nine kids – her parents were born in the Old City; her grandparents were born in the Old City – and deported them to Gaza. Do you have any comment on this?

MR KIRBY: I don’t have specifics on this incident.

QUESTION: All right. You don’t have any specifics, but let me ask you in principle, would that sort of be considered collective punishment?

MR KIRBY: Well, look, I – we’ve seen reports of this. And I think, Said, where I’d prefer to stay today is what you’ve heard me say before, which is, look, we want to see affirmative steps on all sides here to --

QUESTION: Okay.

MR KIRBY: -- reduce the violence and the tensions and to try to move this forward for a two-state solution. I don’t have specific comment on these particular reports.

QUESTION: If this happened on another planet, if someone commits a crime, whatever it is, and the authorities come and collect their family members and deport them to another planet, would that be collective punishment?

MR KIRBY: I mean, as – it’s a--

QUESTION: What is your position on the fact that members of the family are held responsible for the activities of one individual?

MR KIRBY: Said, again, I’ve seen these reports. We want to see the tensions reduced. I don’t – I can’t engage in the hypothetical about interplanetary travel here, or the collective punishment that you’re talking about. And we – what – we think it’s important for both sides to look for opportunities to ratchet down the tensions.

QUESTION: But you certainly have a position on collective punishment, John. I mean, the United States Government holds dear all these human rights values and so on, and rule of law, and being held accountable.

MR KIRBY: You’re right, we do take human rights seriously.

QUESTION: So you don’t have a position on such an activity that is conducted by an occupying army, in this case, and uprooted and exiled elsewhere?

MR KIRBY: I can appreciate the continued attempts to try to get me to dive into this specific incident. I’m going to refrain from doing that. But I think, again, we’ve been very clear what we want to see happen on all sides here.

QUESTION: Let me ask you something. You keep saying that you guys are committed to the two-state solution and that you want both sides to take the kind of steps that would help in that. Have you – in the past, let’s say, five years, can you point to any actual, tangible steps that you have taken to ensure that this two-state solution will take place? Like, for instance, have you managed to discourage the Israelis or pressure the Israelis to withdraw from a, let’s say, a decision to build more settlements or confiscate more land or to conduct a lot of punishment?

MR KIRBY: Well, you know yourself we’ve been nothing but candid and open about our views and policies on the settlements issue. And every day we get up here and you and I talk about the violence, the continued violence, and how we want to see it stop. And I – I’ve only been here over a short 10 months, and I don’t know how many trips I’ve made with the Secretary to that part of the world to talk to leaders on both sides about how we can try to move forward towards a two-state solution. And we’re still committed to that.

QUESTION: And my last question is really pertaining to the Secretary’s activities. Is he slated to speak before the AIPAC conference this weekend?

MR KIRBY: I don’t have anything on his schedule.

QUESTION: He did last year; that’s why I’m asking.

MR KIRBY: No, he’s not. He’s not.

QUESTION: He’s going to be in Cuba.

QUESTION: He’s just traveling?

MR KIRBY: He’s not scheduled to speak.

QUESTION: I’d like to ask you about interplanetary travel.

MR KIRBY: Okay.

QUESTION: What is your position on it?

MR KIRBY: Well, I think as long as you’ve got a valid passport and – if you have a valid passport and --

QUESTION: Would you like to send certain people to – some people to (inaudible)?

MR KIRBY: -- a visa of the planet to which you’re traveling, then I think we wouldn’t want to discourage that, except if there’s a travel warning that you need to read on our website, we would point you to that. I’m not aware of any specific planets that have travel warnings right now.

QUESTION: I’m sorry I --

QUESTION: Can I (inaudible) --

QUESTION: -- asked about it. Maybe if it (inaudible) --

MR KIRBY: No, it’s okay. It’s okay. I mean, I --

QUESTION: I was trying to spotlight the point.

MR KIRBY: I know you were, Said, and I’m not trying to make light of it. But I just don’t want to engage in hypotheticals. And again, our positions on these issues have been clear, they’ve been concise. We’ve been – and we’ve been consistent about it.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Dave.

QUESTION: No, please.

QUESTION: No, please. Really.

QUESTION: I’ve noticed a lot of traffic on social media calling for the release of the U.S. NGO workers who are – well, the son and the father who have been arrested in Tehran. Has there been any – have you received consular access? I understand that the Iranians don’t recognize their U.S. citizenship. But has your protective power been able to speak to them? Do you have a court date? Do you know what they’re charged with?

MR KIRBY: So yeah, there’s a lot there. We’re deeply concerned about the reports of the detention of U.S. citizens Siamak Namazi and Baquer Namazi in Iran. According to reports, Siamak Namazi has been detained in Iran since October 2015, and his father Baquer was detained at the end of February this year. We’re not aware of any charges against either man, and we believe that both reported detentions are unjust. We call on Iran to allow consular access by Swiss authorities and to release both as soon as possible so that they can return to their families.

QUESTION: Americans overseas. What was your reaction to seeing that video that the North Koreans released of Otto Warmbier taking down that poster at the hotel, which is the crime that he’s been sentenced for?

MR KIRBY: I have actually reacted earlier today to that. I mean, it’s obviously not something we want to see, and we object to the public airing, the pushing that video out. More critically, we believe that the sentence that has been passed is unduly harsh given what he is alleged to have done, and we want him released.

QUESTION: Do you link this – these missile tests to his detention? Do – does having him give them the ability to sort of behave badly?

MR KIRBY: You’d have to ask Pyongyang to, the degree which they’re linked. I don’t think we know whether that’s the case or not. And again, frankly, from our perspective, it doesn’t matter if they’re linked or not. We – I put a statement out last night about our concerns on the missile launches, and I’ve talked now again to you publicly here about our concerns over Mr. Warmbier. And we’re certainly not linking them in our view. I couldn’t tell you whether they’re linking them in their view, but he needs to be released.

QUESTION: What happened --

MR KIRBY: He needs to be able to come home.

QUESTION: What can you say about the work the U.S. is doing to get – secure his release?

MR KIRBY: I can’t provide a lot of detail. As we’ve said, I mean, we know that our protecting power – in this case, Sweden – has had – has had access to him at least on one occasion. We hope there’ll be additional opportunities for that access to occur. And I can just tell you that we’re very focused on him and his case and we’re not going to – we’re certainly not going to forget about it or stop doing what we can to see that he’s released, but I can’t go into the details.

QUESTION: Okay. I mean, you can’t say if you’ve assigned any high-level delegation to lead up the negotiation process?

MR KIRBY: I think I’m just going to have to leave it where I did.

QUESTION: The last one on this, and I know – I probably know the answer already, but are the missile launches – do they affect the negotiation process in any way or do you view them as two entirely separate issues?

MR KIRBY: We’re not linking the two. And again, as we’ve done in other places around the world, we believe that the sentence was unduly harsh in this case, and we want him released. We also, separately but just as emphatically, want the North to stop the provocative behavior, such as missile launches which just occurred yesterday. We’ve already seen how the international community can come together to put in place tougher sanctions – the toughest sanctions that we’ve had in a couple of decades. And again, I won’t speculate, as I wouldn’t with Matt, about what might arise out of these latest launches, but certainly I think it’s fair to say we’re taking it seriously and we want the rest of the international community to take it seriously. That’s why we’re going to bring it up at the UN.

But I – as in other cases, we are not looking to link the two. He needs to be released because he needs to be released.

QUESTION: And it wouldn’t affect your decision about sanctions?

MR KIRBY: I won’t speculate about future actions that we may or may not take with respect to this latest round of ballistic launch – ballistic missile launches. I just won’t speculate one way or the other.

QUESTION: Can I have a follow-up on this very issue, on North Korea? Some years back, when an American journalist was imprisoned in Korea, former President Clinton negotiated her release. Would you – would that be okay with you if someone of that stature or that – goes in and --

MR KIRBY: I’m just not --

QUESTION: Or you’re not going to speculate on that?

MR KIRBY: I just don’t think we’re at a stage right now where I can speak with any specificity about what --

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR KIRBY: -- what we may or may not – what avenues we may or may not pursue. Rest assured that we are focused very keenly on this case. We’re monitoring as best we can, understanding, of course, that we have a protecting power there because we don’t have a diplomatic presence. And – but we’re going to stay at it and we’re going to monitor this very, very closely. And again, we’re going to keep repeating our call that he needs to be released.

QUESTION: On the sanctions, DPRK sanctions, is there any good indication to the United States that China is doing its part to comply with or to implement the sanctions under the new resolution?

MR KIRBY: I would just point you to what the Chinese have said themselves. I mean, first of all, they signed up to the sanctions and they have since publicly talked about or affirmed their commitment to those. I don’t have – I’m not aware of any specific interchange on enforcement right now by the Chinese, but again, it’s only been just a little while. So, I mean, we’ll obviously have to see where it goes, but this most recent set of – this most recent resolution has in place – the last part of it – much tougher enforcement mechanisms, and that’s our expectation, that everybody will uniformly implement those enforcement mechanisms.

QUESTION: Earlier, after the sanctions were – after the resolution was passed, Philippines was reported the first one to intercept a cargo that was bound to DPRK. Do you have other tangible examples of implementation of the sanctions besides the Philippines case?

MR KIRBY: I don’t know of any other interdictions, if – such as what the Philippines did. I’m not aware. I’m not aware of any.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Sure. I wanted to ask about Yemen again and the United – and something about the UN. Just on – I see that you answered yesterday and you said you didn’t have the details yet about this airstrike in Hajjah province, but now the UN’s human rights commissioner has said that his team got there on Wednesday. They put the death count at 106. UNICEF Yemen puts it at 118. So I’m just wondering, do you accept that as kind of – as – is that enough information to – for the U.S. to say this did happen and that’s the death count?

MR KIRBY: We’re aware and deeply concerned by reports that a significant number of civilians may have been killed or injured during a strike near a market in northern Yemen. I’m unable today to verify any of the specifics of what happened. I would note, though, that the coalition has stated that it will conduct an investigation of the incident, and we encourage them to conduct a prompt, transparent investigation and publicly release the results. It’s vital that the investigation provide a thorough and objective accounting of the facts and circumstances of the incident and, if appropriate, to address any factors that led to it so that we can prevent reoccurrence, of course.

As we’ve said previously, we’re deeply concerned by the effects of the crisis in Yemen, both in terms of civilian casualties and the dire humanitarian situation which still exists. Okay?

QUESTION: Thanks. Could I – this is a UN question.

QUESTION: Follow-up on that?

QUESTION: Can I ask just – I just – if you don’t mind. I wanted to ask because earlier in the week I’d asked about this ongoing corruption case about the UN, and there’s been a new development, in fact, where another person has been indicted of another group. And the reason I’m asking you is that the answer I got said – was on background from a State Department official saying that the audit being conducted by the UN of two other groups – Sun Kian IP and Global Sustainability Foundation – was acceptable to the U.S. as a response. Now a third group has been implicated or indicted. You also didn’t respond to my knowledge to the Government Accountability Project letter to the U.S. mission saying that the UN has retaliated against the press for reporting on this. So I wanted to just know: What do you think? Is this case getting larger? Is it – I mean, it seems to be getting larger, but what do you think of that?

MR KIRBY: I’m going to have to take the question. I don’t have additional details for you now. I’m also happy to refer you to our mission up in New York City as well to – they might have additional information. I just don’t have anything more for you today. Okay?

QUESTION: Can I follow up on the Yemen thing?

MR KIRBY: Yeah, sure.

QUESTION: You said that the coalition is investigating its own involvement in the alleged incident. Obviously, the coalition receives U.S. logistics, mid-air refueling, intelligence reports. Is there a U.S. investigation as to whether any of your forces were involved in this incident?

MR KIRBY: I’m not aware of any U.S.-specific investigation into this. You might want to talk to my colleagues at the Pentagon, but I’m not aware of one.

QUESTION: Do you expect Saudi Arabia to stop bombing Yemen anytime soon? Because there are some reports that you guys are either in discussions and – or they gave you some sort of a signal that they will probably cease – or the coalition that Saudi Arabia is leading --

MR KIRBY: Well, the Saudis themselves have talked about being in a dialogue with the Houthis, and there were – there was certainly efforts early on in the week to reach a cessation of hostilities. I talked about that here from the podium, that we certainly welcomed those reports. And as I said, we’re deeply concerned by the reports that we’ve just seen about this particular airstrike. I’d point you to Saudi authorities to speak to the manner in which they are conducting coalition operations, and again, I would just point to what we’ve said so many times: We also want to see a political process move forward in Yemen. That’s why we’re supporting UN efforts on that front. And again, we welcome any reduction in the violence and any increase that could occur in the humanitarian assistance to the people of Yemen. But again, I think I’d let the Saudi authorities speak to the specifics of coalition air operations.

Yeah.

QUESTION: My question is about President Obama’s Nowruz statement. As well, I want to know if the President will address the Kurdistani or the Kurdish people and the Peshmerga celebrating at the front line. Nowruz for the Kurds – significant as the struggle and the overcoming of tyranny, and being addressed by the President would allude to and reaffirm the existent relationship between the Kurdish people and the American people.

MR KIRBY: I’m afraid I’m not at liberty to discuss the presidential remarks or schedule. I’d refer you to my colleagues at the White House. It’s just beyond me to speak to issues the President plans to address or doesn’t plan to address.

QUESTION: And today Ambassador Brett McGurk meets President Barzani. He said the U.S. able help Kurdistan, and yesterday at the Sulaimani Forum, held in Sulaimani, a Kurdistan region, U.S. Ambassador Jones stated that the U.S. and allies are looking at providing anywhere between $10-50 billions in aid to Iraq. My question is: Can you elaborate if Kurdistan region gets any of this money?

MR KIRBY: Can I what?

QUESTION: Elaborate.

MR KIRBY: Elaborate --

QUESTION: -- if Kurdistan will get any of that money.

MR KIRBY: What I would just tell you is that we recognize that Iraq, including the Kurdistan region, is suffering under a heavy economic burden as they continue to fight Daesh during a time of low oil prices. And we’re going to continue to assess, as we have in the past, how best to help Iraq shore up its economy. And we’re committed to assisting Iraq in its mission to defeat Daesh, but I just don’t have anything to announce at this time – anything specific.

Yeah.

QUESTION: John, the families of U.S. citizens Kamal Eldarat and Mohamed Eldarat allege that they’ve been tortured in Emirati custody, and this is why they have – this is why they’ve confessed to terrorist crimes. Have you any update on that case?

MR KIRBY: I don’t think so. Now, as you know, they were detained on the 26th and 28th of [August] 2014 respectively. We’re concerned about several aspects of their case – the allegations of mistreatment, their health issues, the lack of access to legal representation, and the lack of consular access at the start of their detention. We’ve raised all of these issues with senior leaders in the UAE Government and continue to call for an expeditious resolution to this case and a fair and transparent legal process in accordance with local law and international norms. But I don’t have anything more specific.

QUESTION: Now, on the health issues, is that a result of human activity or (inaudible)?

MR KIRBY: I mean, I think I addressed just a few minutes ago we certainly are concerned by reports of mistreatment, and we are aware of health issues more generally. I don’t have anything more specific than that.

QUESTION: Is that the guidance that was prepared before and that you’ve given before?

MR KIRBY: It is – it is very --

QUESTION: Or has it been updated like – to take it – to take into account recent – potential recent developments?

MR KIRBY: It’s very similar to what I’ve said before. Again, we don’t have any specific information that I’m aware of. But their health has and remains a concern for us, and again --

QUESTION: Do you --

MR KIRBY: -- reports of mistreatment are still deeply troubling.

QUESTION: Do you take issue with the charges themselves? They’re – said they’re being charged with supporting groups during the revolution that were not considered terrorists at the time but have since been declared terror groups by the UAE because they support the Muslim Brotherhood. Are you concerned with the charges themselves?

MR KIRBY: I – as I think I’ve said before, I mean, they were formally charged with three counts of cooperating with and providing material support to terrorist organizations. Our – what our main concern here is that there’s an expeditious resolution to the case and that there’s a fair and transparent legal process that ensues, I think, in accordance with local law, and as I said, international norms. That’s our main concern as well as, of course, reports about – of allegations of mistreatment and their health. But I don’t have anything additional to say.

QUESTION: Do you think they will get a fair trial?

MR KIRBY: We have continued to make that case and we will, going forward, make that case to authorities in the UAE. That’s what we want to see.

QUESTION: Colombia?

MR KIRBY: Colombia.

QUESTION: Yeah. I wanted to ask you – there’s kind of a controversy. They’ve reached – or they’ve – a deal has been – the outlines have been released showing – and on transitional justice, the idea would be the people that – even if they confess to war crimes, wouldn’t actually be detained or have any jail time. They might be put in a certain part of the country for eight years. And so a lot of human rights groups, including Amnesty International, are saying this is a bad precedent. Does the U.S. have any position on that – on the non-jailing of war criminals?

MR KIRBY: I think we’re – continue to work through this. I don’t have anything additional to say. We’ll continue to work this process going forward.

QUESTION: Can I ask a very quick question on Djibouti being a close U.S. ally on – really on behalf of a colleague --

MR KIRBY: You guys are popping me all over this book here.

QUESTION: -- who just – just very quickly, if you have any comment.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: Yeah, if you have a comment on this. It’s for a colleague. Eritrea today released four Djibouti soldiers that have been held in prison since 2008, due largely to Qatari efforts and so on. Do you have any comment on that? Are you aware of this?

MR KIRBY: Let me take that one for you, Said.

QUESTION: Okay, sure.

MR KIRBY: I have – you got me on that one. I haven’t seen that report.

QUESTION: Okay, thank you. All right.

MR KIRBY: I think we’re about good?

QUESTION: Oh, no. Almost.

QUESTION: How about Abdeslam? Is that what you wanted to ask about, Matt?

QUESTION: No.

QUESTION: No?

MR KIRBY: We’ve seen the reports coming out of Belgium. I would refer you to Belgian authorities.

QUESTION: Right.

MR KIRBY: I honestly don’t have a lot of information on that.

QUESTION: I figured you didn’t.

MR KIRBY: I mean, it’s – these stories are breaking as we speak, so I just don’t have any updates.

QUESTION: And could you speak at all to U.S. coordination with that effort or not?

MR KIRBY: We – I know that we made clear our ability and readiness to assist in their efforts. I honestly don’t have any detail with respect to whatever assistance might have been – might have come from the United States. But I think it’s best to let Belgian authorities speak to this right now.

QUESTION: Do you have any thoughts on the second anniversary of Crimea being annexed from Russia --

MR KIRBY: I think --

QUESTION: -- or has someone else spoken to that?

MR KIRBY: Well, we – yeah, I mean, we – I think we have spoken to that, but, I mean --

QUESTION: I’m just wondering – today is the anniversary, so that’s – but if you don’t have anything new to say about it, then that’s fine.

MR KIRBY: I don’t have anything new to say other than we continue to not recognize the annexation of Crimea.

QUESTION: Over the course of the past couple days, I’ve asked several times about two – the cases of two – or two different cases, one in Bahrain, one in Honduras. Are you at a point now where you’re going to be – where you’re able to call for the actual release, rather than due process and – for the rights advocate --

MR KIRBY: Nothing’s changed.

QUESTION: -- who’s been detained in Bahrain?

MR KIRBY: Nothing’s changed --

QUESTION: So you’re still – you still believe that she can get a fair trial?

MR KIRBY: We continue to call on Bahrain to follow due process in all cases --

QUESTION: All right.

MR KIRBY: -- and to abide by its commitment to transparent judicial proceedings.

QUESTION: The calls for the U.S. to call for an independent investigation into these murders in Honduras continue to grow. Why aren’t you prepared to join or to agree to them, and do you know if the Secretary has responded to the letter that was sent by --

MR KIRBY: I’m not aware of a response. I’ll check on that. Obviously we’re in receipt of it, and our position is the same as it was yesterday.

QUESTION: And then, since you – since I last asked about Western Sahara and you couldn’t find it in your book, the situation has --

MR KIRBY: Well, can you blame me?

QUESTION: No. The situation has changed a little bit in that Morocco has ordered almost 80 – or more than 70, at least – UN – members of the UN peacekeeping mission there to leave. Do you have any concerns or other thoughts about that?

MR KIRBY: We’re aware of those reports that they’ve asked the UN mission for the referendum in Western Sahara to reduce the size of its mission – to leave, as you put it. We reiterate our support to that UN mission and to its important mission – to the important job that it’s there to do. Yesterday the United States participated in a closed session of the UN Security Council, where members expressed concern about the situation. The United States encourages all of the parties to remain fully and actively engaged in seeking an effective resolution.

QUESTION: Morocco is one of your – if not the oldest U.S. friend in North Africa. Do you have any plans to raise it with the king or less senior Moroccan officials?

MR KIRBY: I know of no such specific bilateral plans, Matt.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR KIRBY: We’re taking this up inside the UN.

Thanks, everybody. Have a great weekend.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:44 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 - March 15, 2016

John Kirby

Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC

March 15, 2016









Index for Today's Briefing

BURMA



SECRETARY TRAVEL/RUSSIA/CUBA



RUSSIA/SYRIA



UN/DOMINICAN REPUBLIC



UKRAINE/RUSSIA



MIDDLE EAST PEACE



TURKEY



IRAQ



YEMEN



IRAN



BAHRAIN




TRANSCRIPT:

2:13 p.m. EST

MR KIRBY: Good afternoon, everybody.

QUESTION: Hello.

MR KIRBY: Hello. Just a short statement on Burma. You’ve seen, I think, the Secretary’s statement. The United States congratulates Htin Kyaw on his election to the presidency. This is another important step forward in Burma’s democratic transition. The formation of a democratically elected civilian-led government and the peaceful transfer of power mark an extraordinary moment in this country’s history. We look forward to cooperating with the new government as it works to make progress on a wide range of issues including further democratic reforms, promotion of human rights, economic development, and national reconciliation. And again, I’d point you to the Secretary’s statement on that today.

Matt.

QUESTION: That’s it?

MR KIRBY: That’s it.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR KIRBY: Did you want more? Expect more?

QUESTION: Do you have anything – have any thoughts on Disney saying they’re going to make a new Indiana Jones movie?

MR KIRBY: I hadn’t heard that.

QUESTION: No? Okay.

MR KIRBY: I look forward to seeing it.

QUESTION: I want to – I thought you might be – might elaborate a little bit on the Secretary’s announcement that he’s going to go to Moscow next week.

MR KIRBY: I don’t have additional details to provide at this time. You’re right, the Secretary did just a short while ago announce that he’s going to be going to Moscow to meet with Russian leaders. The purpose of that trip is to continue to look for ways to move the political process forward in Syria. Obviously, there’s other issues to discuss in our bilateral relationship with Russia, but the prime mover for it, again, is Syria.

QUESTION: But I mean, in terms of logistics, I – he’s supposed to go to Cuba next week as well. So presuming he’s still going to Cuba or --

MR KIRBY: He is. He is still going. As you know, he was announced as a member --

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR KIRBY: -- of the delegation for the President, so he still will go in the early part of next week to Cuba with the President. And then the trip to Moscow will obviously take place afterward. I just don’t have additional details.

QUESTION: All right.

MR KIRBY: We’ll make sure that we get it out to you when we have more specificity on the trip itself.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR KIRBY: And again, right now it’s – we’re just talking about Moscow.

QUESTION: Can we stick with Syria for a moment? The Secretary --

QUESTION: Wait, just one more thing. Is he meeting – sorry. And he may have said this but I didn’t have a chance to hear it. Who exactly is he meeting with in Moscow?

MR KIRBY: He did say that he’s going to meet with President Putin, and of course, he’ll be meeting with Foreign Minister Lavrov. I don’t have additional detail on the agenda at this time.

QUESTION: So with regard to the Secretary’s statement about Syria, he said, if I understood him correctly, that Russia had said it planned to withdraw half its force immediately and perhaps more later. Where does that – I have not seen that. Has there been an explicit declaration from the Russians that half will come out immediately?

MR KIRBY: I’m not aware of additional public comments about what they’ve decided to do other than what President Putin announced yesterday. And you heard the Secretary and what his interpretation is of the movement of withdrawal of forces. I just don’t have additional detail on it right now.

QUESTION: Do you know if he’s gotten private assurances or communications about half coming out immediately?

MR KIRBY: I’m not aware of private discussions he’s had specifically with respect to the withdrawal. I can tell you he has not spoken to Foreign Minister Lavrov since President Putin’s announcement.

QUESTION: Are you convinced that they are indeed withdrawing? There have been some suggestions, for example, that the planes that have been seen leaving might be part of a rotation of forces --

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- and not necessarily an actual net withdrawal.

MR KIRBY: Well, my colleagues at the Pentagon talked about the movement out of a small number of aircraft. I don’t know the nature of that movement, whether it’s rotational as you might – as you have suggested or whether it’s representation of this permanent withdrawal. The announcement was just made yesterday. And even the most efficient and effective of militaries requires time and logistics to move large numbers of forces from point A to point B. So we’re just going to have to wait and see.

QUESTION: Do you believe Putin when he says he’s going to withdraw the main part of his forces?

MR KIRBY: It’s not about believe, it’s about watching and seeing. And as we’ve said many times on so many other levels, we’re going to judge Russia by its actions, not its words. But I do want to stress that we see this announcement as a potential positive sign for moving the political process forward in Syria. We’ll just have to see. Again, it’s only the day after and we’re just going to have to watch and see what he actually does.

QUESTION: The reason I asked that question is that President Putin has made the argument that his intervention was to go after ISIL and, quote, “terrorists.”

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: And yet you have from the podium and many other U.S. officials have repeatedly said that they believe that the preponderance of the Russian activities were, in fact, aimed at strengthening Assad’s position, not actually going after that group or others. So I just wonder whether there is not a very healthy dose of skepticism on your part. And I’m very perplexed by why the Secretary would say they’re taking half out when I haven’t seen anything to suggest that.

MR KIRBY: Well, again, I won’t speak to the Secretary’s interpretations of this announcement. I would just point you back to what he said, and he wouldn’t have said it if he didn’t have reason to believe it and to say it. So I think, again, we’re just going to have to see what is the actual practical result of this announcement of this order that President Putin has apparently given his defense ministry.

To your other point, you’re right; we had long said that Russian military activity in Syria was designed to bolster the Assad regime and to prop it up as the Assad regime was – had been coming under increasing pressure from opposition groups in particular, and that we hadn’t seen prior to the cessation of hostilities any significant, tangible, overt effort to go after groups like Daesh or al-Nusrah. Now, as I said yesterday, since the cessation, which we believe the Russians have taken seriously, we have seen them dramatically reduce their air activity, and the air activity that they’ve been conducting, so far as we can tell, has been directed against Daesh and Nusrah and not against the opposition.

QUESTION: John --

QUESTION: Can I ask one last one? I promise, last one from me, and forgive me for going on so long. But do – is it – do you see in President Putin’s announcement of yesterday any sign that the Russian Government may be reducing its support for Assad and his government?

MR KIRBY: This gets right to intent, that question, and the motivation behind his order, which, frankly, we don’t know. So I would be – it would be wrong for me to try to speculate as to what prompted President Putin to make this announcement to order this withdrawal. And again, we’re going to have to watch and see where it goes. But I couldn’t begin to speak to what the motivation is or what in the Russian mind is the relationship with the Assad regime.

You – you’re right, Arshad; they have had a long relationship with this regime and his father’s regime before it. And they have had a military presence in Syria, and obviously, there’s nothing in the president’s announcement that would indicate that they are considering removing in total that military presence there.

QUESTION: But what is --

MR KIRBY: Hang on a second. So we’re just going to have to – we’re just going to have to wait and see, but it’s very difficult right now to determine motivation and intent in the order, number one and number two, way too soon to be able to tell or speculate the full implementation of it and what that really portends going forward.

But what I would like to return to is our hope that in this order what may result – what may result – is an increased effort and focus by Moscow on the political process and a political – and finding a political solution to the Syrian conflict.

QUESTION: When you --

QUESTION: What is the plus-up that they need to get – to remove to get to pre-September 2015 levels? I mean, how many forces do they have to withdraw to get back to where they were pre-Russian involvement?

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR KIRBY: I’m afraid I don’t – huh? I’m afraid I don’t have the Russian order of battle. I don’t know after this many months --

QUESTION: You wouldn’t know if they did it or not, in other words?

MR KIRBY: I think that we would certainly have an idea. I don’t know as we, you and I, speak, Justin, what the complete Russian order of battle is, but they obviously had added dozens of aircraft as well as many surface-to-air and air defense systems. And by aircraft, it wasn’t just fighter-bombers, it was also helicopters and logistics aircraft and support aircraft. And they added somewhere in the order of a few thousand troops. So I just don’t – but I don’t have the exact figure so I don’t know what it – what that eventually is going to mean going forward.

Again, President Putin made this announcement and Moscow should speak to what it means mathematically. What we’re saying here is it’s too soon to tell what it’s going to look like if and when fully implemented. But what we hope it means is, again, a renewed – an increased focus by Moscow on a political solution vice a military one to the Syrian conflict.

QUESTION: To follow up on Justin’s question, did you have an assessment of Russia’s strength, let’s say, pre-yesterday, before --

MR KIRBY: I would point you to my colleagues at the Pentagon, Said. I --

QUESTION: How – I understand. I’m – we’re trying to understand when people say half or one-third or this many number of aircraft or assets, whatever, have been pulled out or went home, how do you determine that figure?

MR KIRBY: Well, I just went through – I just went through as best I could what our assessment was in broad terms. I don’t have it by the number.

QUESTION: Okay. Fair --

MR KIRBY: And again, these are questions better put to Moscow, in terms of their military footprint in Syria and what that military footprint’s going to look like in the wake of President Putin’s order.

QUESTION: But certainly you must have ways to determine reports that indicate that Russian aircraft are already leaving Syria. I mean, there are all kinds of news reports that are saying aircraft are on their way and so on. Can you determine that? Can you confirm that?

MR KIRBY: I just thought I answered that question with Arshad. I’ve seen my colleagues at the Pentagon speak to the movement out of a small number of aircraft. I don’t know how many. I can’t tell you that they – that that’s a permanent redeployment or whether it’s a rotational effort. Again, this is just the day after his announcement, so we’re just going to have to wait and watch.

QUESTION: You don’t think it’s a ploy by the Russians to sort of get the talks going and so on? Is it – in your judgment, in your assessment, is it a sincere effort to scale back, to sort of de-escalate?

MR KIRBY: I don’t know. We don’t know. It’s impossible for us to know what the motivation was behind this order. We’re going to have to watch and see if and how it’s implemented. As I said, though, we certainly hope – we see this as a potential encouraging and positive sign, and we hope that what it portends is an increased focus by Moscow on a political solution in Syria. But I couldn’t tell you right now.

QUESTION: Can I ask you something that you might have a chance of actually being able to answer? And that is yesterday you said that the Secretary --

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: Yesterday, you said the Secretary had not spoken to Lavrov since Thursday and today you said he had not spoken to him since President Putin’s announcement. Does that mean that the last --

MR KIRBY: Still not since Thursday.

QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.

QUESTION: John, Russian defense minister has said that Hmeimim airbase and the base in Tartus will be working or continue to – will continue to work as usual and they will conduct raids on ISIL and others. What do you – what – or how can you understand what the defense minister has said?

MR KIRBY: I’ve seen those comments by the defense minister and the defense ministry and President Putin. They should be speaking for what this order means and what it doesn’t mean. We’re not in a position right now to cast judgment on this announcement, other than to say what I’ve said before, is that it could be – and I stress “could be” – a positive sign in terms of an increased effort at a political solution in Syria. Certainly that’s what we’d like to see. But it’s difficult to know all the details of what this order means, and again, if, how, and when it’s going to be implemented.

So without talking to basing and the specific use of that basing by another military, what I would tell you is what we said before, is that if Russia is willing to be – to focus all their military energies in Syria on Daesh, that would be a welcome development. And as I said, in the last two weeks of the cessation of hostilities – I said this again yesterday – that we have seen a decrease in their activity in general. The math just shows that out. They’re not flying as much. And the flights that they have been conducting have – as far as we can tell, have been directed against Daesh targets. So if in this order that also emerges as a reality, that the Russian military is willing to focus their efforts militarily in that line of effort against Daesh – again, that would be – that would certainly be welcome. The coalition has said that. We have said that for many weeks now. And that’s a discussion that we’re willing to have with Russian authorities going forward, if that’s, in fact, the intent here. We just don’t know.

QUESTION: John --

QUESTION: But the question was: How can these bases function as usual if they will withdraw their forces from these bases from Syria, to --

MR KIRBY: That question’s a great one for Moscow authorities, who would know better than me what forces are redeploying from where and in what quantity. And I just don’t have that information right now.

QUESTION: John, what is your assessment of the proximity talks underway in Geneva?

MR KIRBY: Well, again, it’s – what, third day now, second day – our understanding is that they are progressing. I don’t have specific readouts to offer you. I would defer to Special Envoy de Mistura in any event. We do find it encouraging that talks have gone into another day and that the parties are there. That’s good. Dialogue is good at this point, but it’s very early on and too soon to be predictive.

QUESTION: Any American official there in Geneva?

MR KIRBY: These are talks led by the special envoy, Mr. de Mistura. There’s no U.S. representation in the talks, as there wasn’t at the first round.

QUESTION: But --

QUESTION: With respect to the --

QUESTION: But wait. There are U.S. officials in Geneva.

MR KIRBY: I didn’t say there weren’t U.S. officials in Geneva --

QUESTION: Well, I think he asked you --

MR KIRBY: -- but there’s no U.S. representation in the talks. Yes, there are – there is a small U.S. delegation there, because in Geneva, we have part – we have task force responsibilities, but that’s monitoring the cessation of hostilities. It’s not participating in these proximity talks.

QUESTION: But --

MR KIRBY: I wasn’t trying to be cute by half. I was trying to answer the question honestly, which what I thought was, “Are we represented in the talks,” and we’re not. We’re not supposed to be.

QUESTION: But do you have people who are there perhaps talking to members of the opposition since I imagine --

MR KIRBY: We routinely have talked to members of the opposition, even when there aren’t proximity talks going on. We maintain contacts and communication with them, and I – absolutely, that’s still happening, sure.

QUESTION: But there – are there people on the ground in Geneva with the specific --

MR KIRBY: We have people on the ground in Geneva.

QUESTION: -- with the specific duty to consult with the opposition?

MR KIRBY: Their job is to participate in these – in the task force, both task forces, about the cessation of hostilities and the delivery of humanitarian aid. In the conduct of that work – in the conduct of that work, I wouldn’t certainly rule out the fact that they are having discussions with members of the opposition. You’d have to in order to be able to continue to do the job of the task forces. But they’re not – we are not a party to the proximity talks. They’re being led by the UN.

Yeah.

QUESTION: With respect to the Geneva talks again, you mentioned Russia’s decision is – could be a potential positive step. How do you think it might impact the Geneva talks right now currently, this decision?

MR KIRBY: I don’t know. I don’t know. Again, I can’t be predictive here. What I can tell you is that the Secretary hopes that this order could lead to an increased effort on the political front. We certainly would hope that this decision by President Putin could have a positive impact on the talks. I would point you to – I saw comments this morning made by a spokesman for the opposition who spoke of the – of President Putin’s decision encouragingly, that he – speaking for the opposition – found it a positive indication. And so as we – as they settle in in Geneva, this decision as a backdrop, again, could lead to hopefully a more positive outcome in the political talks. Obviously, that’s what we want. I just couldn’t predict it.

QUESTION: If you take the decision at face value without thinking about redeployment or anything, just on face value, how would it affect your anti-ISIS strategy? How do you think it’ll affect the fight and the strategy overall, if Russia carries through with this decision?

MR KIRBY: Again, if it’s – if it – if they are truly going to draw down their military forces, and if, with the military force they have left – and these are all ifs – they focus exclusively on Nusrah and Daesh going forward – as, quite frankly, they have in the last two weeks of the cessation – then I would tell you that those are welcome contributions. Now, I can’t predict whether that means Russia becomes part of the coalition or not. That’s a discussion that the coalition has to have, and of course, leaders in Moscow. That’s not for me to say one way or the other.

But it’s – but as I said earlier, we’ve long said that if they’re willing to focus their efforts against Daesh, that that would be a welcome contribution, and I would say the same thing today. But look, those are ifs, and we’re only the second day out from this decision, and we have to wait and see. We have to – it’s just too soon to tell.

QUESTION: Can I change topics?

MR KIRBY: Are we done on this one?

QUESTION: I got one more on Syria.

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: Briefly, what does the U.S. think of the inclusion of Kurdish groups from – in Syria in the talks? There’s more and more – many countries talk – say they should be involved. Obviously, Turkey says that they shouldn’t be involved; there’s the Ankara attack. Has your – what’s the thinking here?

MR KIRBY: I’ve addressed this before and our position is exactly the same. The invitations to the talks were decided and sent by the UN, by Special Envoy de Mistura. He sent invitations this time to the same groups that he sent last time. Right now, that does not include Kurdish groups in the proximity talks. That said, as before, he continues to consult with a wide range of groups, to include Kurdish groups. And we believe that we need to respect his decision-making process going forward and how he wants to conduct these talks. We’re going to continue to support that. And again, there are consultations, there are discussions going on. We recognize that those consultations are important.

QUESTION: Can I ask you a question about the UN, if we’re done with Syria? Assuming that’s --

MR KIRBY: Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: Yeah, I wanted to ask you, there was – today – it was announced today that the deputy ambassador of the Dominican Republic, Frank Lorenzo, is set to plead guilty to bribery charges at the UN. So I wanted to ask, what’s the State Department’s view of that case? Do you view it as just a slip-up in the president of the General Assembly’s office, or is it a reflection of a wider corruption or sale of access at the UN and what the Government Accountability Project also calls retaliation against the press reporting on the case? Do you – what do you make of this case that began in October and is ongoing, the wheels are turning?

MR KIRBY: I’m going to have to take that question. I do not believe I have anything for you on that. So you’re going to have to let me get back to you.

QUESTION: John?

MR KIRBY: Carol.

QUESTION: Can I ask one Russia question? When the Secretary speaks with President Putin next week and they get around to talking about the Minsk accords, do you expect him to single out the case of Nadiya Savchenko? And do you expect him to say anything about whether, if she remains behind bars or succumbs to her hunger strike, that there may be further repercussions?

MR KIRBY: I wouldn’t speak to potential repercussions, as you put it, going forward. And while I won’t get ahead too specifically on – in terms of what will or will not be discussed when he goes to Moscow, clearly the main reason to go is to talk about Syria. But as in every other discussion that we have with Russian officials, other issues come up. Certainly Ukraine is going to be one of them. I fully expect that they’ll talk about what’s going on in Ukraine, and specifically the implementation of the Minsk agreement. The Secretary has raised Nadiya Savchenko’s case with Foreign Minister Lavrov – in fact, just the last conversation that they had – and I would not be surprised at all if it comes up in Moscow as well. I would fully expect that he would take the opportunity while he’s there to raise our continued concerns about her unjust detention. And obviously, the news of her going onto a hunger strike is – just gives us all the more – a deeper sense of urgency about her situation. She needs to be released. She needs to be able to go back home. And we’ve said that time and time again. And I think you can fully expect that we’ll continue to press our case in that regard.

QUESTION: Can we go to the Palestinian-Israeli issue?

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: Today the Israeli Army Radio announced the expropriation of 2,342 dunams, which is roughly about 580 acres, in Jericho or a bit south of Jericho. And apparently that decision was taken on the 10th of this month, which puts it right when the Vice President was there, evoking images of, let’s say, 2009, when they did exactly the same thing when the Vice President visited. First, I want you – do you have any reaction to the – this latest land confiscation?

MR KIRBY: Yeah. I can tell you quite frankly we’ve seen these reports. We’re concerned about this reported expropriation of about, I think you said, 580 – it’s 580, I think – acres in the West Bank as state land, which is a significant increase over the prior announcement. This decision is, in our view, the latest step in what appears to be an ongoing process of land expropriations, settlement expansions, and legalizations of outposts that is fundamentally undermining the prospects for a two-state solution. As we have said before, we strongly oppose any steps that accelerate settlement expansion, which raise serious questions about Israel’s long-term intentions. And as we’ve repeatedly made clear, we continue to look to both sides to demonstrate with actions and policies a genuine commitment to a two-state solution. Actions such as these do just the opposite.

Okay?

QUESTION: Do you consider the timing to be sort of intended to sort of slight the Vice President of the United States?

MR KIRBY: I would let the Israeli authorities speak to the timing. I know that this was announced last week, but they should have to speak to the timing of it.

QUESTION: Now, the – Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator, said that they are going to the UN Security Council with this, and they hope to have the support of the international community. If this comes up – in the face of Israel not being deterred on these land confiscations, will you support the Palestinian effort at the United Nations if this comes up at the UN?

MR KIRBY: I don’t have anything – I’m not going to speculate on potential actions inside the UN, Said. As we’ve said before, what we want – what we’ve said is we want – we want both sides, both parties to work these – to work out these issues together, to both take affirmative steps to move a two-state solution forward.

QUESTION: Now – but you keep saying the same thing, and I know you express strong positions and so on, but the Israelis are not persuaded by your anger or your being upset and so on at the continued settlement activities and so on. So what should be done? I mean, what should happen to sort of force the Israelis or to make the Israelis halt these settlement activities? In your view, what ought to be done? Obviously, Israel is flouting what you say and what the international community is saying and doing, so to face this, what ought to be done?

MR KIRBY: What ought to be done is what we’ve said so many times before: that both sides take affirmative steps – proactive, assertive steps --

QUESTION: But the Palestinians are not taking any land.

MR KIRBY: Pardon?

QUESTION: Are they taking any land? I mean, they’re not building settlements; they’re not doing things like this. I mean, how should they cease doing something that they have not done?

MR KIRBY: We still want to see a two-state solution be a reality, and we don’t want to see negotiations just for the sake of negotiations, but we do believe that a two-state solution is still possible. But in order to get there, you’ve got to have both sides willing to take the steps necessary to ratchet down the violence, to tone down the rhetoric, and through policy and decisions and actual actions move that process forward. It has to start there. It has to start organically. And thus far, we haven’t seen that. We haven’t seen decisions get made to propel that process forward, and that’s what we continue to want to see.

And we were just in the region. The Secretary was just there, and that was his message in the meetings that he had with leaders. And I think it’s going to continue to be our message going forward.

QUESTION: One more question on this, if you’ll allow me. Yesterday the minister of defense of the state of Israel was speaking at one Washington think tank and basically dismissed the two-state solution, and he said there is not likely to be a resolution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict in his time. I don’t know whether he meant in his lifetime or in his time as a minister of defense, but he basically is saying – shirking responsibility for the occupation. They’re not doing anything; they’re not likely to do anything. He said there are other, bigger issues and bigger problems in the region. Do you have any comment on that?

MR KIRBY: I haven’t seen those comments, and all I would say is if that’s a view held, whether it’s in his time in office or his time on Earth, we don’t see it that way. We still think that a two-state solution is possible. We still believe in the viability of it. But as the Secretary has said over and over and over again, in order to get there, you’ve got to have leadership on both sides of this be real leaders and make tough decisions and be willing to compromise. And again, we haven’t seen affirmative steps – the kinds of affirmative steps we believe are necessary to actually see that as a reality.

QUESTION: Is the U.S. willing --

QUESTION: John, over the course of the last seven years – in other words, the lifetime of this Administration so far – I think I’ve lost count of the number of times that spokespeople from this podium and the White House have said that the latest Israeli action fundamentally undermines the prospects for a two-state solution and also raises serious questions about Israel’s commitment to the two-state solution. Does the Administration still believe that the Israeli Government is committed to a two-state solution? And if you do, can you tell me why you think that if they are constantly doing things that you say undermine the prospects for it and raise serious questions about their commitment?

MR KIRBY: Well, I think you’ve answered – quite frankly, you’ve answered your question in the question itself. We --

QUESTION: So you don’t think they’re actually committed to a two-state solution?

MR KIRBY: Number one, we still believe in the viability of a two --

QUESTION: I’m not asking --

MR KIRBY: No, I --

QUESTION: You can still believe in unicorns if you want to, but that doesn’t mean that they exist, and it doesn’t mean that --

MR KIRBY: You’ve answered – just give me a second.

QUESTION: All right.

MR KIRBY: You’ve answered your own question, that we still believe in it, and what we want to see are – is strong leadership on both sides to reaffirm their desire to get there. And there are decisions being made that, as you said in your question, that we have noted raise questions and doubts in our mind about the sincerity on their part of moving forward.

QUESTION: But what makes you think that there is – that they have this desire or this commitment, either side?

MR KIRBY: I never stood here --

QUESTION: You said that they – that these kind of actions raise serious questions about their commitment --

MR KIRBY: Right.

QUESTION: -- to a two-state solution and – which presupposes that they are committed.

MR KIRBY: That there was a commitment. They have said --

QUESTION: Why do you still think that they are committed, both sides?

MR KIRBY: Their public and private statements have said --

QUESTION: Really? But their actions seem to do the exact opposite.

MR KIRBY: Exactly. So you see, you’ve answered the question.

QUESTION: So why do you insist on saying that they’re committed to something that they’re showing no commitment to?

MR KIRBY: They have reaffirmed it themselves. They have said publicly; they’ve said it privately. And what we continue to see are decisions and actions that raise serious doubts about that commitment, and we’re open and honest about that.

I never said – I won’t speak for either side. I can only speak for our side and our view, and our view is we still believe it’s possible. We still believe it’s the right way forward.

QUESTION: But the line that says it raises serious questions about the commitment --

MR KIRBY: About their commitment.

QUESTION: Yeah, yeah. What makes you think their commitment exists?

MR KIRBY: Because they have said that they are committed to it.

QUESTION: Well they – all right.

MR KIRBY: And their actions in some ways aren’t reaffirming or proving that point, and that’s a concern.

QUESTION: All right. Are those cameras up on the Temple Mount yet?

MR KIRBY: No.

QUESTION: Is this Administration willing to deny Israel its request for increased military aid in order to get it to stop expropriating land in the West Bank?

MR KIRBY: I’m – I think I’ve taken this particular issue as far as I’m going to today. I’m certainly not going to speculate about actions one way or the other going forward.

QUESTION: But --

MR KIRBY: We’ve made clear our concern – our serious concern about it.

QUESTION: Can I ask on Turkey?

MR KIRBY: Sure. Are we good on Turkey? Everybody good? All right.

QUESTION: Okay. John, there was a media circulation about the message that published by the U.S. Embassy in Ankara two days before the deadly attack on Sunday.

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: The message warned Americans to stay away from the – from Ankara’s center due to potential terrorist attack.

MR KIRBY: Right.

QUESTION: The notice issued by your embassy widely criticized by the people in Turkey. Even some of them said that the U.S. Government is on the side of the PKK, the militants. So could you please clarify that? Did the embassy run this notice without getting information, intelligence from Turkish officials? Did they get the information from Turks?

MR KIRBY: I’ve heard this interesting little rumor. Let me just put a fork in it right now. The information that we shared with the public about the concerns – the security concerns we had – which is our obligation; we have to do that – was received by Turkish authorities. I mean, it was because we have a good information sharing arrangement with Turkey that allowed us to issue this warning. So Turkish authorities very much were a source for this kind of information. And I’m not even going to dignify the charge that the United States is in any way cooperating or assisting or condoning the actions of groups like the PKK, which we’ve said before is a Foreign Terrorist Organization. It is absolutely ridiculous.

QUESTION: So the Turks usually share in information all the time with you – with the embassy?

MR KIRBY: We have – look, you can understand I’m not going to get into a great amount of detail about the sharing of information and intelligence. What I can tell you is in this case the information that we – that permitted us to provide that notice was information that came from, obviously, many sources, but the Turkish authorities helped us develop the information we needed to issue that warning. And it’s good that we did. That’s what we’re supposed to do.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: What do you think it says about the atmosphere in Turkey that pro-government newspapers and commentators would leap to conspiracy theories like the one you just tried to shoot down?

MR KIRBY: I --

QUESTION: This is, after all, a NATO ally of yours.

MR KIRBY: It is. And they still are.

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR KIRBY: And it’s a relationship that remains strong in the face of these sorts of threats, as the warning itself proved.

QUESTION: Well, does it? Does it? We’ve talked about – you’ve talked about in here the harsh criticism of Ambassador Bass.

MR KIRBY: Yeah. Yeah.

QUESTION: And now this kind of thing.

MR. KIRBY: I’m not saying it’s not a – I’m not saying it isn’t an uncomplicated or that it isn’t --

QUESTION: Well, is it a relationship in trouble?

MR. KIRBY: No, it’s not a relationship in trouble.

QUESTION: No?

MR. KIRBY: No. Look, they’re a close --

QUESTION: The Turkish Government is closing down newspapers, seizing newspapers that appear to be fomenting rumors that the United States is in cahoots with PKK and conducting terrorist attacks in the capital --

MR. KIRBY: Well --

QUESTION: -- based on the fact that you put out a warning. And they’re going after your ambassador. How is it not a relationship in trouble?

MR. KIRBY: I’m trying to – as you run through that, I’m trying to figure out how you’re coming to the conclusion that it is. I mean, we are NATO allies.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. KIRBY: We are friends and partners. We are not going to agree on everything, Matt. And when we don’t, we’re open and honest about it. And as I said, the criticism of Ambassador Bass was unwarranted and undeserved. Turkey has no better friend than Ambassador Bass. We’re not going to see eye-to-eye with them on everything, but it doesn’t mean that the relationship is invalid or deteriorating or diminishing. It means that we’ve got some friction points. And what’s healthy about the relationship is that we’re able to share our concerns about that. We may never come to agreement on some of these issues. We recognize that. But it doesn’t mean that we’re not going to – that we’re going to stop raising them. And that we can do that, that we can have those tough discussions and dialogue is the sign of a relationship that is, at its core, healthy.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Can I have some clarification on this issue, on Turkey and NATO? Because I believe I heard last week in this room that membership in NATO is conditioned on democracy. Is it? Is it conditioned on a country being democratic?

MR. KIRBY: It’s – yeah, it’s a democratically based alliance.

QUESTION: Wasn’t Turkey a member of NATO when it was actually governed by a military junta?

MR. KIRBY: I don't know the history, Said.

QUESTION: Well --

MR. KIRBY: I don’t. I don’t.

QUESTION: Turkey --

MR. KIRBY: You’re missing the larger point here.

QUESTION: Right.

MR. KIRBY: Okay. You’re missing the larger point.

QUESTION: Right.

MR. KIRBY: Turkey is an important ally and a friend. And as I said before, when we were talking about press freedom, their democracy matters to us. The health of their democracy matters to us. Their constitution enshrines certain democratic principles, to include free speech and freedom of the press and free and peaceful protest. And we want to see Turkey succeed. We want to see the Turkish people enjoy all those basic freedoms enshrined in their constitution. And when we see indications that that’s not happening or that those principles are at risk, we raise it. We raise it privately; Ambassador Bass does. And we raise it publicly here from this podium. And we’re going to continue to do that.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Also the Turkish minister of internal affairs today identified that this – the suicide attacker was a woman who has joined the PKK in 2013. So according to ministry’s new statement – official statement, she crossed into the Syria and got some training from the PYD. I know your explanation many times from this podium towards the PYD, but after this – the official statements by Turks, is it going to change your view or still you’re going to consider PYD as a helpful organization, helping the fighting with Daesh?

MR. KIRBY: I have not seen the reports that this individual crossed the border into Syria and got training. I haven’t seen the ministry of interior’s comments, so I can’t verify the veracity of them. The PKK is a Foreign Terrorist Organization. We regard it as a terrorist group. We’ve continually called on the PKK to cease attacks against Turkish citizens, to cease terrorism period, but in this case particularly against Turkish citizens. And they continue to do that. And we’ve also said that the Turkish Government, like any sovereign government, has a right to defend its citizens against terrorist attacks. In so doing, we’ve also called on Turkey to do so observing their international obligations, international law, and to do it with a sense of precision so that further civilian causalities are not suffered as a result. But we recognize the threat that the PKK continues to pose to the people of Turkey.

Now there are many groups in Syria that are effective at fighting Daesh. And some of these groups are Kurdish – not all of them, but some of them are. And the support that they get as they prosecute the fight against Daesh continues largely on a military front from the use – the support of air power, coalition air power. That’s really the gist of it. We’ve – we have been clear and consistent that the fighting inside Syria, the military line of effort, is to be used against Daesh. That was – that’s the focus of coalition air power. When the Pentagon had a train and equip program in place, it was to train and equip opposition groups to fight Daesh. That’s – that has been the effort inside Syria and it will continue to be.

QUESTION: John.

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: About the American citizen being held by the Kurdish forces, do you have any update whether he’s an American citizen?

MR KIRBY: I don’t.

QUESTION: And have you talking to the Kurdish officials to bring him back to America, or will you allow the Kurdish forces to try him in --

MR KIRBY: I don’t have any update on this particular case. As I – I have nothing more to say since what I mentioned yesterday. We’re aware of the reports; we’re in touch with local authorities. I don’t just have anything additional at this time.

Abbie.

QUESTION: Can you say whether Presidential Envoy McGurk will be discussing the reports of a person detained while --

MR KIRBY: I don’t have – I don’t have a readout of Presidential Special Envoy McGurk’s schedule. As you know, he’s in the region and he’ll meet with a variety of leaders about the fight against Daesh. I just don’t have anything more specific with respect to his schedule to talk to.

QUESTION: Were you asked about whether you have information about the custody of the American?

MR KIRBY: I think that was the question I just got. I don’t have any updates. I just don’t.

Okay, one more.

QUESTION: Yemen?

QUESTION: And I got two brief ones.

MR KIRBY: Okay. So you, then you, and then we’ll call it.

QUESTION: I want to ask about Yemen. I saw the Secretary’s comments when he was in Saudi Arabia about possibility of a ceasefire similar to Syria and something about having teams on the ground working on that. So I wanted to know – it seems like there’s talks between the Houthis and the Saudis that don’t involve Saleh or even Hadi. It seems – what’s the U.S.’s – like, what was he referring to? Is it – does he view direct negotiations between the Houthis and Saudi Arabia as a positive thing? Is that the ceasefire he’s talking about? And what’s the role of the UN envoy, who seems not to be part of those talks, and of Mr. Hadi going forward? Is he the future president of Yemen or is he – has time passed him by?

MR KIRBY: So there’s a lot there. There – we still continue to support the UN special envoy and his efforts. That’s not going to change. And when the Secretary was in the region over the weekend, Yemen was – as he said, was a significant point of discussion with Saudi leaders. Nothing has changed about our support for the UN special envoy and his efforts to get a political process going and move forward. And the United States is going to remain firmly behind that effort.

He also said that we welcome reports that there is a reduction in violence between Houthis and the coalition forces led by Saudi Arabia. We welcome the fact that there is a cessation of hostilities, quite frankly, that appears to also be holding. That’s a good thing, because we’ve long said that there needs to be an increased effort by the international community to get humanitarian aid and assistance to so many Yemeni citizens who are in need, and that’s hard to do when there is still violence going on between both sides.

So we welcome this – that development, and we welcome the news that there are discussions between the two sides. If those discussions can lead to a resolution of the conflict and to a continuation of the reduction of violence, that too is a healthy thing. But it doesn’t mean that we aren’t also going to continue to support the UN track here, because we still believe that that is an important part of putting in place a sustainable governing structure, one that the Yemeni people clearly deserve going forward. So it’s both, it’s both. And he’s very much focused on both tracks and I think you’re going to continue to see that be the case going forward.

QUESTION: Two things very briefly. One, I’m wondering if you can give us an update on your efforts to convince the Russians, the Chinese, and the Iranians that a request framed in the terms, “We call upon you not to do X” is the same as a commandment, “Thou shalt not.”

MR KIRBY: I don’t have anything.

QUESTION: No update?

MR KIRBY: I don’t have anything additional to say than what we talked about yesterday.

QUESTION: Okay. And then on Bahrain, I’m just wondering if you have had any conversations with the Bahraini officials about the detention of this human rights activist that we spoke about yesterday, whether you have asked – specifically asked them for her release.

MR KIRBY: I don’t have anything additional to say from yesterday. Obviously, this is – these sorts of issues are issues we have raised in the past with Bahraini officials. We’ll continue to do that, but I don’t have anything specific to read out with this – on this case.

QUESTION: All right, thank you.

MR KIRBY: Thanks, everybody.

(The briefing was concluded at 3:00 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 - March 10, 2016

Mark C. Toner

Deputy Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC

March 10, 2016









Index for Today's Briefing

CANADA



SECRETARY KERRY TRAVEL



IRAN



TURKEY



SYRIA



LIBYA



SYRIA



IRAN



NORTH KOREA



CHINA



ISIL



VENEZUELA




TRANSCRIPT:

2:14 p.m. EST

MR TONER: Hey guys, welcome to the State Department. You’re already here, most of you, but still, welcome. Just a few things at the top. Actually, two to be precise.

First of all, just a shout-out at the fact that Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has arrived in the United States yesterday for an official visit and state dinner, the first official visit by a Canadian prime minister in nearly 20 years. And President Obama obviously met with him earlier today at the White House, held a joint press conference, and will host the prime minister and his wife for a state dinner later this evening. And the Secretary, as you know, is hosting a luncheon for the prime minister today as well. That’s ongoing. This visit is an opportunity for the United States and Canada to deepen our bilateral relationship, one of the closest and most integrated in the world.

And then just a brief note about Secretary Kerry’s upcoming travel to Saudi Arabia and to France. Secretary of State John Kerry will travel March 11th – that’s – is that today? Today. Sorry, I’m on it – to Hafr al Batin --

QUESTION: Today is the 10th.

QUESTION: Well, today is the 10th.

MR TONER: Sorry. Yes, I apologize. March 10th, today. So tomorrow, but actually leaving tonight, later tonight, to Hafr al Batin, Saudi Arabia to meet with senior government officials to discuss a variety of topics, including efforts to resolve the crises in Syria and Yemen, as well as other regional security issues. On March 12th and 13th, Secretary Kerry will travel to Paris, where he will meet with French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault as well as UK Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond, German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, Italian Foreign Minister Paolo Gentiloni and EU High Representative Federica Mogherini to discuss ongoing cooperation on a wide range of bilateral, regional, and global issues.

That’s all I got. Matt, over to you.

QUESTION: Okay. On the trip, is there any particular reason why he is not going to Riyadh, why he’s going to this rather, for a secretary of state official visit, unusual destination in Saudi Arabia right near the Kuwaiti border?

MR TONER: Sure. Yeah, my understanding is that there’s – so anyway, the bottom line is that’s where he was invited to come to meet with senior Saudi officials. I’d refer you to them to discuss why they’re there. I believe it’s an ongoing or just concluding military exercise that’s taking place near the border. But he’ll obviously be there for meetings and not be part of that.

QUESTION: He’s leaving tonight. So he’s cutting out of the dinner early?

MR TONER: He is not. He is leaving after the dinner.

QUESTION: Is he?

MR TONER: Yes.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: On Hafr al Batin, so he was there basically – he’s going there because the exercises, the military exercises, just concluded, correct?

MR TONER: It’s where --

QUESTION: I mean --

MR TONER: It’s where he was invited to come by the Saudi officials he was meeting with.

QUESTION: And that would be the only reason really, right?

MR TONER: I mean, they’re there.

QUESTION: They’re there.

MR TONER: These Saudi officials are there in this location. My understanding – but I would ask you to confirm with the Saudis – is that those exercises will have concluded by the time we arrive.

QUESTION: I think they are concluding today, is my understanding.

MR TONER: That may well be the case.

QUESTION: But will he meet with the other members of that whatever coalition, military coalition that entails something like 20 countries? Is he going – or just the Saudis?

MR TONER: Not that I’m aware of. Again, I mean, I don’t have a full laydown of his schedule here, but I believe it’s just going to be with Saudi officials.

QUESTION: Can I go to Iran really briefly?

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: Because there doesn’t seem to be a lot new on that today, except for the fact that yesterday Kirby made reference to a communication between the Secretary and Foreign Minister Zarif about the missile launch. And he did not say it was a phone call, but I think we all assumed that it was. And then when asked about the call the Kerry-Zarif call, he didn’t say that it wasn’t a phone call. So I think the assumption was that it was a phone call.

The Iranians say there was no phone call. Who’s right?

MR TONER: Well, you’re absolutely right in your wording, which is that there was a communication between Secretary Kerry and Foreign Minister Zarif. And the primary purpose of that was to raise Secretary Kerry’s concerns about the reported missile launches. So there was no intention to mislead anyone, just that it wasn’t a phone call.

QUESTION: What does – well, what does “communication” mean? Is that – I mean, that could be anything. That could be smoke signals. It could be a carrier pigeon. It could be --

MR TONER: Indeed, it could be – it could be anything. And I’m going to refrain from saying exactly what it was. But we have a variety of means --

QUESTION: Does he go up on the roof and yell really loudly in the direction of Iran?

MR TONER: No, clearly that wouldn’t work, Matt. But there are a variety – no, in all seriousness --

QUESTION: Balloon?

MR TONER: -- there are a variety --

QUESTION: How do you know that he – how do you guys know that the foreign minister even got this communication if you don’t know – if you can’t say what it was?

MR TONER: Well, I mean, again, the Secretary was looking to convey his concerns, our concerns, the U.S. Government’s concerns about these ballistic missile or reported missile launches. He has a variety of means to reach Foreign Minister Zarif. He exercised one of those means, and we’re confident that the message got across.

QUESTION: You are.

MR TONER: Yes.

QUESTION: Does that mean that you got a response?

MR TONER: I can’t – I don’t know, frankly, if he received a specific response from Zarif. I assume so.

QUESTION: How do you know that they got the message if he did not receive a response?

MR TONER: I just don’t – Arshad, I will check on that. I just don’t know categorically that he received a response. I don’t know.

QUESTION: Well, but an email or a text --

MR TONER: I understand.

QUESTION: -- can go astray.

MR TONER: Perhaps it got a read? I don’t know. I don’t know. I just don’t have the details.

QUESTION: What, did he direct message him on Twitter or something? Come on, why is this such a --

MR TONER: I don’t have --

QUESTION: Why is this such a secret?

QUESTION: We want to know how he communicated to him. Yeah.

QUESTION: Black smoke or white smoke.

QUESTION: I mean, it’s not like with the North Koreans you guys have always been secretive about the so-called New York channel, which everybody in this room knows. (Laughter.)

MR TONER: Because it adds to the allure of our diplomatic work if we keep an air of mystery about it.

QUESTION: I mean, you guys – you went out of your way when talking about the speed with which he was able to reach --

MR TONER: Understood.

QUESTION: By phone.

QUESTION: -- Foreign Minister Zarif by phone right out of a meeting. Why the mystery? Why is this so – why do you need to keep this secret? What is the national purpose to keeping this secret? It seems ludicrous.

MR TONER: I’m just not at liberty to discuss all the ways. Clearly, the majority or the primary way that the Secretary speaks to Foreign Minister Zarif is by phone. Obviously, we read those calls out. We acknowledge those calls. This was another form of communication that he had with Foreign Minister Zarif. I’m not at liberty to discuss what that form of communication was.

QUESTION: So this is --

MR TONER: But you can drag me into the weeds about it.

QUESTION: Are they Facebook friends? (Laughter.) So maybe you can talk about a phone call --

MR TONER: You’re completely justified to make me feel as awkward as possible about this. (Laughter.) But go ahead.

QUESTION: But maybe you can talk about the “communication” --

MR TONER: Yes. Yep.

QUESTION: -- that the Secretary had with Foreign Minister Lavrov today, the Russians say. Presumably you’re under no such constraints about that, speaking of phone calls.

MR TONER: It was a phone call. It was a phone call. It was – I don’t have a deep-dive readout on it. I understand it was kind of a – I mean, obviously they talked about Syria, talked about a number of other regional issues. I know the Secretary did raise concerns about Nadia Savchenko and her condition, as well as her ongoing plight. That’s about it.

QUESTION: Can we go back to Iran?

MR TONER: We can go back to Iran. I don’t think we left – oh, we did, briefly. Sorry.

QUESTION: Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Corker says that the missile launches have spurred a bipartisan move to renew and increase sanctions on Iran. A couple of questions. First of all, in light of Iran’s recent behavior, would the State Department now support renewal of the Iran Sanctions Act?

MR TONER: Well, first of all, with regards to the first part of your question which was Congress’s call for specific legislation, obviously, when Congress puts forward legislation, we’ll look at it closely, we’ll work with them; if we have concerns, we’ll make those concerns known; and with the ultimate goal of continuing to work productively or constructively with Congress to ensure that we have the tools in place to address our concerns with Iran.

That said, as John and others have made clear over the last couple of days, we’re quite confident that both unilaterally and through the UN we still have measures in place or avenues in place to apply pressure to Iran if it carries out actions that are inconsistent with UN Security Council Resolution 2231.

Right now we’re still at the stage where we’re looking at these reports, gathering the facts, trying to determine if indeed – I mean, with the obvious understanding that something happened. I mean, some in Iran were out touting these tests. We’re trying to do a very fact-based investigation into it. And if we believe that these were indeed ballistic missile launches, we’re going to raise those concerns with the UN.

Sorry, you had a question.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

QUESTION: Can I ask a follow-up on that? If the sanctions act remained in place, either as it is now or with --

MR TONER: You’re talking about the ISA, the ISA?

QUESTION: -- yes --

MR TONER: Right, okay.

QUESTION: -- or with some sort of enhancements, wouldn’t that give the U.S. stronger footing in terms of snapback on the nuclear-related sanctions, if the need to snap back those sanctions did arise?

MR TONER: Sure. Pamela, I would first of all refer you to the Secretary’s testimony when he was up on the Hill, I believe at the House Foreign Affairs Committee a couple of weeks ago, where he addressed this. Look, we remain confident that we have all the tools necessary to apply pressure as needed on Iran, including snapback, and all those elements are still there. The Secretary was very clear in his response to questions on this very issue that we don’t feel necessarily an urgency for ISA to be renewed. We feel very comfortable that we’ve got the necessary tools here to respond to Iran if there are, in fact – if they are, in fact, taking actions that are inconsistent with the UN Security Council resolution.

QUESTION: Mark, on the snapback --

MR TONER: Yes, sir. Sorry, I’ll get to you.

QUESTION: I mean, that’s part of the Iran deal, right? I mean, there --

MR TONER: Yes, that is. Right. We retain that right to do that. That was --

QUESTION: Okay. To the best of my understanding, ballistic missiles are not included in the Iran deal. They’re not part of that. They’re part of the UN sanctions but not of that particular deal, right?

MR TONER: I mean, you are correct in the sense that the JCPOA specifically addressed shutting off the avenues for Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon. This is slightly different. Is it cause for concern? Certainly. Do we retain the authority and the right to act if we do have these concerns or these concerns are legitimate? Certainly. So that’s where we’re at.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Yeah. Just – sorry – a couple things --

MR TONER: Yeah. Sure.

QUESTION: -- going back on Iran.

MR TONER: Yep.

QUESTION: One is that Iran’s student news agency, ISNA, says that Secretary Kerry had sent emails to Foreign Minister Zarif asking for a phone call to discuss issues, including Iran’s missile tests. Are they wrong that it was an email communication?

MR TONER: Arshad, I don’t know. I mean, I just don’t have the clarity or specificity on how they communicated. I know they do use a variety of means to communicate with each other. In this particular case, I know it wasn’t a phone call.

QUESTION: Okay. And are you absolutely certain that the message was received?

MR TONER: We believe it was. Otherwise, we wouldn’t have gone out and said yesterday, as Kirby did, that he conveyed his concerns.

QUESTION: And the senior IRGC general today is quoted as saying that the missile activities are going to continue regardless of what you guys say. Do you have any comment on that?

MR TONER: I mean, it’s – I mean – look, I mean, we obviously condemn these kinds of actions, certainly the ones yesterday, the – with the overt references or threats to Israel in particular. I’ll just say that we’re not under any illusions that just because we have the JCPOA in place that Iran is going to suddenly stop some of the other disruptive or destabilizing activities that they’ve continued to carry out for years in the region. All I can say is that we – the United States, but also through the UN Security Council – will continue to hold them accountable for these actions once we can prove that, in fact, they took place.

QUESTION: Well, you said --

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: You said – wait a minute. You said --

MR TONER: Go ahead.

QUESTION: -- we obviously condemn these kinds of actions like those yesterday.

MR TONER: I’m talking about the – specifically some of the videos yesterday --

QUESTION: The missile tests?

MR TONER: -- with some of the anti-Israel --

QUESTION: Okay. But yesterday you told us you were stilling trying to – you referred to them as reported missile tests. Have you now confirmed that they are indeed – were indeed ballistic missile tests?

MR TONER: Well, you know that – and you know Vice President Biden also spoke when he was in Israel about some of these slogans that were on some of the videos and on the missiles.

QUESTION: But have you confirmed (a) that these were indeed ballistic missile tests and (b) that there was indeed a message?

MR TONER: I don’t know if we’ve – no. We have not categorically confirmed that these were ballistic missile tests, yeah.

QUESTION: And have you categorically confirmed that the messages – and yeah, I saw those remarks, but that the messages that were posted were bona fide, that this wasn’t somehow photoshopped onto the images?

MR TONER: I don’t have an answer for you on that.

QUESTION: Well, one, does it really matter?

MR TONER: True.

QUESTION: Because whether they were emblazoned on these missiles or not, they are still presenting them as such --

MR TONER: And we’ve also seen this pattern before.

QUESTION: -- and I’m not sure if that would have made --

MR TONER: I mean, look --

QUESTION: I’m not sure that would make a difference in terms of whether or not it was a violation of the Security Council resolution. But that’s not my – my question is --

MR TONER: Okay.

QUESTION: -- how is it that you have not yet determined that this – whatever it was – was a violation of the missile provisions of 2231? It would seem to be blatantly obvious.

MR TONER: Again, we’ve obviously seen the reports; we’ve seen the videos; we’ve seen all this stuff. But we’re still assessing what exactly took place and we haven’t made a final determination. Once we have – and this has to be – like a lot of these things – I mean, we – certainly we can make a rash judgment or a rash conclusion about what happened, or a – but it behooves us, frankly, to figure out what exactly happened.

QUESTION: Well, in the – like in the case of North Korea --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- it was pretty damn quick.

MR TONER: All I’m saying is --

QUESTION: Just because you don’t have a nuclear deal with the North Koreans --

MR TONER: No, that’s not --

QUESTION: -- that’s why you were able to make a snap judgment there but not on --

MR TONER: Not at all, and let me vigorously push back on the notion that we’re somehow going to give Iran a free pass on ballistic missile tests just because we have a JCPOA in place.

QUESTION: I just want to follow up very quickly. Now, if there is a violation – if this is proven and you can confirm it, it – whatever sanctions that may be applied will be new sanctions, right? They will not be the same sanctions that Iran was able to get rid of under the deal – it would be something that you have to arrive at together with the other members of the Security Council, correct?

MR TONER: So a couple of thoughts about that or a couple of points about that. One is – I mean, you’re talking about two processes. One would be through the UN.

QUESTION: Right.

MR TONER: And the UN would look at exactly what – how we would respond, how the UN Security Council would respond, whether it’s through additional sanctions, which I believe would be new or perhaps reinforcing some of the existing sanctions, which have not all gone away, as my understanding, just because of the JCPOA. Certain sanctions have, obviously with respect to their nuclear program, but not to their ballistic missile testing. And so – and then unilaterally we’ve got still a full set of sanctions that could be strengthened.

QUESTION: Okay. But you don’t expect that whatever legislative action or the statements by Senator Corker and others and so on or whatever – something that they can pass together with the Democrats in Congress – you don’t expect that to undermine the deal that is already concluded, do you? I mean, could it be --

MR TONER: Not at all.

QUESTION: Is this used as a – maybe sort of a back way into sort of undoing the deal, if that’s possible?

MR TONER: I mean, no, because we – look, I mean, broadening or widening a lens here a little bit, the JCPOA is focused solely on preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. We believe it shuts down effectively all the avenues that Iran has to obtaining a nuclear weapon. And in that case, as you’ve heard us say a million times from this podium and elsewhere, we believe we have achieved that goal, that we have effectively shut them down or shut that threat down for the region and for the world. That never – it’s never been a part of the broader concerns about Iran’s behavior in the region, whether it’s support for Hizballah or other terrorist activities in the region, whether it’s ballistic missile testing. All of that we remain confident that we’ve got the tools in place as needed to push back or to react to these violations.

QUESTION: Can I --

MR TONER: Please. Yeah.

QUESTION: Turkey.

QUESTION: Can I just – one more --

MR TONER: One more. Yeah. Go ahead.

QUESTION: -- question on Iran.

MR TONER: Yeah. Sure.

QUESTION: Yesterday there were all kinds of statements that shows that, let’s say, the extremists in Iran, in the parliament and so on – first it was a big win to the moderates, the parliamentary elections, they’re saying. And now they’re saying that Khamenei is trying to really sort of restrict whatever leverage or whatever latitude Rouhani gained and the moderates gained in this election, perhaps by doing something like the ballistic missile. Is there anything that the United States could, let’s say, offer the moderates to strengthen their position?

MR TONER: Well, it’s a good question, and I think a valid one, Said, because you’re right to put it into the broader political context or climate in Iran right now and the fact that – and we’ve talked about this in the past as well – is that there are those who are obviously against moderating influences in Iran, an Iran that’s more engaged with the rest of the world. And those forces are in play. Some of the rhetoric that we’ve seen throughout the JCPOA process hasn’t gone away, hasn’t faded. Some of the anti-Western or anti-Israel or anti-American rhetoric hasn’t gone away. We don’t expect it necessarily to turn around overnight.

Are we – is that going to mean that we’re not going to engage where we can constructively with Iran? No. Does it mean we’re not going to keep a very close eye on Iran’s behavior apart from its nuclear program and its JCPOA commitments? Not at all. So it’s a complex situation. And frankly, it’s a situation that Iran is undergoing internally, as you said, with the recent elections. I think we have to just wait and see what emerges.

QUESTION: Last one on Iran?

MR TONER: Iran. Yeah. Please. Go ahead. I’m sorry. And then I’ll get to Turkey. I promise.

QUESTION: Sorry.

MR TONER: No, no worries. It’s how we do – we finish out a subject --

QUESTION: So yesterday Iran was ordered by a New York judge to pay more than $10.5 billion in damages to families of people killed in the September 11th terrorist attacks and to a group of insurers as well. Iran never took part in any court hearings related to these events. Can you share any details on the investigation or this case?

MR TONER: I can’t. This is a – was this a civil lawsuit or this was a – I’m sorry, I missed this.

QUESTION: No, it was – well, it was by a New York judge – a district court.

MR TONER: New York judge, district judge? I’m just not – I don’t have the facts in front of me, so I don’t – I wouldn’t comment other than I know that there’s ongoing litigation about some of the events. You’re talking about related to 9 --

QUESTION: Yeah, 9/11.

MR TONER: 9/11. Well, that I’m not aware of, so I can take the question and see if we have any comment.

Please.

QUESTION: Thank you, Mark. Today there was a interview on Atlantic by President Obama, and in part of the interview President Obama is talking about Turkey and Mr. Erdogan. And he is saying, apparently, that President Obama now considers him failure and authoritarian, one who refuses to use his enormous army to bring stability to Syria. Is there any way you can talk about it? Was this the expectation, for Turkey to use its army within the Syria or – some context on this?

MR TONER: Sure. First of all, I’m aware of the, frankly, very wide-ranging interview that you’re talking about that touched on a broad range of issues, but notably Syria and the situation there and our work with our partners and allies in the region to address some of the challenges posed by Syria. I’m not going to speak to what the President said or didn’t say in that other than to say that we have been very clear that we will continue to work closely with Turkey on how to address the situation in Syria, both the civil that we now have a cessation of hostilities in but also the counter-Daesh effort. That is a complex – difficult, sometimes – discussion that we have with Turkey where we differ on various pieces of the strategy. That said, Turkey’s done a number of – or taken a number of steps, including providing refuge to over a million Syrian refugees, also providing the use of its – of the air force base in Incirlik for close-in air support for the coalition forces to bring to those groups fighting Daesh in northern Syria.

So I’m not going to speak to the specific quotes other than to say that we remain committed to working closely with Turkey on this issue and on any other issue. NATO is – Turkey is a close partner, NATO ally, it’s a democracy. We want to see that democracy continue to be strengthened, and we’re going to work closely with Turkey going forward.

QUESTION: One final question on same quote.

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: Apparently, President Obama also calls Erdogan authoritarian. Lately, Washington Post editorial was calling Erdogan despot, despotic behavior. Do you consider – as a government, do you consider President Erdogan now more of a authoritarian leader rather than democratic leader? Does he still qualify as a democratic leader right now?

MR TONER: (Coughing.) Excuse me. So I think we’ve been pretty clear in our assessment or our concern and expressing our concern about some of the steps not necessarily by President Erdogan, but that the Turkish Government, Turkish authorities have taken against, for example, the media, but other groups that we believe runs counter to Turkey’s own democratic constitution and democratic standards and norms. And so as a close partner, as an ally, we are ready to have those conversations with Turkey about how to strengthen its democratic processes, its democratic institutions. We believe strongly in Turkey as a vibrant democracy and that extends to its leadership as well.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Staying on the Atlantic thing --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- and I realize you’re going to be loath to talk about the White House or the President, but one of the key moments that that piece highlights is the decision back in 2013 to back down from or to not go ahead with the airstrikes that had been foreshadowed, more than hinted at, to respond to the chemical weapon attacks in Syria. The story – The Atlantic quotes the President as saying he is proud of that decision. At the time, this building and the White House portrayed the President’s decision to first go to Congress and seek their approval and then not do it at all – the airstrikes – as courageous. And that line was met with a lot of skepticism, including from me, because I didn’t understand how it was courageous.

But does – do you – does this building in general – and more specifically the Secretary – to your knowledge, are they proud of this moment in the Administration when the President did not move ahead and respond to the crossing of a redline in the way that he said he would?

MR TONER: Well, as – again, and the – as this all unfolded, we did it – we were able to get – working through the OPCW, with the regime’s compliance, we were able to get all of its declared stock of chemical weapons safely out of Syria. So I think, yes, the Secretary does believe that it was, through diplomacy, a way to achieve the same goal without military – the use of military force.

QUESTION: Okay. Well, the reason I ask --

MR TONER: Yeah. Go ahead.

QUESTION: -- is because that – it is that moment in time --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- that is identified in this story and by a whole bunch of, admittedly, critics of the Administration – people who are not fans of the President or his foreign policy. But it’s that moment that is identified by these people as being a point where the Administration essentially lost credibility with not only its Arab friends and allies, but with much of the rest of the world and it showed a sign of weakness to people like Putin and others. Why are they wrong?

MR TONER: Again – and I am loathe to re-litigate even recent history, but --

QUESTION: Well, then – well, let me --

MR TONER: Wait, wait --

QUESTION: Let me –

MR TONER: Okay.

QUESTION: -- I don’t – you’re proud --

MR TONER: But --

QUESTION: You say – the President says he’s proud --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- and you say that the Secretary’s proud and this building is proud. I’m just --

MR TONER: But you’re asking whether it affected --

QUESTION: But this is the --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: You’re proud – you’re saying that you’re proud of a point in time at which a lot of people think was this – was the moment when the Administration lost credibility.

MR TONER: And I would argue that --

QUESTION: I don’t – I’m trying to understand that.

MR TONER: -- as time has passed, again, we were able to accomplish, perhaps more effectively, removing Syria’s declared stock of chemical weapons via diplomatic, peaceful channels than military strikes would have. And the article – again, I don’t want to re-litigate this, but the article does speak about how the President weighed some of the very real risks of carrying out those airstrikes against Syria.

QUESTION: Do you believe that – you said that this department is proud of this moment in time?

MR TONER: What I said was I think the Secretary is --

QUESTION: You said the Secretary believes that you achieved through diplomacy --

MR TONER: “Believes that,” yeah. Thank you for --

QUESTION: -- some – the same goal, right?

MR TONER: Yeah. Exactly.

QUESTION: You didn’t say that you were proud of it.

MR TONER: Again, I don’t want to – yeah, I – and I know the Secretary – and you guys have heard the Secretary speak about this, as he believes that that was a moment of achievement. We were able to deal with Syria’s stockpile of chemical weapons – declared chemical weapons.

QUESTION: And in the article --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- which I realize you don’t want to re-litigate, but there is a moment where the Secretary is quoted as vividly expressing dismay – I’m not going to read the quote --

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: -- at the President’s decision to choose to go to Congress for congressional approval. To your knowledge, is that an accurate depiction of how he responded --

MR TONER: I honestly don’t --

QUESTION: -- with dismay?

MR TONER: I – because I wasn’t there, because I wasn’t present, I can’t speak to whether that’s accurate or not.

QUESTION: Wait. Mark, let me just follow up on another point in the article. The President says that Libya was a mistake in the same article. He says that Libya was a mistake. He also says that Saudi Arabia must share the region with Iran.

MR TONER: So again --

QUESTION: There are two major points.

MR TONER: Lots of --

QUESTION: Was Libya a mistake? Is that the thinking of this building --

MR TONER: I think that we’ve talked about this --

QUESTION: -- and that that will prevent you from going --

MR TONER: Again, we’ve talked about this. I think that there’s a recognition that in the aftermath of Libya – first of all – and we’ve talked about this before – the rationale for the NATO operation that was carried out on behalf of the many Libyans that were, let’s remember, overtly threatened by Qadhafi – I think he said he was going to go from house to house and hunt them down like dogs or something – I’m paraphrasing --

QUESTION: Like rats.

MR TONER: Rats, thank you. Thanks. That there was, we believed, an urgency to act. Now I think where we all recognize that there was a need to, I think, provide a fuller response or a more comprehensive response was in the immediate aftermath of the war. And so what we’ve seen in Libya is a country that’s struggled to come up with a unity government. We’re still there. We’re still not across the finish line. We’re close with this unity government that’s been approved, and we want to see that in place in Tripoli, but I think this – so I think the aftermath of the conflict has been a real area of concern by all who are parties to the operations that removed Qadhafi from power. It’s – and I think that whenever you have that kind of lawless space, you see things like ISIL try to establish a foothold there and other groups, terrorist groups, try to take advantage of that. So I think that that’s the concern, is that there was this kind of immediate period in the aftermath of the – Qadhafi’s downfall.

QUESTION: Mark, can I go back to your answer to Arshad?

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: You described – going back to the Iran – I mean Syria and the airstrikes that didn’t happen, you described that as a moment of achievement? Is that right? What exactly did you achieve, that was achieved?

MR TONER: What I’m – no, no, no, Matt. I’m talking about – so --

QUESTION: Or am I – did I misunderstand?

MR TONER: No, no, no. I’m talking about what was a moment of achievement was our work with other allies and partners through the OPCW to remove the regime’s declared stockpile of chemical weapons.

QUESTION: Okay. But you do allow that there have been chemical weapons attacks post that agreement and post the removal of those declared stocks?

MR TONER: We have obviously seen those reports and have looked into them and have expressed our concerns about those. That’s why I said “declared stockpile.”

QUESTION: Okay. Do you just flat-out reject the notion that this moment of – that the President says he is proud of is a moment at which the U.S. lost credibility? You just don’t agree with that at all, correct, right?

MR TONER: No, I just – no, I just – look, I mean, it is – in the article that I read traces the – again, the – all the factors that went into the President’s and others’ decision, his cabinet’s decision-making processes.

QUESTION: Right. Well --

MR TONER: It’s not – so I’m sorry. So and one of the factors, one of the concerns was that, as you said, that there would be a loss of credibility in the world. I’m not sure, as you look at it in retrospect now, that that really took place, but I have no concrete measurement to judge that by other than that, again, we have been able to remove its declared stockpile. We have been able to get a process in place that’s led to a cessation of hostilities and a political process. We hope it will gather steam in Geneva. But I’m not – you’re asking me whether it was a --

QUESTION: Well, I don’t know. You don’t think that North Korea firing off missiles and blowing up nuclear bombs and the Iranians doing ballistic missile tests in violation of UN sanctions --

MR TONER: I don’t believe --

QUESTION: -- the Chinese continuing --

MR TONER: No, I don’t – so if that’s your question – if that’s your --

QUESTION: -- let me finish – continuing to do what they’re doing in the South China Sea, any number of the Russians still not doing what you want them to in Ukraine or really for that matter in Syria – you don’t think that that’s a metric to determine whether or not --

MR TONER: So the broader – so okay, now I’m getting the --

QUESTION: -- there was some credibility to the complaints?

MR TONER: Now I’m absorbing the full --

QUESTION: Thrust.

MR TONER: The full thrust, thank you, of your – well put – of your question.

QUESTION: I mean, just there’s some point you can reject it, but --

MR TONER: So Matt, I mean, again, this is --

QUESTION: -- the evidence shows the contrary.

MR TONER: No. But I mean, are there an array of complex security challenges in the world whereby different countries are trying to put pressure and apply pressure to see what they can get away with? Absolutely. That’s in the calculus of many countries as they plot moves for strategic gain or whatever on the world stage. That doesn’t mean that you need to react in every case with military force. That’s always – remains an option, and I do believe that there are – that we believe that – the U.S. Government believes that there are redlines but --

QUESTION: All right. But let me just --

MR TONER: Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: -- point out that, I mean, it was you guys that raised the idea of the military option in the first place. It wasn’t – I mean, that – you put it on the table --

MR TONER: I understand that, Matt. And that was --

QUESTION: -- and then took it off. So I’m not saying that every solution – every --

MR TONER: And that was part of the --

QUESTION: -- the answer to everything is a military response.

MR TONER: And – no, no, no, I understand that.

QUESTION: But that was what the Administration was considering.

MR TONER: I understand; it was. You’re right. And it was – and there’s times when you convey that to a government or a regime or a terrorist group or whatever in order to achieve a certain goal.

Guys, I have to – I literally have to run in, like, the next two minutes. I apologize.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: Can I ask a quick one? This may --

MR TONER: I’ll get to you, Abby, I promise, then I’ll get to --

QUESTION: Yeah. This may have come out while you were – while you’ve been on the podium, but there are reports that the United States plans to attribute to Iran a cyber attack on a New York dam in 2013. Do you – and that the United States Government plans to file suit against them regarding this. Do you have any comment on it?

MR TONER: You’re right that it – sorry, you’re right that it did just come out as I was walking out. Did talk to my colleagues over at Department of Justice, they said please refer any specifics – any questions about the specifics of this 2013 incident to them. I would say broadly that we obviously take all – seriously all such malicious activity in cyberspace. We’re going to continue to use all the tools at our disposal to deter, detect, counter, and mitigate that kind of activity.

QUESTION: Can you take a quick one on China?

MR TONER: Sure, but Abby first.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: Thank you. Do you have any comment on the launch by North Korea of missiles today and their announcement they would liquidate all South Korean assets? (Inaudible.)

MR TONER: I mean, it’s just – it’s – I haven’t seen the reports of additional missile launches today. I know that there were some reports yesterday of missile launches. However, Abigail, it’s just continued signs of North Korea’s bad behavior, unwillingness to really address the international community’s very legitimate concerns about its nuclear aspirations. And it’s all the more reason why we need a robust sanctions regime. And we have that now, and now we need to implement it.

Please.

QUESTION: May I follow up on that?

MR TONER: Okay. And then Pam --

QUESTION: Very quickly.

MR TONER: -- and then the last question. I know --

QUESTION: Do you see --

MR TONER: Okay, wait. So, one, two, three. Got it.

QUESTION: Okay. Do you see North Korea’s actions as becoming increasingly dangerous or increasingly unstable? And does that – is that going to be --

MR TONER: I mean, there’s – so, impossible for me to say whether – because we don’t have visibility on the regime’s actions or motivations, I guess, it does seem like that they have taken – with the various tests that they’ve launched; “satellites,” quote-unquote, that they’ve launched; other actions that they’ve taken in recent months, that there has been an uptick. Hard for me to say what’s behind that. I think what’s incumbent on us, the United States, and the international community and the other members of the Six-Party Talks, is to assess those actions and take appropriate actions, which we believe we’re doing.

QUESTION: Do you think that requires further action in addition to the sanctions already passed?

MR TONER: I’m not going to project about that.

Yeah.

QUESTION: A U.S.-led report in the UN on China’s human rights record has produced a sharp response from China with China saying that the U.S. is guilty of crimes including prisoner abuse at Gitmo, gun violence, and racism. Is there a concern that – U.S. concern that this back-and-forth between the U.S. and China could spill over to other areas in which the two countries have enjoyed cooperation, such as the recent sanctions against North Korea?

MR TONER: No. I mean, I think – because this isn’t the first time that we’ve had disagreements about human rights, that’s a dialogue that’s a piece of our overarching bilateral and multilateral relationship that we’re going to continue to have. And with regards to your – China’s allegations or accusations or whatever about human rights in the United States, look, I mean, we are by no means perfect. That said, we do take human rights very seriously. It’s an ongoing process in the United States just like it is in many countries around the world. But that said, it remains an important part of our foreign policy agenda and something we’re going to continue to pursue not just with China, but with a number of countries.

Please, sir.

QUESTION: Sky News earlier today reported that it was in possession of a trove of some 22,000 documents on ISIS individuals, of which were apparently Americans. German authorities confirmed it, that they were in possession of the documents and went so far as to confirm their authenticity. Are the – is the United States in possession of documents?

MR TONER: Not in a position at this point to confirm the authenticity of these documents. I don’t believe we’re in possession of them. I’ve seen the reports, though.

Last question, you.

QUESTION: Venezuela.

MR TONER: Yeah, Nike.

QUESTION: Venezuela --

MR TONER: Venezuela, okay.

QUESTION: -- yes, is recalling the top diplomat --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- in the United States over protest – to protest a decree that imposed sanctions on top officials and calling Venezuela a security threat. What’s your stand on that? Is that an indication of the tensions between these two country?

MR TONER: So our understanding is that this was – I guess President Maduro announced his plans to recall the charge d’affaires during an address that he gave to the Venezuelan people on March 9th. Up – or I mean, it’s only a day later, but still we have not received yet any kind of official notification from the Venezuelan Government that this is, in fact, the case. So we continue to have diplomatic relations with Venezuela. We remain willing to engage with all sectors of Venezuela, including the executive branch.

These – just speaking more specifically to the allegations about sanctions, this is a targeted sanctions program. It’s focused precisely on individuals, quote/unquote “bad actors” who we believe are undermining Venezuela’s democracy, violating and abusing human rights, and diverting much-needed economic resources from – for personal gain. So they’re not at all aimed at the Venezuelan people or the Venezuelan economy.

And I’ve got to end there, guys.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR TONER: I appreciate it.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:58 p.m.)

DPB # 40

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 - March 8, 2016

John Kirby

Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC

March 8, 2016









Index for Today's Briefing

IRAN



YEMEN/SAUDI ARABIA



MIDDLE EAST PEACE



LEBANON



JAPAN/SOUTH KOREA



MIDDLE EAST PEACE



TURKEY



HONDURAS




TRANSCRIPT:

1:13 p.m. EST

MR KIRBY: Hello, everybody. Let me see if I can get this beast up here. I actually don’t have any opening comments today, so we’ll just get right on to your questions.

QUESTION: Right. Well, let’s start with Iran. First on the missile launch or launches, what’s – what do you have to say about that?

MR KIRBY: Well, you – certainly seen reports and trying to follow them as closely as we can that Iran has just concluded several ballistic missile tests. Again, we’re not in a position to confirm that is, in fact, what happened. We’ve seen these reports and we’re trying to get more information about it.

I do want to make it clear that such tests, if they are true, are not a violation of the JCPOA. If it’s confirmed that this is what they, in fact, did, then we’ll have every intention of raising the matter to the UN Security Council. We’re also going to encourage a serious review of the incident or incidents and press for an appropriate response.

The only other thing else I would add is that – again, if true – this development would underscore why we continue to work closely with partners around the world to slow and degrade Iran’s missile program. And it’s worth noting that the UN Security Council Resolution 2231 has prohibitions that continue to be used to disrupt Iran’s missile-related proliferation and procurement activities.

We also continue to aggressively apply our unilateral tools to counter threats from Iran’s missile program, and these tools are in no way impacted by the JCPOA or any phase of its implementation. The Department of the Treasury recently designated entities involved with Iran’s ballistic missile program, and again, we always have those tools available to us.

QUESTION: So if it’s not a violation of the JCPOA, why would you bring it up at the Security Council?

MR KIRBY: Well, it’s because --

QUESTION: Because it is a violation --

MR KIRBY: It is --

QUESTION: -- of 2231, correct?

MR KIRBY: In UNSC Resolution 2231, Iran is called upon not to undertake ballistic missile activity --

QUESTION: Right.

MR KIRBY: -- including test launches with ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering a nuclear warhead. It is inconsistent with 2231; it’s not a violation of the Iran deal itself.

QUESTION: I understand. Yeah. But 2231 also contains the Iran nuclear deal, does it not, the JCPOA?

MR KIRBY: It does.

QUESTION: Right. So they’re violating the resolution that has the nuclear deal in it. Surely you can see how people might read that as a violation of the whole thing, which includes the nuclear deal, no?

MR KIRBY: I can understand why some people might read it that way, but they’d be incorrect. Technically, they’d be incorrect. It is not a violation of the Iran deal itself. The Iran deal, as you well know, Matt, was about --

QUESTION: Yeah. It’s --

MR KIRBY: -- preventing them from having and acquiring a nuclear weapon.

QUESTION: I understand that. But if it’s true --

MR KIRBY: But there are --

QUESTION: If the reports are true, they have violated the very UN resolution that enshrines, that memorializes, that legalizes the nuclear deal. And --

MR KIRBY: I can’t argue with that.

QUESTION: Right. And some might come to the belief then that if they’re willing to violate the overall agreement, the overall UN resolution --

MR KIRBY: The resolution which deals with --

QUESTION: Which deals with --

MR KIRBY: -- ballistic missile technology --

QUESTION: -- and --

MR KIRBY: -- as well as --

QUESTION: -- and the nuclear deal.

MR KIRBY: -- as well as --

QUESTION: Right. Yeah. It deals with both. And --

MR KIRBY: It does. But --

QUESTION: Right. So if they’re this flip about violating one part of the resolution, why are you not suspicious that they might be just as ready and willing --

MR KIRBY: Well, it’s not --

QUESTION: -- to violate another part of the resolution?

MR KIRBY: I don't know that I’d call it “flip,” but --

QUESTION: Well, I mean, they clearly don’t care about the sanctions that you just put on them last month or two months ago for the previous -- .

MR KIRBY: Well, historically we’ve seen them be in flagrant violation of multilateral and unilateral demands for them not to develop ballistic missile technology. It’s not – I’m not saying we’re pleased by it at by any stretch, but it’s not new that they have proven willing to flagrantly violate those kinds of resolutions against ballistic missile technology.

We have and we will use unilateral and multilateral tools to address this. If these latest reports are true, we’ll take them up appropriately. We’re not going to turn a blind eye to this and we’re not at all trying to make any excuses for it. I’m just trying to get to a technical point here, which is that it’s not a violation of the Iran deal itself. It is, however, very clearly a violation of 2231, the new UN Security Council resolution. And we’ll deal with it. If, in fact, this happened, as the press reports indicate – and we don’t know that right now – then we’ll take it up as we have before. We’re not going to shy away from confronting Iran over --

QUESTION: Okay. So your position --

MR KIRBY: -- this particular development of this particular technology.

QUESTION: Okay. So you’re – but – so in this case, the position of the Administration is that violating the UN Security Council resolution, violating a part of it, doesn’t mean that the whole thing has been violated, right?

MR KIRBY: We will hold you accountable for what you violated. They violated that – if these reports are true, then yes, they are in violation of 2231. They are not in violation of the JCPOA. It is an inclusive but lesser part of the grander UN Security Council resolution.

And then I never really answered your other question, but what makes us sure, we aren’t dealing with Iran from – in just a good faith environment here on – in terms of the JCPOA.

QUESTION: Right.

MR KIRBY: What gives us --

QUESTION: Well, we’ll get to that in a minute.

MR KIRBY: Well, no, I know we are. That’s why I’m sort of lead turning here. I mean, what we’re doing is we’re relying on the IAEA. And as we talked about yesterday, they’ve got a new report coming out about – it’s the first report, new and first report, on implementation, and we’re going to rely on them and their judgments about the degree to which Iran is meeting all their commitments with respect to the JCPOA. As I said yesterday, they are. We’ve seen absolutely no indication that they haven’t met all of their commitments under the JCPOA in terms of not having and not developing the capability to have a nuclear weapons program.

QUESTION: I want to go to that, but if anyone else has stuff on the missiles.

QUESTION: Yeah, a few.

QUESTION: Yeah, yeah, I’ve got some more on this. One, you said that if the reports are confirmed you have “every intention” of raising it to the Security Council. And in the earlier statements again you used that word “intend” or “intention.” Can you not say that you will raise it to the UN Security Council if it is – if the reports are confirmed?

MR KIRBY: Yeah. Don’t read too much into my language. If these reports are confirmed, if we believe that the press reporting is accurate and that they have tested ballistic missiles, then we will raise it with the UN, as we have in the past.

QUESTION: Great. Okay. Second, ballistic – excuse me. Ballistic missile tests happen out in the air. Something goes up in the air, correct?

MR KIRBY: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: So why are you not certain whether or not they did this, since that should be visible by national technical means?

MR KIRBY: Well, I’m not going to talk about intelligence matters. This – these reports just, just came to light, and it’s no surprise, I don’t think, to any of you that it takes us – we want to take the time that’s appropriate to analyze whatever information that we have, and there are multiple sources of information that we can pull from with respect to ballistic missile launches, and we’re going to do that. We’ll do that responsibly. And when we have a conclusion, then we’ll know.

QUESTION: And when you talked about an appropriate response, was that meant to apply to – and this is on the assumption that the reports are confirmed – does that apply to taking the matter to the Security Council, or does that apply to other potential courses of action?

MR KIRBY: I wouldn’t rule anything in or out at this point. Appropriate response means appropriate response. It could be --

QUESTION: The whole universe?

MR KIRBY: It could be inclusive of other tools at our disposal, to include unilateral tools as well.

QUESTION: Yeah. And then you stated that Iran had not, to your knowledge, violated the JCPOA. But it did, at least in one instance, violate it by exceeding the 130 metric ton threshold for heavy water, and then it corrected that. Remember? So do you still feel that it is accurate to say that they have not violated it when I believe they have violated it, the IAEA flagged it, and then --

MR KIRBY: And then they fixed it.

QUESTION: -- fixed it.

MR KIRBY: We don’t find them to be in violation of the JCPOA.

QUESTION: Right. But the point I want to make is that they violated and then came into compliance again, correct?

MR KIRBY: You’re making a technical point, which I won’t dispute. There was a brief period of time where they went over an allowance on heavy water, but they did correct it. They are not in violation, and we still haven’t seen any indication that they are violating the JCPOA.

QUESTION: And then last one from me on this, and it’s to re-ask Matt’s question. If they are willing to violate UN sanctions resolutions on missiles, what makes you think they won’t violate UN sanctions resolutions, indeed the very same resolution, on the JCPOA?

MR KIRBY: I didn’t say that we were certain that they wouldn’t. I said I’m certain that they haven’t. I’m certain that they are in compliance with the JCPOA, not just because of our own assessment, because of the assessments thus far of the IAEA. I mean, the whole reason why there’s a very stringent, unprecedented inspection and verification regime in place is because we aren’t just going to leave this up to trust; we aren’t just going to leave it up to Iranian word. They have to prove and have to prove for the lifetime of this deal that they’re meeting the obligations required of them in the JCPOA. So I couldn’t – I did not say and I would not say that I am certain that they will never violate it. That’s why – because we’re not certain, because we’re not just going to act on trust and faith, that’s why the inspection regime is set up the way it is.

QUESTION: Can I just ask one more question on this? The – one of the Iranian military leaders said that these tests were done as part of defending the country from attack. Does Iran have a right to engage in military activity that it says is of a defensive nature, not an offensive nature?

MR KIRBY: Well, first of all, I’m not going to confirm the reports yet. I don’t know exactly what happened here.

QUESTION: But as a general principle, don’t they have the right to take actions to protect their citizens from any outside attack?

MR KIRBY: They don’t have the right, according to the international community and the UN, to develop ballistic missile technology. They do not. Now, does a nation-state have the right to have a military and to be able to provide for its own self-defense? Of course. And virtually – not every, but virtually every nation-state has such capabilities. But there are limits with respect to Iran about the kinds of capabilities that they’re allowed to pursue. Ballistic missile technology is not one of them.

QUESTION: And then to go back to something you said a few minutes ago, the idea of if you did confirm that these tests took place that you would go to the Security Council and then press for an appropriate response – are we talking sanctions? Are we talking about perhaps the U.S. acting unilaterally? What would – what are you talking about?

MR KIRBY: Well, this gets to Arshad’s question. I mean, it’s almost the exact question he asked. I’m not going to speculate about what actions might be taken when we don’t even know if these reports are accurate. If they are, we’ll take them up with the UN, and I think you should expect, as before, that the United States would also consider if there were any appropriate unilateral actions that might be taken or might be pursued. And we have unilateral tools at our disposal that we’ve had in place for some time now, but again, I’m not going to speculate about what might happen here when we don’t even know if these press reports are true.

QUESTION: But when you use the word “press,” that implies that there’s at least a preliminary sense within the U.S. Government that something wrong happened here and that there needs to be more than simply going to the UN Security Council for consultations. It’s stronger language.

MR KIRBY: I didn’t say that something wrong happened here. We don’t know exactly what happened. So let’s get --

QUESTION: But it – but the use of the word implies that there’s a sense that something wrong was committed here.

MR KIRBY: Well, when you see press reports and the Iranians themselves are saying that they conducted these launches, I mean, that certainly gives us pause. And certainly we have to at least take that into account and take it seriously. So we’re going to do that and we’re going to do some analysis and we’re going to figure out what happened. And if what happened is a violation of their obligations under the UN Security Council resolution, then we’ll – we will take appropriate actions, to include consulting with and raising the matter to the UN Security Council and perhaps others. But I – I’m just simply not going to speculate one way or the other what that’s going to look like.

QUESTION: Just one more on this. Has Secretary Kerry been in touch with Mr. Zarif or any other senior Iranian official since the reports?

MR KIRBY: No.

QUESTION: And does he intend to on this topic?

MR KIRBY: I don’t have any – I don’t have any calls on his schedule to announce to you or read out in advance, and we don’t typically do that. But he has not communicated with Foreign Minister Zarif about this. I mean, these reports are pretty fresh, and it’s largely press reporting right now, so you just have to let some time elapse here.

QUESTION: Well, I guess when the sailors were taken, there was – the building was very proud of the fact that he was able to quickly contact Mr. Zarif and receive reassurances on that topic. This hasn’t been attempted this time?

MR KIRBY: I have no calls with – or contact with Foreign Minister Zarif to read out right now.

QUESTION: Can we go to the second part of the Iran equation here, which is the questions that you were asked yesterday about concerns that the IAEA’s reporting was not – is – post-deal is not as comprehensive as it was pre-deal. Can you address those concerns and criticisms, which are coming not just from ardent opponents, political opponents, of the deal but from scientists with far more advanced degrees than either you or I have?

MR KIRBY: We’ve had some time since yesterday’s press conference to take a closer look at Dr. Amano’s press conference, statements, and dig a little bit more into this. I mean, so a couple of things. He said himself he’s very comfortable that he had access to the information he needed to produce this first report. He also said that the requirements are different now because the JCPOA is different than the JPOA. And I couldn’t see anything in there, as I looked through his statements, that led me to believe that he was in any way saying that he’s been asked to lighten up or to make thinner or to make less detailed his assessments of Iran’s nuclear program. He has a different set of reporting requirements because the deal mandates – the Iran deal as implemented --

QUESTION: Right.

MR KIRBY: -- mandates different information to be assessed than under the JPOA. But that doesn’t mean that – it doesn’t mean that he is – and he has said so himself – that he’s any less capable of accurately reflecting their assessment of Iran’s compliance. And he said himself that in this first report, and it is just the first one, they are in compliance of the requirements.

QUESTION: Yeah, but that’s the – that’s not really the – the issue is not really what the director general said.

MR KIRBY: Well, it’s --

QUESTION: The issue is more to the point that the report has admittedly less information – this last report has less information in it than the previous ones did. Whether that is a function of the reporting requirements being different between the JCPOA and the JPOA is – I mean, that’s kind immaterial. The question is: Are you guys still confident that the IAEA can do a good and intrusive job with – by reporting less information than it did before?

MR KIRBY: The bottom line is we are, as we were before, confident that the deal puts in place the proper assessment tools and reporting requirements for the IAEA to do their job.

QUESTION: Okay, well --

MR KIRBY: And the agency has said so themselves. So I’m trying to answer your question as cleanly as I can, Matt. We are comfortable that Dr. Amano and his team will be able to maintain the tools and the verification mechanisms that they need to accurately reflect Iran’s compliance. And this whole issue about less information or not – it’s a different set of requirements under the deal now, but that doesn’t mean it’s any less stringent. And the idea that somehow less information, if in fact that’s the case, is less stringent, I just don’t think is accurate. The other thing is the nuclear program in Iran is different now, right. I mean, they are meeting their requirements and they are doing so – they have to do so under the deal in a much more transparent way, so we now know more than we’ve ever known, thanks to this deal, about Iran’s program.

QUESTION: How much near-20-percent highly enriched uranium does Iran now have?

MR KIRBY: I don’t know.

QUESTION: You don’t know because it’s not in the IAEA report. And the reason the Administration gives for it not being in there is because they took all of it out under the terms of the JCPOA. But they didn’t really take all of it out, because there’s still some there from the Tehran nuclear – the research reactor. Now, according to the deal, that doesn’t count as part of any kind of stockpile. But it is still there, and presumably you would want to know how much there is and what – what it’s doing there so that they don’t take it from the research reactor and put it to some other use.

So the report doesn’t say that. The report also – you can’t tell me how far along they are in completing their requirements under the Additional Protocol. The Administration’s line is that, well, they have 180 days from implementation day in order to report on this, and that the next report that comes out – the IAEA report whenever, post-June, after that 180 days is up – will mention it. But the problem with that is that in the past, when Iran signed the Additional Protocol before, the IAEA was allowed to report on the progress that was being made towards implementing the Additional Protocol, and in this case you’re not. And we’re talking about a country that has not been trustworthy in this area at all.

So those are just two things that are not included in the IAEA report, which the scientists – again, people who know what they’re talking about – say are issues of concern. And I would point out that even defenders of the Administration’s position on this – and I’ll point to this thing that Richard Nephew wrote, one of the guys who negotiated this deal, says that: Nonproliferation experts have, rightly, noted that previous IAEA reports on Iran have offered far greater granularity on the technical status of Iran’s nuclear program and its compliance with its obligations. They have also, rightly, suggested that absence of such data from the IAEA will make it more difficult for monitors outside of governments to verify the conclusions reached by the IAEA.

That doesn’t sound particularly transparent to me.

MR KIRBY: We are confident that the IAEA can do its job and adequately verify Iran’s compliance with the Iran deal. And what is – what’s definitely different now than in the past – and we can talk about – you’ve got all the data and information there and that’s great, and I don’t have every single bit of data here. But what I do know is different now than from then is that there is a 24/7 monitoring capability on Iran’s program, soup to nuts, that didn’t exist before. So we have much more transparency and much more visibility into their compliance and their ability to meet and willingness to meet their requirements than we did before. And we are comfortable that the IAEA can do its job, as is the agency itself, as Dr. Amano said yesterday.

QUESTION: All right.

QUESTION: Why didn’t you seek to negotiate more stringent public transparency measures in the JCPOA?

MR KIRBY: The reporting that is done out of the agency is between the agency and the nation that it’s inspecting. And yes, there’s --

QUESTION: John --

MR KIRBY: Hang on a second.

QUESTION: Sorry.

MR KIRBY: There’s – the Board of Governors have a view here, there’s no question about it. But the relationship is primarily between the agency and Iran, and so the agency is in a better position to speak to that. What we did negotiate through the deal and what we are very confident in is the inspection verification regime, which is unprecedented. Never before in a peaceful negotiation such as this has a country been subjected to the kinds of inspections, 24/7 access, that Iran has been. And so we’re very comfortable with that, because there’s no trust and there’s no faith here, because we know that Iran has proven willing to violate international convention in the past, that we wanted to make sure we had that for the lifetime of the deal. That’s what we’re mostly concerned with. And as for the report itself, I would – I think that’s a better question for the agency.

QUESTION: But had you insisted as part of the negotiations that resulted in the JCPOA to oblige Iran or to oblige the – to oblige Iran to make public some of the things that it is now giving you alone or giving the other – you would be in a better position today, right? Because you could say, hey, it’s all out there, lots of transparency, the scientists can go over it and crawl through the numbers. You’re not in that position I think in part because you either didn’t try or did not succeed in obtaining greater public disclosure of Iranian nuclear activities through the JCPOA. And I just don’t understand why – maybe you tried and you couldn’t get it.

MR KIRBY: I’m not – I’m not going to re-litigate the entire negotiating procedure. I just won’t do it.

QUESTION: I’m not asking you to.

MR KIRBY: Now --

QUESTION: I’m asking one specific thing on transparency.

MR KIRBY: Yeah, in a way, you are. I’m not going to re-litigate the entire negotiating procedure here that led us to this deal. And the question in itself – and I’m not saying you’re suggesting this, but one could presume that you’re suggesting that in the question you’re asking that we would somehow be party to information, incriminating information about Iran’s noncompliance and that we would not – that we wouldn’t speak to that, that we wouldn’t call it out, that we wouldn’t address it, that we wouldn’t try to get it corrected. And that’s just not an accurate presumption to make.

Obviously, if we, through the agency’s work or through any other means, have reason to believe that Iran’s not complying, we’ll make that case. We’ll make it – we’ll state it and we’ll make it so, and try to hold --

QUESTION: You’ll state it publicly?

MR KIRBY: Well, look, I’m – we’re going to make it plain, and there’s a mechanism in the deal for any member in the P5+1 to raise this to the other members and to have it litigated. And so we’ll do that.

QUESTION: But that’s not public. That’s just raising it among the circle of people who negotiated the agreement.

MR KIRBY: I’m not going to – I can’t get into every hypothetical situation and the degree to which each one’s going to be made public. There is – you could go online and look at the deal. There is a very set process for how issues of noncompliance can be addressed, and they will be, and they’ll be addressed robustly. What matters here is that Iran can never acquire a nuclear weapon again, and under this deal, they can’t.

QUESTION: Again? When did – (laughter) --

MR KIRBY: Never – never acquire a nuclear weapon, and this deal holds them to that. And we’re comfortable in the reporting requirements, we’re comfortable in the access that Dr. Amano and his team have, and we’re comfortable that for the lifetime of this deal there will be certain aspects that we will always know about in terms of their nuclear program. And this notion that – I mean, that – again, we can have a debate about the – whether the report is thinner than it was before or whether there’s – some information is not going to be publicly reported proactively and not – I mean, you’d have to talk to the agency about that. I’m not an expert on the reporting requirements. But the idea that somehow we’re hiding from the public in any way, any aspect of this, I think is just completely false. I mean, you can go back and look at the public record not just from this podium but from hearings on the Hill. We’ve been nothing but open and honest about the components of this deal.

QUESTION: Okay. Well, I think some people would probably – might take issue with that. I won’t do that here. But – and I won’t get into the weeds on this. This will be a very broad – but you say we can have a debate about whether or not the report is thinner or contains less information than before --

QUESTION: Sorry.

QUESTION: We can – you say that we can have a debate about whether the report is thinner or has less information than before, but we can’t have that debate. It’s a fact that it is. It has less information than it did before. So that’s not a debate.

MR KIRBY: The debate is over whether that’s appropriate or not, Matt.

QUESTION: Right, right, okay.

MR KIRBY: And it’s not – and --

QUESTION: So --

MR KIRBY: Amano himself has said he’s very --

QUESTION: All right. So let me just finish, then. Because you say that there is no trust and there is no faith here, which you said in response to one of Arshad’s questions, wouldn’t it give your more confidence – a greater degree of confidence – if the IAEA produced the information that it had in the past in its current reports?

MR KIRBY: We --

QUESTION: Isn’t more information better?

MR KIRBY: We are confident and comfortable that he will have access to the information he needs to continue to make his assessments, and that’s what matters.

QUESTION: And you don’t think that it is important or valuable at all for people on the outside --

MR KIRBY: Again, I’m not --

QUESTION: -- people who are not in the IAEA, people on the outside, to be able to look at the numbers and to be able to judge for themselves?

MR KIRBY: The report will be made public.

QUESTION: But it doesn’t have the – enough information. What’s being made public isn’t --

MR KIRBY: No, no, no, no, no, don’t say that. You’re saying it doesn’t have enough. It has enough. According to Dr. Amano himself, it has enough for him to be able to accurately report what he’s learning, so don’t say it doesn’t have enough. It may not have as much --

QUESTION: But it doesn’t have enough for anyone outside of --

MR KIRBY: It may not have as much as you’d like it to have, but it has enough for Dr. Amano and the agency to do their job.

QUESTION: Well, it’s not me that wants --

MR KIRBY: And we’re comfortable that he’s got the capabilities to do that.

QUESTION: Okay, but it’s not me that wants – that necessarily wants this – all the information in there, or the information that was in previously to be in the current and future ones. It’s people who are experts in the field who have taken a critical look --

MR KIRBY: Right.

QUESTION: -- and say that this information is important to know if, in fact, the IAEA is coming to the correct conclusions.

MR KIRBY: There has been and there will continue to be --

QUESTION: All right.

MR KIRBY: -- lots of voices on this issue, and critics of the deal will be critics of the deal. And I got that. They’re certainly free to express their opinions about the reporting requirements of Dr. Amano and his team. We’re going by his own comments and his own assessment that he’s comfortable with the reporting requirements that have been placed upon him. He’s comfortable with the information and the access he’s getting. He’s comfortable with the verification regime – unprecedented in history – that he has available to him. So we also share that comfort that he will be able to do his job, and this first report will be made public soon, and you can look for yourself.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Yemen. A Houthi delegation is in Saudi Arabia holding talks with the Saudi officials. Are you aware of this visit, of these talks, and any comment on it?

MR KIRBY: I’d refer you to the Saudi Arabian Government. I’ve seen reports about these talks, but you’d have to talk to Saudi authorities about the accuracy of them.

QUESTION: You’re not aware of it, other than the report?

MR KIRBY: I’d say you’d have to talk to Saudi authorities. I’ve seen press reporting on the potential for talks. You’d have to talk to them about that.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Israel. This may have come in a bit late, but just put it on your radar: Apparently, one of the people stabbed today in Israel was an American citizen.

MR KIRBY: I haven’t seen a report that an American citizen was stabbed, but I do want to take the opportunity, because we have seen the reports of several attacks today in Israel and Jerusalem, and of course, as always, we condemn these outrageous attacks in the strongest possible terms. There’s no justification for terrorism. We’ve said that many, many times. And we of course offer our condolences to the family and friends of the one individual we know has been killed, and we certainly wish for those who have been injured a speedy recovery.

And the other thing I’d say is attacks like this and the events – these events, again, underscore the need for all sides to reject violence and to urgently take steps to restore calm, reduce tensions, and bring an immediate end to it.

QUESTION: I just want to make sure, you’re not aware of the report that one of the victims is an American?

MR KIRBY: No.

QUESTION: You’re not?

MR KIRBY: No. I’m not. I can’t confirm that.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: Are you able to confirm reports that the Administration is considering a one last chance at trying to re-establish talks between the Israelis and the Palestinians?

MR KIRBY: Look, there’s no change to our policy or our strategy with respect to this issue. Of course, as always, we remain committed to achieving a two-state solution. But as was also said many times, we need to see both sides demonstrate a commitment to that goal as well. We continue to encourage Israelis and Palestinians to take affirmative steps which we think are important to stop the violence and to improve conditions on the ground and to restore some confidence in a two-state solution going forward. We also continue to engage with international partners to find a constructive way forward in terms of advancing our shared goal of a two-state solution.

QUESTION: So you can’t confirm, for example, the possibility of the President going to the GA in September and outlining an effort to try to restart the talks or introduce a new resolution to bring the negotiating process of Oslo up to date?

MR KIRBY: I’ve seen the article that you’re talking about, and I’m going to leave it with what I just said. Nothing’s new here or changed about our policy or our strategy and our desire to see the advancement of a two-state solution. I have nothing more to say on that.

QUESTION: Was the Vice President detailed to bring anything in terms of ideas or proposals to either Prime Minister Netanyahu or President Abbas during his visits tomorrow?

MR KIRBY: You’d have to talk to the Vice President’s staff. I’m not going to read out his visit, but visits by U.S. Government officials to that part of the world and to Israel are certainly nothing new. I mean, Secretary Kerry was just in the region not long ago. We’re going to continue to have a dialogue and a conversation with both parties about trying to get to a reduction in violence and to a process that can lead forward to – or lead to a two-state solution. Nothing’s changed about our desire to see that outcome, and that you will have continued high-level U.S. engagement with officials over there should not come as a surprise.

QUESTION: Can we go back to the violence? Are those cameras up yet?

MR KIRBY: No.

QUESTION: What is going on?

MR KIRBY: Well, again, I’d point you to Israeli and Jordanian authorities and technical experts to talk about – I can tell you that in – when we were in Amman just a couple weeks ago, the Secretary did raise the question with Foreign Minister Judeh. They did talk about it in their bilateral meeting, and the foreign minister conveyed that they’re still working this out. They’re still working the technology piece out.

QUESTION: The – yesterday I asked you a question about the UNRWA school incitement --

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- which seems to go to – or possibly might go to the fact that there is still this ongoing violence that doesn’t appear to be abating. Did you – were you able to look into that?

MR KIRBY: So yeah, and as we’ve said before, we’ve seen this report that you’re talking about, and we’re looking into the allegations. As we’ve said before, anti-Semitism and incitement to violence are totally unacceptable. And UNRWA itself has made clear that it will not tolerate anti-Semitism or incitement to violence by its staff or in its classrooms, and they’ve condemned racism in all its form. We want and we expect that UNRWA will meet that – their own statements, they will meet those principles. And every such allegation brought to UNRWA’s attention thus far has either been or is being assessed. And again, our expectation is that these will as well.

We’ve asked UNRWA to keep us informed here at the State Department of the findings of its investigations into these allegations. Upholding their own strict policy of neutrality is vital to the agency’s ability to carry out what we believe to be critical life-saving work.

QUESTION: Okay. So have they gotten back to you on any of these --

MR KIRBY: I’m not aware that – I’m not aware that in light of these most recent claims and allegations --

QUESTION: All right.

MR KIRBY: -- that they’ve gotten back to us.

QUESTION: But have you asked and --

MR KIRBY: Yes.

QUESTION: About this latest – okay.

MR KIRBY: We – yes.

QUESTION: And then the other thing is, do you believe, based on what you’ve seen thus far since these reports started coming out, that they have been upholding this strict policy of neutrality?

MR KIRBY: Well, I mean, it’s certainly something we’ve talked to them about and will continue to. And as I said earlier, every such allegation brought to UNRWA’s attention has either been or is being investigated and looked at. So what I can tell you is it’s apparent to us they’re taking it seriously and they’re looking into these things, or they have looked into them in the past and closed them out. But if you’re asking me for a qualitative – go ahead.

QUESTION: Well, I just want to know, I mean, do you think that there is a problem here that needs to be fixed?

MR KIRBY: We’re certainly worried and concerned that there could be a problem that needs to be fixed.

QUESTION: There could be?

MR KIRBY: Right. I mean, I think we need to let these investigations play out. But we’ve been very clear about our concerns with respect to incitement of violence and anti-Semitism that has allegedly occurred in UNRWA.

QUESTION: John, on Lebanon, The Wall Street Journal has reported today that the Obama Administration is pressuring Saudi Arabia not to take further steps to punish Lebanon economically in retaliation for the growing political power of Hizballah in Lebanon. Are you aware of this report --

MR KIRBY: I’ve seen the --

QUESTION: -- and what’s your comment?

MR KIRBY: I’ve seen the article that you’re talking about. I would just say that our assistance, we believe, to the Lebanese Armed Forces is important and it’s going to continue. We believe that the Lebanese Armed Forces deserves the support of the international community as well. Assistance to the Lebanese Armed Forces and to other legitimate state institutions is essential to help diminish the role of Hizballah and its foreign patrons. We don’t want to leave the field open to Hizballah or its patrons. Our assistance to the Lebanese military makes a real difference on the ground against Daesh and other extremists.

QUESTION: But I didn’t ask about the U.S. assistance to Lebanon. I was asking about U.S. talking to Saudi Arabia not to put more pressure on Lebanon --

MR KIRBY: We have raised concerns – we’ve raised our concerns with the – with Saudi authorities with respect to these reports, but I’m not going to talk about the details of diplomatic discussions.

QUESTION: The reports of the aid cutoffs?

MR KIRBY: We’ve raised our concerns about the reports of aid cutoff with the Saudi authorities. I’m not going to talk about the details of that.

Yeah.

QUESTION: On Japan --

QUESTION: Well, could you just outline what your concerns are?

MR KIRBY: Again, I think I would --

QUESTION: Or are they the same as – are they the same as for --

MR KIRBY: -- just tell you, it’s in line with what I’ve said. We believe that support to the Lebanese Armed Forces is important as a counterbalance to Hizballah and to its patrons.

QUESTION: So in other words, your concerns about the Saudi aid cutoff are similar to what you might have if Congress tried to limit U.S. support to the Lebanese army, right?

MR KIRBY: I think, again, I don’t want to get into hypotheticals, but --

QUESTION: I mean, it’s a similar thing. There isn’t anything different about the Saudi aid except for the amount possibly.

MR KIRBY: It’s – it hinges on the fact that we believe legitimate support and contributions to the Lebanese Armed Forces and their capabilities is important, and it’s an important hedge against Hizballah, quite frankly. And so --

QUESTION: Right, but from any source?

MR KIRBY: Yes, right.

QUESTION: Right.

MR KIRBY: We – and as I said right at the top, we think that the Lebanese Armed Forces deserves the continued support of the international community. Now, this isn’t just about one country.

QUESTION: That includes Saudi Arabia?

MR KIRBY: They’re part of the international community the last time I looked.

QUESTION: Okay, all right.

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: John, the U.S. was supposed to deliver the Lebanese army with airplanes funded by the military or the aids that Saudi Arabia decided to suspend. What happens to this deal?

MR KIRBY: I’d have to point you to Saudi authorities.

QUESTION: No, the U.S. was supposed to deliver these airplanes, but they are funded by the Saudi aids.

MR KIRBY: Oh, I’m sorry. I misunderstood the question. I don’t have the details on specific defense articles. I think that’s a better question for the Pentagon, not for us. I don’t have specifics on that. I don’t.

Yeah.

QUESTION: On Japan, the UN Committee on the Convention of the Elimination of All Forms of --

MR KIRBY: Wait, before you go – frankly, it’s also a question for Saudi authorities, right? They’re the ones who are allegedly making a decision to stop that aid and all the components of it. So again, I think, as I said at the top, these are questions that should be posed to Saudi authorities.

QUESTION: Sorry. The UN Committee on the Convention of the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women issued a report yesterday criticizing the December agreement on the comfort women issue between South Korea and Japan, saying that the agreement did not fully adopt a victim-centered approach. Given that the U.S. was a vocal supporter of the agreement, do you take umbrage at the committee’s assessment?

MR KIRBY: I haven’t seen the committee’s assessment. We’re going to have to analyze it and get back to you. I don’t know. But nothing’s changed about our view of the – that we – in welcoming the agreement that was made.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Is the State Department concerned at all what – about what the women themselves want, or is it content as long as the two governments get along?

MR KIRBY: I think that’s almost an insulting question that we would – that might imply that we wouldn’t care what the victims or their families might think? I mean, that’s a ridiculous question. Of course we care. And we were glad to see that the two governments were able to reach an accord on this.

Now, as for this report, we’ll have to take a look at it. I just don’t – I just haven’t seen it. I don’t have an analysis handy for you.

QUESTION: Yeah. I was wondering if you have any comments about reports that Prime Minister Netanyahu canceled his trip to U.S.

MR KIRBY: I don’t have anything for you. I think my colleague at the White House addressed this issue earlier, and I would direct you to the prime minister’s office for details about his travel.

QUESTION: And if there is any update about the military aid package between U.S. and Israel that you can share with us.

MR KIRBY: I don’t have anything. I think, again, that would be something you might want to reach out to my colleagues at the Pentagon on. I’ve got time for just one more and then I’ve really got to go.

Tolga.

QUESTION: Yes.

MR KIRBY: I’ll tell you, I’ll do two. Tolga then Arshad, and then I’ve really got to go.

QUESTION: I have an extremely brief one.

MR KIRBY: Okay.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: Very brief.

MR KIRBY: Okay. We’re all going to have to agree.

QUESTION: Briefly, very quickly, several missiles launched against Turkey from the ISIL-controlled area in Syria today. And we checked and two people --

MR KIRBY: Launched to Turkey from Syria?

QUESTION: Yeah, from ISIL-controlled area and killed two people. If you have any comment or --

MR KIRBY: I haven’t seen those reports. I’m sorry.

QUESTION: Staying in Turkey, do you have any comment on the reports that the Turkish authorities have seized control of the Cihan, C-i-h-a-n, News Agency?

MR KIRBY: Yes, we have seen those reports. And again, I think it’s just another example of an unnecessary crackdown on journalism inside Turkey. And once again, we’re troubled by the government’s use of appointed trustees to shut down or interfere with the editorial operations of media outlets that are critical of the government. As I said yesterday, court-ordered supervision of a media company’s finances and operations should not prompt changes to the news room or to editorial policy, and again, we call on the Turkish Government to ensure full respect for due process and equal treatment under the law.

Okay?

QUESTION: And have you seen a change in editorial policy in the seized publications? Apparently, there’s been a kind of a 180-degree shift, at least in the terms of Zaman’s coverage.

MR KIRBY: I have to admit that I am not an avid reader of Zaman, but – so I am not able to tell you that I have seen necessarily an editorial shift. But certainly the way it’s been set up would certainly lead one to conclude that that was in the offing, and that’s what’s troublesome.

QUESTION: Right. I think they’re avid followers of you, however. (Laughter.) My question was actually --

MR KIRBY: Probably are now. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: My question is actually on Honduras. Remember the woman who was killed, the activist who was killed --

QUESTION: Berta Caceres.

QUESTION: Yes, a while back.

QUESTION: I’m just wondering if you guys have followed up with the Honduran Government about this and if you’re pleased, satisfied with how the state of the investigation is going on.

MR KIRBY: The investigation, yeah.

QUESTION: Do you think they’re taking it seriously?

MR KIRBY: Let me take that question, Matt. I do not know if we’ve actually followed up with them. But clearly, our expectations are exactly as I described it the other day: We want a full, complete, fair investigation of the circumstances surrounding her death.

Thanks everybody. Sorry, gotta go.

QUESTION: Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 1:58 p.m.)

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

Daily Press Briefings : Daily Press Briefing - March 4, 2016

John Kirby

Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC

March 4, 2016









Index for Today's Briefing

CUBA



UNITED NATIONS



CUBA



SYRIA/REGION



TURKEY



MEXICO



JAPAN



SECRETARY/DEPARTMENT



MIDDLE EAST PEACE



NORTH KOREA



JORDAN/REGION




TRANSCRIPT:

2:01 p.m. EST

MR KIRBY: Hey, everybody. Happy Friday to you. Got a couple things at the top then we’ll get on going there.

First, a call readout: This morning, Secretary Kerry spoke by phone with Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez about President Obama’s upcoming trip to Cuba. Both ministers reiterated their commitment to making the visit a success and to ensuring that the path to normalization continues in the positive direction that it’s already taken. The Secretary told the foreign minister that the President is very much looking forward to the trip and to meeting with a wide array of Cuban officials and citizens to include members of civil society. Secretary Kerry expressed his own disappointment, of course, that scheduling issues prevented him from making a trip ahead – a trip to Cuba ahead of the President, but that he expects to be accompanying President Obama on this very historic occasion.

Also today, the UN Security – I’m sorry, let me try that again – today, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon released a disturbing report detailing instances of sexual exploitation and abuse in the UN system, including by UN peacekeepers. While we welcome the secretary’s – the secretary-general’s attention to this very serious problem, our first read – and I would iterate that this is just a first read; we’ve only just started going through this report – would reveal two clear realities: First, these outrageous incidents are persistent and widespread, and they demand immediate and effective action. Secondly, although the secretary-general has taken several important steps towards transparency and accountability for these crimes – and we applaud that effort – much more needs to be done by the leadership at all levels of the United Nations, as well as by troop and police-contributing countries.

To state it simply and bluntly, exploiting or abusing the very vulnerable people that the UN is supposed to be actually protecting and helping is absolutely inexcusable. It also undermines the credibility of peacekeepers and the utility of the peacekeeping missions that they’re performing themselves. As we study this important report – and as I said, we’re still working our way through it – we’re going to be following up with the secretary-general and the UN as well as troop and police-contributing nations about next steps to better address this problem.

With that, we’ll start. Pam.

QUESTION: Can we go back to Cuba? When the Secretary was on the Hill last month meeting with lawmakers and he referenced the possibly – the trip ahead of Obama possibly to meet with Cuban officials, saying that human rights issues would be a focal point, is there a dispute between the U.S. and Cuba on how to address human rights issues? And if so, is – did that play a role in the Secretary not being able to make a trip prior to Obama’s visit?

MR KIRBY: Well, the Secretary said he expects to go to Cuba in the very near future, and he is going to do that. He’s going to – he’s chosen to go with President Obama. So he’s still going to Cuba but he’s going with President Obama. There were a number of factors that precluded him from being able to go any sooner – scheduling issues, not the least of which was the heavy demand that the visit would have taken on the embassy staff down there. To do two high-level visits in a given month, that was a lot to ask them.

On human rights, there’s no question that we continue to have concerns about the human rights issue in Cuba, and we’ve been very candid and frank about that, publicly and privately. There still remains concerns that we have about it. And as I think you heard my colleagues at the White House talk about it a little earlier, the President has every expectation to meet with dissidents down there in Cuba, dissidents that they themselves have – will and choose to meet with.

So we’re still going to highlight it as an issue of concern; we’re still going to talk about it; we’re still going to raise our concerns with Cuban officials about it going forward. Because that’s what you do when you are working towards the full normalization of diplomatic relations in a country like Cuba.

QUESTION: Can I follow up on the issue of human rights? I just want to understand it. The human rights on Cuba – you said the issue of human rights --

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- is it any particular area of human rights or is it just the dissidents or prisoners, treatment of prisoners, or all of the above?

MR KIRBY: I think there’s a full scope of issues. I mean, it’s the way in which political dissent is not tolerated and the speed with which and the groundless nature with which people are arrested and detained in Cuba. I mean, there’s a whole range of issues there. And again, Said, we’ve been very open and honest about our concerns. And look, you can go on our website and read our Human Rights Report and see it right there in black and white what our concerns are. And those concerns remain valid.

But it doesn’t mean that we’re not going to continue to work towards normalization or that we’re not going to try, as I said in my opening statement, to keep that process on the positive path that it’s already begun to take. There are issues where we don’t see eye-to-eye, and I suspect that some of those issues will remain for a while going forward. But we continue to believe that opening up the relationship with Cuba, that normalizing a relationship through appropriate foreign relations, is a better way to have a discussion with everybody in Cuban society. And if you want to make a difference, we believe the way to make that difference is through dialogue and talking and conversation and interaction. And that’s what we’re going to continue to pursue.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: John?

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: Syria?

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: President Putin said today that April vote in Syria does not interfere with the peace process. Do you share President Putin’s view?

MR KIRBY: He said the April vote --

QUESTION: President Assad has called for elections in April, and the Russian president has said that this call does not interfere or this election does not interfere with the peace process.

MR KIRBY: I haven’t seen the call for an April vote by President Assad. But let me just say very clearly that we are trying to get to a political process in Syria, a political solution to this conflict, that leads to elections in about 18 months’ time, because we’ve already kind of started the – although they didn’t get completed, there was a start to the political talks between the regime and the opposition. And the idea is to get to elections – a constitution that’s drafted and then elections in 18 months’ time. And that’s the electoral process we’re driving to. That’s the one that will, if we’re successful, make the difference that we want to see made in Syria in terms of putting a government in place that is responsible to the desperate needs of the Syrian people. And that’s what we’re driving at.

QUESTION: Can we --

QUESTION: On the same topic, today Staffan de Mistura said that whether Assad stays or goes is a Syrian decision, it should be left to the Syrian people. Do you agree with that?

MR KIRBY: We’ve been clear on what our position is on Assad. And I’ll just restate it again: That we continue to believe that Assad cannot be part of the future of Syria and that we need a government in place in Syria that does not have Bashar al-Assad at its head. We’ve also said that whatever that government looks like and how it should – how it’s formed has got to be – those have to be decisions made by the Syrian people, which is why we think it’s so important to get the opposition together with the regime. We want to see these talks resume, and I understand that Mr. de Mistura continues to try to pin down a better date for that. We think that’s really important. But – so yes, there has to be a Syrian voice in this, of course. That’s – if you look at the two communiques – the three communiques, actually – it lays it right out there. But for the United States, our position is that future cannot include Bashar al-Assad.

QUESTION: But the implicit suggestion in the envoy’s statement is that if the Syrian people choose Assad, so be it; he can be a part of that future.

MR KIRBY: Well, one of the --

QUESTION: So in the event that you have a transparent electoral process through which Assad is somehow – probably through the most hideous set of circumstances – is elected, you will accept that, right?

MR KIRBY: Let’s go back a little bit, Said. First of all, I mean, I saw a press reporting today polling that the majority of Syrians still want Assad gone. And if you look at the Vienna communiques, you’ll see that it very clearly states that in the electoral process that we are setting up through the Vienna process, that the diaspora must be able to cast a vote. And I think everybody realizes that if all Syrians – diaspora as well – have a chance to vote, there’s very little chance that Mr. Assad is going to be able to stay in power.

Okay? Yeah.

QUESTION: John, on the future of Syria, the Syrian Kurds have recently repeatedly said that they want federalism for Syria. That’s their option or their suggestion for Syria. Does the United States support that notion, that federalism is perhaps the best --

MR KIRBY: We’ve been – I’ve said it – I’ve said it quite a few times. I’ll say it again today and it’s all written down in the communiques that the United States as a member of the ISSG signed up to, which is we believe in a whole – whole, unified, nonsectarian Syria. And that’s – continues to be our position today.

QUESTION: But federalism, like as a system of governance --

MR KIRBY: If you’re asking me do we support some sort of semiautonomous areas for the Kurds, the answer is no. We support a whole, unified, nonsectarian Syria. It’s right there in black and white.

QUESTION: So you wouldn’t support a similar federalism that’s in Iraq for Syria?

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

Arshad.

QUESTION: Did you see the statements by Jaysh al-Islam saying that from their point of view the cessation of hostilities is not occurring and that they continue to be fighting with Syrian Government forces?

MR KIRBY: I haven’t seen those exact remarks, Arshad, but certainly have seen similar statements by some other opposition groups. I think – I don’t think that really is a surprise to anyone, I mean, that they continue to see what they believe are violations. As I’ve said from the podium the last few days, we continue to get reports of cessation violations and we want them all looked into. So I’m not at all surprised that some groups would still be doing it.

And frankly, I mean quite honestly, though we want to see the number of proposed or potential violations down to zero, of course, it’s actually not unhelpful that groups are able and willing to come forward, whether it’s through the various reporting mechanisms or in public statements, and say what they’re seeing. I mean, that’s actually healthy because it may help get us to where we need to go, which is to have the ceasefire be completely and uniformly applied.

So again, today we think it is still largely holding and the violence is absolutely down again for another straight day in Syria. And you know we continue to see reports of, again, markets being open, people being out and about, even in places like Aleppo. So I mean, all that’s encouraging, but we’re not, again, taking anything for granted and not at all surprised by some groups coming out and saying quite honestly and baldly their concerns about potential violations.

QUESTION: One other thing. You said that Staffan de Mistura is continuing to try to find a better date for the Syria – the Syrian peace talks.

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: Does that mean that, as you understand it, he’s given up or you guys have given up on March 9th?

MR KIRBY: No, I didn’t say that. I understand he’s still working to pin it down. As far as I know – I haven’t seen – I haven’t seen any other date proposed. That doesn’t mean that there isn’t one in his head, but I mean, it’s the 4th and so we still have a little less than a week to go. And I know that he’s still working to work through the technical logistical issues to pin all this down. So we continue to support his efforts to do that. We obviously think it’s important for them to resume these talks, would like to see that, obviously, sooner than later. But we want to respect the very real logistical challenges that he’s facing in getting there.

QUESTION: Turkey?

QUESTION: A follow-up to the last question if I can.

QUESTION: Turkey? May I?

MR KIRBY: Okay, I’ll come back to you. Yeah.

QUESTION: Dealing with the March 9th date, Riyad Hijab had a news conference in Paris today and voiced concern about what he saw as a continuation of the Syrian attacks against the opposition. And he said the current conditions may not allow for the resumption of political talks on the 9th. First, what’s your response? And then secondly, has anyone on the U.S. side spoken to the opposition leader about these concerns?

MR KIRBY: Well, we’re in the – we’re in constant contact with Dr. Hijab and opposition leaders, so there’s a – there is certainly a form of communication there. We remain in contact with them. I did see those comments. And again, I would let – I would let Mr. Hijab speak for his own views. We continue to believe, for our part, that it’s important to get these talks back underway again. We want to respect Special Envoy de Mistura’s ability to do that in the way he seems – or he deems most appropriate and most fitting. He has talked about logistical and technical issues that still need to be worked out, and we’ve made it clear that we’re standing by and willing to help them in any way that we can. Nobody said even when these first started that this was going to be easy and that it was going to be linear, if I can use a mathematical term, that it’s point A, point B, and you’re just going to go straight at it, that there was going to be – there were going to be difficulties. There were going to be challenges. There were going to be setbacks and that it was going to be – that it was going to be hard. And it has – the process has lived up to those expectations. It has been difficult.

But it also has kept moving forward, and that’s not insignificant. There was a meeting in Geneva. Yes, they didn’t get to finish it. It got truncated, but there was one. And people said that would never happen. You’d never get the opposition and the regime to even come together to have – even through a proxy like Mr. de Mistura – to have a conversation. Well, they did.

And for the first time in now five years – I think next week is the fifth-year anniversary of the civil war – for the first time the violence is actually going down, and the cessation of hostilities is, for all practical purposes, holding. And people thought that would never happen. And now again for the first time in almost as many years, many communities and towns and villages that had gotten no relief are starting to get relief. And I think you’ve seen – we’ve seen some more humanitarian supplies get through this week. There’s going to be, we hope, in the coming days another convoy or two to get to some besieged areas.

So that’s happening. Is it fast enough? Of course not. I mean, obviously we’d like to see all the violence stop. We’d like to see no Daesh in Syria. We’d like to see a government that can actually take care of its people and look after its sovereignty rather than one that continues to victimize Syrian citizens. We’d like to see the refugees have homes to go back to and jobs and opportunities for them and their kids.

So it’s – is it moving as fast as we’d like? No, of course it’s not. But it is moving, Pam, and that’s not insignificant. And I think sometimes in the discussions and the coverage that we’re seeing of this, I think that’s getting lost.

QUESTION: John --

MR KIRBY: I promised her I’d go to her and then we’ll --

QUESTION: A quick follow-up on what Riyad Hijab. He also said there should be no role for Assad in the transitional period. You agree with that?

MR KIRBY: Said, we’ve talked about this many --

QUESTION: I mean, he – this is contrary to what you guys agreed on.

MR KIRBY: I’m not going to get into a tit-for-tat for every public comment that is made. Our position has not changed. Assad cannot be part of the future of Syria, and the how and the when in terms of his departure has got to be worked out through this political process, which we are still trying to get up and running.

QUESTION: And that includes the transitional period?

MR KIRBY: Yes. We’ve said all along that during the transition process there’s going to have to be decisions made about Assad and his role in that transition process. And those questions haven’t been answered yet.

Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: Can you condemn the Turkish court decision to replace the entire management and editorial board of Feza Media Group? One of its main publications, Zaman Daily, has been critical of the --

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

QUESTION: Yes. Excuse me, you had another one also?

QUESTION: Before we go to Turkey?

MR KIRBY: Is that okay with you?

QUESTION: Yes.

QUESTION: Okay, thank you.

MR KIRBY: Okay. She’s yielding to you. That’s --

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR KIRBY: I thought that’s very nice.

QUESTION: On Dr. Hijab, he added too that the U.S. is offering a lot of concessions to the Russians in Syria. Do you share his view, too?

MR KIRBY: I haven’t seen what exactly he’s referring to there. I would not couch it that way at all. This isn’t about yielding concessions; it’s about working with the Russians to get at what we all want to see, which is a peaceful Syria and a political process to resolve this civil war. And I’ve been extremely honest and open about this, as has the Secretary. We don’t see eye-to-eye with Russia on everything. And I’m not even talking about outside Syria – even inside what’s going on in Syria. There have been and there will probably continue to be disagreements with Russia over various factors here as we move forward.

But Russia has taken a leadership role inside the ISSG, and they have been helpful, and they have been cooperative, and they have participated in the cessation of hostilities. We have seen reports of potential violations, and that concerns us, obviously. But we believe that all members of the ISSG can play a constructive role here, and Russia in some ways has been helpful and cooperative. And again, in other ways we still continue to have issues with them. But to characterize the American approach as one of just simply yielding concessions I think is inaccurate, and I absolutely would not associate myself with those comments.

QUESTION: One more. The Russian defense ministry has said today that columns of trucks carrying cargo and weapons for militants in Syria cross into the country from Turkey on a daily basis. Do you have any confirmation on this, and do you have any comment?

MR KIRBY: I haven’t seen the comments. I don’t – I don’t have anything specific on that, and as I said, I try to avoid getting into operational discussions here from this podium. Obviously, there remains concerns about the borders with Syria. It’s one of the reasons why we want to get the civil war resolved through a political process, so we can have a whole, unified Syria that’s – whose sovereignty can be ensured by a responsible government that the Syrian people put in place in Damascus. It’s why, as we work through the transitional process – and the Secretary has talked about this – we want to preserve some institutions of government, to include aspects of the security forces, so that border issues can be dealt with.

But if you’re asking me have I got specific comments about this, I don’t. But in general, yes, we continue to see issues with the border with respect to the ability for groups like Daesh to continue to sustain itself across the borders, and that remains a concern.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR KIRBY: Yeah, go ahead. You’ve been patient.

QUESTION: Can you condemn the Turkish court decision to replace the entire management and editorial board of Feza Media Group? One of its main publications, Zaman daily, has been sharply critical of the Erdogan government and they are now accused of helping terrorists. Can you condemn that decision?

MR KIRBY: We’ve seen the reports that an Istanbul court has placed Zaman newspaper in particular – I think that’s what you’re asking about – into trusteeship. And 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. In the wake of moves earlier this week by government-appointed trustees to shutter media outlets owned by the Koza Ipek Holding Company and the filing of insult charges against journalists representing other outlets, we call on the Turkish Government to ensure full respect for due process and equal treatment under the law. Court-ordered supervision of a media company’s finances and operations should not prompt changes to the newsroom or editorial policy. As Turkey’s friend and NATO ally – and we do count ourself as a friend of Turkey and we certainly are a NATO ally – we urge Turkish authorities to ensure their actions uphold the universal democratic values enshrined in their own constitution, including freedom of speech and especially freedom of the press. In a democratic society, as I’ve said many, many times, critical opinions should be encouraged, not silenced.

QUESTION: Well --

QUESTION: John, do they – when you complain to the Turks about the freedoms, do they answer back? I mean, what are they saying?

MR KIRBY: You’d have to talk to Turkish authorities about what --

QUESTION: Well --

MR KIRBY: But let me be clear: I’m standing up here at a podium in a very public way telling you what we believe --

QUESTION: Yes, I --

MR KIRBY: -- about this particular court case and freedom of the press in general. And I can assure you that we have the same conversations with Turkish leaders privately as well. And as for how they’re reacting, I mean, I think you’d have to talk to them, but certainly actions in this case speak louder than words, right?

QUESTION: I know. I know.

MR KIRBY: So – but it doesn’t mean we’re going to stop talking about this. And we talked – earlier in the press conference we were talking about Cuba and how – and I said we’re very open and honest about our concerns about human rights. Well, we’re open and honest about it in places like Turkey too, which is a close friend and a NATO ally. We’re not afraid to have these conversations, and they’re important ones to have.

QUESTION: A different topic?

QUESTION: Same subject.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR KIRBY: Okay, let’s stay on this for a while and then --

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR KIRBY: -- we’ll move around. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Same subject – thank you. John, you said that Turkish administration should not do that. It has already been done. Right now it is taken over, so it’s a past tense. Do you think – this has been going on, as you talk about. Do you think you can still say there is a healthy democracy in Turkey after this taking over, over and over again? This is not one single issue.

MR KIRBY: We don’t think – as I said earlier, we don’t think that these sorts of actions are in keeping with the healthy democratic values that are enshrined, again, in Turkey’s own constitution. We don’t think that they’re in keeping with that. And as I’ve said many times, Turkish democracy – Turkey matters to us and their democracy matters to us. And that’s why we speak out about these kinds of issues.

QUESTION: You get this message across in Ankara. This is the most often question I received: What else do you think the U.S. Government can do to convince that this road is not the road supposed to be taken by a democratic government?

MR KIRBY: Well, I’m not going to speculate about actions the United States might or might not take on issues like this, these specific ones in Turkey, except to say that as we have done before, we will continue to press our concerns – again, privately and publicly – and to continue, as we must stand up for these universal democratic values of freedom of speech and freedom of the press and freedom of dissent, and because, as I said at the end of my last answer, we really do believe that a democracy is strengthened when there’s a free exchange of opinion and that the task of governing is actually improved when you are welcoming a wide set of views, even if they differ with the policies of this or that administration. I mean, that’s a core democratic principle. And again, it’s not just a core American democratic principle. It’s a principle that is enshrined in Turkey’s own constitution.

We want to see Turkey succeed. They are a friend and an ally. We want to see that nation and the Turkish people succeed. And we want to see them be able to enjoy the very fruits of the constitution that they’ve put in place for their own government. And so that’s why this matters to us and that’s why we’re being honest about it.

QUESTION: John --

QUESTION: Final one is that many argue that because the U.S. needs Turkey for many reasons, including anti-Daesh operations and coalition, because of Incirlik base and other bases, U.S. simply does not want to take this human right issues to damage its own interest. Do you see this --

MR KIRBY: I completely disagree with that assessment. I don’t know who’s making it, but again, I’d point you to our human rights report. We’ve been honest about every country out there. You can go on our website and read it. We don’t pull any punches on it, and we don’t just put a report out on the web and then forget about it. We talk about it. We talk about it here in this room. The Secretary talks about it with his counterparts all over the world, including his Turkish counterparts, and we’re not going to shy away from having those conversations.

But as I’ve also said many times – we just talked about this with Russia, so I’ll say it again with Turkey. Turkey is a NATO ally, I mean, and we do have security commitments with them. And yet, we’re still able to have conversations and discussions about things we don’t agree and things that we don’t see eye to eye on, and this is clearly one of them. And that is while we’re – I don’t want to take – I don’t want to diminish anything about what I just said. We’re very concerned about this particular case and the issue of press freedom in Turkey writ large. That’s not going to change. But it is a sign, we believe, of a mature relationship and bilateral relationship when you can have these kinds of frank discussions and have disagreements over issues like this and yet still find ways to cooperate and coordinate on other issues, such as the fight against Daesh in Syria and other security issues there in the region.

So look, we’re going to continue to work our way through all the issues with Turkey – and they’re not all, by the way, at odds. I mean, we work together with Turkey on a wide range of things, and that’s going to continue. And on the areas where we don’t see eye to eye, well, we’re going to keep working at that too, because that’s what you do when you’re a friend and a partner.

QUESTION: Different topic?

QUESTION: Same --

MR KIRBY: Same topic, go ahead.

QUESTION: Your position is clear that you’re concerned about freedom of press in Turkey. Six months ago, Turkish Government took control of the one media group, two TV channels, two newspapers, and today Zaman. And do you think that Turkish Government takes yours concern seriously?

MR KIRBY: I think you would – you’d have to ask Turkish officials, as I said, their views. What matters is we take these issues seriously and we’re not afraid to do so. We’re not afraid to do so in a very public, transparent, open way, and we want to see Turkish authorities do the same thing in return with respect to press freedom. So I can only speak for the United States Government and for Secretary Kerry, and I can tell you we take it very, very seriously. If we didn’t, I wouldn’t be up here having this conversation – as, sadly, I’ve had to do on numerous occasions with respect to Turkey.

QUESTION: John --

QUESTION: Last one.

MR KIRBY: Go ahead.

QUESTION: Are you worried about --

MR KIRBY: We’ll be fine, everybody. Just relax, everybody. Just – it’s okay. We’re going to get there.

QUESTION: Are you worried about Turkey losing its democratic character?

MR KIRBY: Democratic character?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR KIRBY: Well, I think that’s the same question I just got. I mean, we certainly don’t want to see that happen, because, as I said, Turkey’s democracy matters to us. More critically, it matters to the Turkish people, and it certainly matters in the region. And they’ve got these democratic principles enshrined in their constitution. We want to see them live up to – we want to see Turkey succeed. So that’s absolutely not what we want to see.

If you’re asking me to predict one way or the other, I wouldn’t do that. But I can tell you what our hope and our expectation is: that Turkey will live up to, again, the democratic principles that they’ve enshrined in their very own constitution.

Okay, go ahead.

QUESTION: This is a question on Mexico. The Guardian newspaper just published today a report about Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman, who, as you know, until recently was the most sought-after criminal in the world. The Guardian’s report says that Mr. Chapo Guzman was able to visit the U.S. late in 2015 to visit his family here in the Los Angeles area. Are you aware of any fraudulent use of the visa by Mr. Guzman and what do you think in general of this?

A second question on the same subject is Mr. Guzman is asking for an expedite extradition from Mexico to the U.S. Has the U.S. Embassy in Mexico City or U.S. State Department has had any contact with Guzman representatives regarding this?

MR KIRBY: I’m going to have – you’re going to have to let me take your first question. I haven’t seen this press report, so I’m not in a position to comment one way or the other. I’m not aware of the claims that are presented in this news article, so we’ll have to take it.

QUESTION: They were made by his daughter, that he traveled twice after his Sean Penn --

MR KIRBY: I just don’t have any information on that, and I wouldn’t --

QUESTION: I emailed the question. No one is answering it.

MR KIRBY: Okay. I appreciate that. Thanks for letting us know. We’ll get back – hang on a second. Hang on, hang on. We’ll get back to you on that. On the second one, we don’t talk about the specifics of extradition, and that’s really a matter for law enforcement to speak to, not the Department of State.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR KIRBY: Go ahead.

QUESTION: Oh, okay. Topic about Futenma. Japan’s prime --

MR KIRBY: About what?

QUESTION: Futenma.

MR KIRBY: Oh, Futenma. Futenma, yeah.

QUESTION: Relocation plan – yeah. And Japan’s Prime Minister Abe accepted a court-mediated settlement plan and also decided to suspend work on moving the United States Marine Corps base in Okinawa. Also he will begin a new round of talk with the Okinawa governor. How that – how do you think that this decision – also this – in respect to the Japanese prime minister decision?

MR KIRBY: So let me say a couple of things. We’re in communication with the Government of Japan about this settlement. We understand the Japanese Government made its decision after careful consideration. We look forward to further discussions with them about this soon. We’re going to refrain from commenting further on the legal process of another country. I think you can understand that.

But let me just say this, and it’s – we’ve said this before: The United States and Japan remain committed to the plan to construct the Futenma replacement facility – and you might have seen President[i] Abe said so himself earlier today – to construct this facility at the Camp Schwab Henoko area and adjacent waters. It is the only solution that addresses operational, political, financial and strategic concerns that permits the operational readiness of our forward-positioned Marine forces and avoids the continued use of Marine Corps Air Station Futenma. So nothing’s changed about our commitment to that, and that’s about as far as I can take it today.

QUESTION: At what level is the State Department communicating with Japan on this?

MR KIRBY: We don’t talk about the details of diplomatic discussions, but I can tell you that at various levels here at the State Department, we’re in communication with the Government of Japan, and that’ll continue going forward.

QUESTION: Hold on. How far in advance were you notified about this decision?

MR KIRBY: I don’t have additional details to speak to with respect to this. This is a legal settlement that you really need to speak to the Government of Japan about.

QUESTION: Do you have any concern that, I mean, this is going to further delay the completion of the FRF, given that it’s already been delayed for so long, or even if – even to the extent that it might prevent work on it altogether?

MR KIRBY: We’re going to have discussions, as I said, soon. We look forward to having discussions with the Japanese Government about the settlement. And I don’t want to get ahead of those discussions or what implications might arise as a result of this and the settlement that they made.

QUESTION: Sir, a question about Massachusetts. Do you happen to know --

MR KIRBY: A question about Massachusetts. I don’t get many of those. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Do you happen to know if there’s any testing going on tied with the National Institute of Health with air quality in Massachusetts? And has the Secretary made any visits to Massachusetts recently or frequently within the year?

MR KIRBY: I’m not aware of – I’m afraid I wasn’t prepared in this binder for air quality questions on Massachusetts, so I don’t have any information on that. You’d have to talk to NIH about whatever testing they’re doing.

The Secretary, as you know, has a residence in Boston and frequently goes home to Boston when he can. So I – if you really need to know the numbers of times that he’s been back to Boston, we can pull that for you, over a certain period of time. But it’s going to take us a little while to do that math. I mean, it’s – he goes fairly frequently because he lives there. So, yes, he has certainly visited Boston in the very recent past, as you might imagine. And again, if you have to – if you really need the numbers on that, we can see if we can pull that for you.

QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.

MR KIRBY: Okay.

QUESTION: Can you take one on North Korea?

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: Very quickly, today the White House announced that Vice President Biden will be going to Israel and the West Bank, meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. But they also said that there’s no breakthrough. I mean, of course, he’s the vice president and maybe you’ll tell me – direct me to ask them, but is there anything maybe behind the scenes? Are we likely to see the process re-energized again, or is there something that the Vice President is coordinating with the Secretary of State on?

MR KIRBY: Well, I think it’s safe to assume that the Secretary continues to speak with all members of the interagency, including the Vice President, about issues of priority to him and things that he’s working on. He’s certainly kept the Vice President informed of his recent travels to the region and the conversations that he has with leaders there, including Prime Minister Netanyahu. I won’t speak for the Vice President. I am going to refer you to the White House for details about his travels and his objectives. I wouldn’t get ahead of that.

But let me just say more broadly speaking that the United States Government remains committed to trying to see a path forward here to getting – to get to a two-state solution. Nothing’s changed about that. We still want to see that outcome. And this notion that it’s moribund, we’ve given it up, that it’s something that needs to be kick-started would be – conveys this idea that we’ve just thrown up our hands or that we did at some point, and that’s just not the way the Secretary looks at this. This is an issue that has remained important to him and he still believes that it’s worth the effort to continue to have discussions to try to get at that two-state solution. We were just out there a week and a half ago to continue to have these kinds of conversations, and you know the Secretary better than I do. I think you can fully expect that we’ll be heading out that way again in the future. There’s no question about that.

QUESTION: Did he meet there with --

QUESTION: I don’t think I know him as well as you do, but let me just remind you: The last time Vice President Biden went there, in 2010, right while he was there, the Israelis announced the expansion of settlements by 1,600 houses and so on. Would you counsel the Israelis not to do that? That would be considered a slight by Israel against the United States or --

MR KIRBY: I think you know I’m not going to talk about the details of private discussions that we have, diplomatic discussions we have with leaders anywhere in the world. We – our position on settlements has not changed. Our view of the demolitions have not changed. I mean, we’ve been very clear and consistent on that, and we’ve done that publicly, so I think you can imagine what our position has been in private settings as well.

QUESTION: Okay. And one last question. The Israelis are planning to tear down a Bedouin village – in fact, a number of Bedouin villages – and replace them with Israeli Jewish villages and so on. These are Israeli citizens and so on. Do you have any contact with the Israelis on this issue? Are you raising this issue with them? It’s in the Negev – in the Negev desert.

MR KIRBY: On the --

QUESTION: In Hiran, the --

MR KIRBY: Yeah. Well, look, I mean, we’re closely following, as I said, demolitions and evictions that are undertaken by Israeli authorities, leaving many Palestinians homeless. And as we’ve said before, Said, these actions are indicative of a damaging trend of demolition, displacement, and land confiscation, and alongside settlement-related activity and continued construction, work against the possibility of a two-state solution and call into question the Israeli Government’s commitment to that two-state solution. So again, I would say the same thing we’ve said before about this.

QUESTION: But that’s – that – those are Israeli citizens. I mean, that would amount to ethnic cleansing, because they are being moved because they’re Bedouins and Muslim and so on, and they are being replaced by other citizens of Israel. Would you consider that to be some sort of an ethnic cleaning process?

MR KIRBY: I’m not going to characterize it any more than I already have. We’ve – our position on the demolitions and the – and continued construction in the settlements has been very clear and consistent, and that’s not going to change.

QUESTION: John, did the Secretary meet with Prime Minister Netanyahu on his last trip to the region?

MR KIRBY: I don’t have anything specific to read out with respect to the other meetings. I think we talked about what he was doing out there.

QUESTION: Some reports talked about a meeting between the two in Jordan in his last trip.

MR KIRBY: Yeah, I don’t have any additional details other than what we talked --

QUESTION: No confirmation?

MR KIRBY: -- other than what we talked about on the trip.

QUESTION: You can’t deny those reports?

MR KIRBY: I don’t have anything more to add.

Yeah.

QUESTION: On North Korea, do you have any reaction to Kim Jong-un’s statement that North Korea’s nuclear warheads need to be ready for use at any time?

MR KIRBY: I’ve seen those comments – again, indicative of the kind of provocative rhetoric that is clearly unhelpful and disrespectful to any idea of trying to foster stability on the peninsula. What the North needs to do is focus less on this reckless pursuit of nuclear capabilities and more on the needs of the North Korean people, which are great.

Okay, I’ve got time for maybe one more and then I’m going to have to go. It looks like we might be out though, huh?

QUESTION: Jordan? How about Jordan? Can I ask you a question about Jordan? (Laughter.) Okay, because --

MR KIRBY: Let’s do Jordan.

QUESTION: Sorry about that.

MR KIRBY: Let’s do Jordan.

QUESTION: Sorry.

MR KIRBY: What do you want to talk about?

QUESTION: (Off-mike.) (Laughter.)

QUESTION: I’ve been meaning to ask this for two days now. There was – a couple of days ago there was a serious fight between Jordanian law enforcement authorities and ISIS cells. Are you aware of that? Are you coordinating with them? In the second largest city in Jordan, which is Irbid.

MR KIRBY: I’m not aware of that. I’ve not seen those reports, Said. But I mean, this is a group that remains – still remains a threat. And I think Jordanian authorities are well aware of that since – since they share a border with Syria in particular. So I can’t speak to that specific thing, but Jordan’s a member of this coalition and we’re going to continue to work with them to try to improve the efforts, all the efforts of the coalition, to degrade and defeat this group.

But one thing I would add, though, about Daesh, and I think it sometimes gets lost out there, but – and I say it all the time, but I’m going to say it again today in the hopes that maybe one of you will pick up on it. This group is not behaving and not resourcing itself, not conducting operations, anywhere near the way it was a year and a half ago, when they were, as we talked about, when they had sort of quasi-military capabilities – riding around in convoys and stolen vehicles and doing donuts in tracked vehicles and soaking up all kinds of territory.

And what you’re starting to see now is a group that is falling back on what – the kinds of behavior and attacks that a terrorist organization at its core would fall back on – isolated VBIED and suicide attacks and the recruitment of increasing numbers of child soldiers to do their bidding, small skirmishes here and there. They’re not taking over vast swaths of territory and they’re not driving around in convoys anymore because they know that they’re vulnerable that way.

And so they have now resorted to – and you don’t have to take it from me. You can look at your own press reporting. They have resorted to more common, no less dangerous but more common, terrorist type activity. And the quasi-military nature that they once boasted of is long since gone. They’ve lost territory in Iraq and Syria. They continue to lose territory in Iraq and Syria. Their resourcing is getting hit and dried up. And while they are still able to recruit through this poisonous ideology of theirs, it ain’t like it used to be. And again, as I said, they’re drawing more and more on child soldiers. We’re also seeing increased numbers of defectors and fighters that are giving up. They’re not getting paid. And this jihad that they were inspired to go on is turning out to be something quite different. And that isn’t getting noticed enough, and I think it’s important to state every now and then.

Thanks, everybody. Have a great weekend.

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

# # #

[i] Prime Minister

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.